Lorraine has enjoyed phenomenal success since publishing her book including television appearances and guest speaking.

Learn how you can publish your manuscript and make your business a success. Sign up to learn more at the FREE Webinar. E-mail webinar@emepress.com.
Webinar March 1 2010 8pm (EST) 7pm (CST), 6 (MST) or 5 (PST)

If you’d like to learn more about Lorraine’s book, her business, or her experience with EME, or if you’d like to chat with Lorraine directly, please visit:www.morningpeacemaker.com

I have been a medical writer/editor for 15 years. As part of my work, I consult a variety of Web sites for proper grammar and punctuation of obscure and current medical and scientific terms.

Most medical and technical writers and editors, as well as medical writing firms, pride themselves on the fact that they have X, Y or Z subject-matter expertise. But is it really an essential requirement for successful writing or editing of medical documentation? This is a heavily debated subject within the technical and medical writing communities. The simple answer is absolutely “Yes.”

According to a recent American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) survey, more than 90% of medical writers and editors work for pharmaceutical firms. These firms provide clear, concise and strict style guides that writers are expected to follow to a tee. That leaves the less than 10% of us with a dilemma when faced with the wide variety of medical and scientific subject matters we have to work on.

We work for university-based hospital research institutes, private medical editing firms and professional health care organizations. We are few and far between. As a result, we have to be very good at what we do, because we have to deal with a wide variety of medical, technical and scientific subject matters on a short-term basis. Editing peer-reviewed journal manuscript submissions or writing for specific government grant applications presents particular challenges to us. However, all medical and scientific journals and government granting agencies provide the medical writer/editor with specific structural and formatting guidelines, and often provide links to expert subject-matter resources.

In addition, there are many additional resources available to the medical writer/editor. For example, the Web sites I most frequently consult on expert subject matters are these:

• AMWA’s Web site offers a wide variety of resources to its members.
  http://www.amwa.org/default.asp?Mode=DirectoryDisplay&id=1&DirectoryUseAbsoluteOnSearch=True\
• The European Medical Writers Association also has an extensive list of resources for medical writers. http://www.emwa.org/
• Government agencies offer specific guidelines for submitting medical documentation. In the USA, these include the Centers for Disease Control
  http://www.cdc.gov/ and the National Institutes of Health. http://www.nih.gov/

  In Canada, these include the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html and the Canadian Fund for Innovation
  http://www.innovation.ca/en

• Extensive medical dictionaries are available at the following sites:

  Medical abbreviation, http://www.medilexicon.com/

  Medline plus NIH dictionary http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html

  http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/

  http://dictionary.reference.com/medical/

  For example, on many of these sites, when I do a search for “OT-Gls-Lys-Arg-Neurophysin I,” I get the following hit: Did you mean “OT-Gly-Lys-Arg-Neurophysin I,” with the correct spelling, including the correct use of italics.

• There are also a wide variety of scientific dictionaries available online, such as:
  http://www.specialist-online-dictionary.com/scientific-dictionary.html

  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific

  http://dictionary.etacude.com/

• The Genome glossary offers a large selection of links to Web sites on various gene sequencing approaches and terminology.
  http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/glossary/glossary.shtml
• Finally, when all else fails, Google and Wikipedia also offer great grammar and spelling services for obscure medical terms.
  http://google.com and http://en.wikipedia.org

To summarize:

• Expert subject matter is an essential requirement for producing professional medical and scientific documents.
• In addition to the essential requirement of having an excellent command of the English language, medical writers/editors need to be familiar with the variety of resources available to them.
• Also, familiarity with a second language is essential, since over 50% of medical documentation is written by non English-speaking researchers.
• Medical writers/editors should always refer to the links provided by their customers.

