Hardest style/grammar rules to get right

Any rule an editor changes every time he edits a piece of copy. Good luck following style when that guy doesn't bother.

 

lie and lay.

 

I try that. But you have to rework some of the sentences to get the he/him to work, and then it can change if it's a he or a him.

I just ... can't.

 

It's not in any grammar books, and it may not work 100 percent of the time. But it sure seems to work about 99.8 percent of the time . . . .

Look at the word following who/whom.

If it's a noun, then use whom.

If it's a verb, then use who.

This is Mary, whom John (noun) is going to marry.

This is Mary, who married (verb) John.

 

Due to/because

Lie/lay

 

Lie vs. lay isn't hard in present tense, where you lie down but lay down the book. But I do have to consult conjugation charts on past perfect, etc. It's definitely one of the hardest and most difficult grammar rules to master.

You never mean "due to" when "because of" or "with" makes sense.

 

I've heard this enough to accept that I'm wrong to treat "due to" as roughly synonymous with "because of."

So what does it mean?

 

Which vs. that. Kills me.

 

OK, so... *deep breath* ...

First, you should know that there are grammarians out there who are all liberal and stuff and want "due to" to become an acceptable replacement for "because of." The counterpoint made by traditionalists is "due to" rarely is spoken, which is the primary reason for changing a language rule. Not too many average folks say "due to" in regular conversation.

Anyway, the reason "due to" should be used sparingly is because it serves as a compound adjective. It must modify a noun. So, "The cancellation was due to rain," but "The game was canceled because of rain." The "due to rain" part modifies cancellation, filling the requirement of an adjective. But "because of rain" serves as an adverb.

One really rigid way to check if you're using "due to" correctly is to substitute "attributed to." So, "The cancellation was attributed to rain," makes sense, but, "The game was canceled attributed to rain," does not.

But here's the thing: "Because of" can serve as an adjective or adverb. So it's always safe to use, and grammar pricks won't ever get on your case about it. And it rolls more easily off the tongue.

This is my proudest moment as an SportsJournalists.com member.

 

Ironically vs. coincidentally. I would estimate that 9 times out of 10, when a writer uses ironically, it's wrong. Irony indicates the exact opposite of expectations. Striking out three times with the bases loaded in a game and then hitting a grand slam would be irony. Hitting a grand slam two days in a row is coincidence.

 

No, it wouldn't. There's no irony (or crying) in baseball. It's a game in which all single outcomes are coincidence.

True irony barely exists in the real world.

 

It's ironic that you should say that.

Wait. It's not.