ROBERT—Read more about this editor

NO “ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL” APPROACH TO PLANNING

When it comes to writing your novel, how you choose to map out the plot is a lot like how you say “potato” (i.e., po-tae-to or po-tah-to)—there really is no one-size-fits-all right answer (though I am partial to po-tae-to, myself). At one end of the spectrum, there are the writers who outline all of the major plot points of their stories before ever writing a single word of text. And at the other end of the spectrum, there are the writers who forego an outline altogether, opting to let the ideas and plot points flow naturally as they go from prologue to epilogue. If one of these options works for you, who am I to argue? Good job! But in my own writing, I have found that a hybrid approach—combining the two techniques—works best for me.

DISCOVERING A HYBRID APPROACH

With Sunshine’s Darkness (my first novel), the idea for the story came to me as part of an assignment in a writing course that I was taking. To be honest, at the time of the assignment, I really didn’t think the seeds of this story would ever mature to a finished product. Realizing that, I sat down at my keyboard and just started typing out content to fulfill the course requirement. Ideas weren’t fully considered, and even the characters weren’t fleshed out (nor do they necessarily have to be when you first start writing your novel). As I typed out the first ten chapters, I realized how much FUN it was to see ‘where the day took me.’ Since I hadn’t outlined anything, I was free to let the ideas that flowed forth take me in any direction. This was great!

That meant I never had to worry how new twists and turns would affect my end game (because at that time, let’s face it, there was no end game; just a grade). I was free to be creative—and what could be more fun than that?

Two months later, the class ended. But by then, I was so engrossed in writing my novel that I realized it was a project I just had to finish. I was nearing the halfway point. I was also starting to get knots in my stomach, and at first I didn’t know why. It seemed every time I sat down to write, I had the dreaded ‘block.’ Up until then it had been fun to just sit down and let plot twists flow forth as they came to me. Now suddenly I was tensing up every time I sat down to write. Worse, my characters were starting to stress me out because I didn’t know which direction to take them in, nor did I know the answers to two important questions that kept nagging me: “Who lives in my story?” and “Who’s going to die?”

For several days, I focused on mapping out the second half of the book, writing down explicit scenes that each of my main characters would experience, all the way to the final chapter. In many ways, my novel was finished—insofar as the plot was concerned. Now all I had to do was fill in those scenes with prose and I would be done.

What started out as free-flow writing for the first half of my novel blended into a near-rigid outline for the latter half. If someone had told me to outline this novel from the beginning, I don’t think I could have done it. After all, it was the process of discovering who my characters were and what my story was really about that solidified where I would ultimately go with the second half of Sunshine’s Darkness. That freedom to let the plot—and the characters—develop was vital to my story. Likewise, if I had continued a free-flow style of writing, it would have been impossible for me to calculate the exact moments when major plot twists needed to occur in order for certain characters to end up where they needed to be. Put another way:

By adopting the use of the outline for the second half, I was able to weave together the story that had developed freely in the first half, bringing the story to a satisfying and logical conclusion.

FINDING YOUR OWN APPROACH

If you decide to follow my method, you need not follow it to a tee. For example, you might choose to outline in the beginning a few key scenes that you want to take place, while still allowing your characters and plot to develop freely around those scenes. I didn’t do this for Sunshine’s Darkness, but with my second novel I did: I began the novel by outlining three key scenes—and the order I needed to tell about them in order to move the plot along. Likewise, you don’t need to slavishly follow your structured outline in the second half of your book if you come up with some amazing plot twist or new ending that will blow your readers away. For Sunshine’s Darkness, I thought I knew exactly what the last couple of chapters were going to be; but when I got there and it came time to write them, I found several of my characters were still left hanging. So I created a whole new ending that would weave together the characters who still had these loose threads. When something like this develops, you toss your outline aside and wrap up your book with what works best.

But whichever you choose, the one thing to keep in mind is this: It’s the end result that matters. Whichever style you ultimately choose for writing your novel, as long as it gets you to a satisfying, publishable, and FINISHED end-result, then you’ve done your job. Bravo!

So what works for you? Do you map it all out? Do you let it flow freely? Do you have a hybrid approach of your own? Leave a COMMENT to share your own techniques for developing your characters and your stories.

GREG—Read more about this editor

Changes in the Publishing Industry

Back in the good old days of publishing, there were editors, publishers, agents and the infamous slush pile. Editors and agents met, usually over martinis and lunch, to discuss writers, writing projects, trends, and whatever other publishing “business” was the sizzling topic of the day. Back in the office, the editorial assistants laboriously read through the slush pile, passing on to the editors any hopeful manuscripts that had come through the mail—the regular pony-express mail, that is.

Flash forward to 2009. There are still editors—acquisitions editors, specifically, meaning those who have the challenge of actually buying enough manuscripts to fit a publisher’s spring, winter and fall lists. These acquisitions editors continue to meet with agents, who continue to represent writers with the hope of selling their manuscripts to the highest bidder, thereby generating a nice income for both agent and client.

There are, however, two notable changes between the editors and agents of the past and those of today:

1. Because of the current economy, many editors are no longer able to meet agents for lunch. They must conduct business over the phone or via e-mail. Some publishing houses have even temporarily put a hold on acquisitions altogether, preferring to have editors focus on the manuscripts they already have under contract.
2. Because of restrictions put on them by publishers, agents often feel they can only afford to represent clients whose projects they anticipate will ship many, many books—100,000 is a nice number to toss around.

As for the slush pile? Perhaps an occasional manuscript makes its way via regular mail into some publishing house, somewhere. But considering that many publishers are actually asking writers and agents to only submit query letters electronically, and since, by now, most serious writers have given up on the hope of being discovered without having agent representation, and since less than 1% of the books published actually ship 100,000 copies, well, suffice it to say there’s a whole new game afoot in publishing.

Writers Taking Matters into their Own Hands 

One fact remains: Editors, publishers and agents need writers and they must be increasingly clever in finding them. No longer are they served up over lunch by a savvy agent.

Writers, too, must find increasingly clever ways to convince editors, publishers and agents that they have the talent and mettle to make a career out of writing.

So, take the current economy, add the downsizing of many publishing houses, the need for manuscripts and writers, the hand-tied agents who can’t afford to take on new clients and the abundance of writers since the advent of the computer. Shake and toss on the table and one solution will surface: writers who are serious about being published will take matters into their own hands. They will

• self-publish
• write blogs or e-zines
• have a website dedicated to their topics and
• be active on Facebook and Twitter 

 Here’s why:

1.     Serious writers write. This may sound obvious but there are many writers who continue to hold the lofty idea that someone will come along and discover that mystery novel they wrote years ago because it’s so good—everyone says so. What they fail to realize is that writing a manuscript, whether it be fiction or nonfiction, is only one small part of the writing business. There must also be proposal writing, query letter writing, self-promotional writing, marketing plans and any other possible way to get your message in front of readers. That’s where the Internet comes into play. If your message and your qualifications are out there for all to read, you have another avenue to attract readers, agents, editors, or like-minded souls.

2.     Serious writers help editors to find them. Since a project represented by an agent will cost the publisher more, and since editors want to buy numerous projects and stay within budget, they must find writers who are not necessarily represented by agents. This means magazine writers, e-zine writers, bloggers, self-published and print-on-demand authors who have a track record of selling their own books, via seminars, the Internet, a lecture series or on a table at the county fair. In the numbers game that is publishing, how you sell isn’t as important as how many.

Getting Serious About the Tools of the Trade

If you are serious about writing, get serious about using the latest tools of the trade. Believe it or not, these methods actually put the power of publishing back in the hands of the writer and take it out of the hands of large conglomerates who, more often than not, pander to those 100,000-copy authors and ignore the vast majority of other writers who make up most of their lists.

 Have some experience with POD publishing? Encountered any particularly successful techniques for attracting publishers’ or agents’ attention? Dealt with literary agents, acquisitions editors, or publishers? Leave us a COMMENT to let us know about it.

IRENE—Read more about this editor

With so much information available on the Internet, do doctoral students even need to go the library anymore? Why limit yourself to the books and journals inside one building when you can have unfettered access to the countless articles available online. More is better, right?

Wrong. When it comes to serious academic research, limits are actually a good thing.

Consider how an article makes its way into a scholarly journal. After it is conceived, researched, and written, its path to the public is only half done; the harder part still lies ahead. The article’s author sends it off to the editor of a journal, who then sends it on to several independent readers—all scholars in the field. They read it blind, not knowing who wrote it, so their recommendations will be based on the quality of the work: Is the topic sufficiently cutting-edge? Is the methodology scientific?  Are the most important resources considered? Are the arguments solid? Do the conclusions follow from the evidence? If the readers’ assessments are negative, the article will probably die with them; if positive, the editor will probably get involved and give it a personal review. Perhaps it’s good, but not as good as some of the other submissions. Rejection. It’s Darwinian survival of the fittest of the academic kind. Or perhaps it’s good, but needs some polishing—back to the author for the necessary revisions. And then finally, months later, maybe—just maybe—it sees the light of day.

Then consider how an Internet-based article makes its way to the same public. The author has an idea. Maybe he researches it, maybe he doesn’t; maybe she considers the most important resources and alternative points of view, maybe not. It gets written—maybe well, maybe poorly; it doesn’t matter, because there’s nobody to stop this article from seeing the light of day. The author is satisfied, so it gets uploaded to the Internet. And there it is for the world to see. Timely? Scientific? Carefully researched? Well argued? Based on solid evidence? These determinations are made by one person alone: the author.

Publishing in a journal involves gatekeepers who verify that the article meets scholarly standards. Publishing online involves an Internet connection—not necessarily anything more. Of course, many articles in scholarly journals are made available online—that gives us the best of both worlds. But when it comes to articles written directly for the Web, the researcher must beware: Just because it’s published doesn’t mean it’s good.

The Internet has changed the face of research forever—and that’s just as it should be. But until all peer reviewed books and journals are available online, it would be unwise to fill up that dissertation bibliography with Internet sources. In short, as indispensable as the Internet is for serious research today, don’t trade in your library card just yet!

Have some thoughts on Web research in academic writing? Leave us a COMMENT to share your ideas and your experience.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

They expect to more than double their income next year.

The truth be told, the splitting of infinitives in English goes back to at least the fourteenth century, and it is really only a mid-nineteenth century convention that proscribed the practice—a proscription that is now widely recognized as passé. Indeed, it is worth noting that even the SAT, GMAT, and TOEFL tests recognize the acceptability of the split infinitive, and courses designed to prepare people to take these tests frequently point out the danger of automatically excluding the split infinitive option as the possible correct answer. Like it or not, split infinitives are part and parcel of English usage and they are likely here to stay.

So it doesn’t matter if the infinitive is split or not? Well—I wouldn’t go that far! Of course it matters. Sometimes it matters a great deal. The acceptability of split infinitives can’t be confused with the appropriateness of using them in every situation. All that it means is that the writer has to do more than appeal to a grammatical rule; some thought is required.

A Matter of Emphasis

The split-infinitive example that seems most widely used by those who comment on grammatical issues on the Internet is the famous opening line from Star Trek:

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

If mindless adherence to some non-existent grammatical rule is the key, then we could easily wipe out the split infinitive with a simple rearrangement of words:

To go boldly where no man has gone before.

It means the same thing, after all, doesn’t it? Well—not quite. The same idea is conveyed, but clearly not with the same punch. The latter example simply doesn’t have the same emphasis that the former example has. It falls flat.

Perhaps that’s why The Chicago Manual of Style goes on to elaborate in §5.160 why one may choose to split or not to split an infinitive:

And sometimes it is perfectly appropriate to split an infinitive verb with an adverb to add emphasis or to produce a natural sound. . . . A verb’s infinitive or to form is split when an intervening word immediately follows to [e.g., to bravely assert]. If the adverb bears the emphasis in a phrase [to boldly go], [to strongly favor], then leave the split infinitive alone. But if moving the adverb to the end of the phrase doesn’t suggest a different meaning or impair the sound, then it is an acceptable way to avoid splitting the verb. Recasting a sentence just to eliminate a split infinitive or avoid splitting the infinitive can alter the nuance or meaning: for example, it’s best to always get up early (always modifies get up) is not quite the same as it’s always best to get up early (always modifies best). Or an unnatural phrasing can result: it’s best to get up early always.

Natural Phrasing

And that brings us to the other point that must be borne in mind when deciding whether or not to split an infinitive: Strive for naturalness of expression. In this regard, it should be noted that different expectations will apply to spoken English and informal written English, on the one hand, and to formal written English, on the other. What is considered acceptable in spoken and informal expression is often not acceptable in formal written English. With regard to formal writing, it may be said that the default position is still to avoid splitting infinitives, BUT with this proviso: avoid splitting infinitives except when doing so would disrupt the intended emphasis or create an unnatural expression.

Splitting infinitives will not get you arrested by the grammar police, therefore, but neither is it something to be done carelessly. It is a matter for conscious choice. And in making the choice about whether or not your infinitive should be split, the most important considerations are emphasis and naturalness of expression.

So the old rule (if, indeed, it ever was a rule) no longer applies. But the result is not less need for concern over the issue—it is more. In the absence of a rule, what is needed is SKILL.

Have questions or thoughts about this topic? Share them by leaving us a COMMENT.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

Hyphens [-]

The hyphen really has three main uses:

• To separate digits (and letters) in telephone numbers, Social Security Numbers, etc. (although this can also be done by the figure dash, discussed later in this article)
• To separate syllables (usually when space requires splitting a word at the end of a line of type)
• To join two or more words together into a compound

With regard to this latter category of uses for the hyphen, it is worth noting that the current trend is toward non-hyphenation (i.e., closed compounds) wherever possible. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15^th edition, §7.90 provides an extensive hyphenation guide; so does the APA Manual, 5^th edition, §3.11; and so does the OWL at Purdue University. Because of evolutions in usage, a current dictionary often provides the best guide for deciding when compounds should be hyphenated, when they should be written as separate words (i.e., open compounds), and when they should be written as one word (i.e., closed compounds).

SOME EXAMPLES OF HYPHENATED COMPOUNDS:

one-on-one coaching

seventh-grade class

low-resolution photograph

En-dashes [–]

Longer than a hyphen but shorter than an em-dash, the en-dash is used principally in two ways:

• In place of the word “to,” such as with ranges of dates and page numbers

EXAMPLES:

1962–1965

pages 12–16

Genesis 1:1–2:4a

the London–Brussels train

• To join words of equal weight (i.e., where one does not modify the other) in a compound adjective

EXAMPLES:

medical–surgical procedure

the Mason–Dixon line

the New York–New Jersey border

a quasi-legislative–quasi-political decision

Although there are style sheets that direct the use of spaces before and after the en-dash, typically there are no spaces surrounding the en-dash; this allows the en-dash to be easily distinguishable from the minus sign.

Em-dashes [—]

There are a number of uses for the em-dash, but ordinarily it represents a break in thought. Like commas and parentheses, em-dashes can be used to set off a word or phrase. There is, however, an important difference: while commas and parentheses de-emphasize the material they enclose, em-dashes emphasize the material they enclose. The em-dash may also be used to separate a subject (or set of subjects) from a pronoun, or to indicate a sudden break, an aside, or an explanatory phrase.

EXAMPLES:

The way that Lisa understood it—if, indeed, she understood it at all—it was a good thing.

And that was to be the end of it—for the moment.

Be careful, however: overuse of em-dashes becomes very tedious for the reader. This is true, in part, because they involve breaks in thought; too many of them gives the reader a sense of literary hiccups as he or she tries to plough through the sentence, perhaps even losing track of what the original subject was. In part, the tediousness of overused dashes comes from the emphasis that they convey. Overemphasis functions much like using a highlighter in a book to highlight every word on the page: when everything is highlighted, nothing stands out. The em-dash is an effective tool, but should be used sparingly.

As with en-dashes, there are some style guides that suggest using spaces before and after the em-dash, but typically the em-dash is typed with no spaces before or after it (as in the examples given above).

Minus signs, negative signs, figure dashes, 2-em dashes, and 3-em dashes.

Beyond hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes, there are related marks that occur in limited circumstances and appear less frequently. Without getting into much detail, they are presented here for the sake of completeness:

• Minus signs are typically used in equations, and are most often typed as a hyphen with a space before it and a space after it (e.g., 3 - 2 = 1). Word processing software may provide a slightly raised symbol for this purpose as well.
• Negative signs also occur principally in equations and are typed as a hyphen with a space before the negative sign but not after it (e.g., -3 + 3 = 0).
• Figure dashes are sometimes used in place of a hyphen between digits in numbers and codes like Social Security Numbers and telephone numbers.
• 2-em dashes are used to indicate missing material, such as a redacted name or an expletive (e.g., Mrs. —— and Dr. —— were both opposed to the measure.). Many word processing programs merge the two em-dashes in this symbol so that it appears with no breaks.
• 3-em dashes are used in bibliographies and reference lists to indicate that the author name is the same as in the previous entry (e.g., ———. Angels & Demons. New York: Washington Square Press, 2000). Many word processing programs merge the three em-dashes in this symbol so that it appears with no breaks.

Have questions or thoughts about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

Most professional writers will tell you that’s a matter of style. And they’re right. You may choose to place a comma after the next-to-last element in a series (hence the name serial comma) or you may choose to leave it out; neither practice is wrong. What you shouldn’t do is use the serial comma haphazardly or allow your choice to give rise to confusion in your text.

Even if you choose, as a rule, to avoid the serial comma, there may be instances in which it must still be used. Consider, for instance,

John, a teacher and a lawyer

Does this refer to three people (i.e., John and a teacher and a lawyer)? Or is it one person (i.e., John, who is both a teacher and a lawyer)? If the former, the serial comma would make that clear:

John, a teacher, and a lawyer

The serial comma’s use is commonplace in American English usage, though less common in English of the British variety.

Since, in our editing, we try to bring consistency to the use (or nonuse) of the serial comma to the extent possible without causing confusion, I often get asked about the pros and cons of its use. The biggest advantage to the use of the serial comma is clarity: when all of the elements in a series are separated by commas, there is less chance of ambiguity in the list. For example, if I am listing the kinds of sandwiches I’m making for lunch, only the serial comma ensures that it’s clear what I’m actually serving. Consider:

Ham, peanut butter and banana and jelly

Without the serial comma, this may mean:

• Ham
• Peanut butter and banana
• Jelly

Or it may mean:

• Ham
• Peanut butter
• Banana and jelly

In fact, though I wouldn’t want to try it, without the serial comma it could even mean just two kinds of sandwiches:

• Ham, peanut butter, and banana
• Jelly

With the serial comma, the ambiguity is removed:

Ham, peanut butter and banana, and jelly

The strongest reason for ordinarily omitting the serial comma is to conserve space. In fact, it is from the world of newspaper writing that the practice seems to have taken its root in the United States. Among others, the practice of avoiding the serial comma is advocated by the Associated Press Stylebook and the New York Times, along with a number of leading British and Australian stylebooks. In favor of using the serial comma are, among others, the Chicago Manual of Style, the APA Manual, the AMA Manual of Style, the U.S. Government Printing Office, and Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style.

All things being equal, I’m inclined to recommend the serial comma’s use. However, rest assured that—as long as your intended meaning is clear—neither its use nor its nonuse is wrong.

Have thoughts or questions about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT to share.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

 SOME EXAMPLES:

I didn’t have to get up in the morning, I still set my alarm for seven.

He wanted to vacation at the beach, she preferred the idea of a cruise.

She didn’t complete her dissertation on time, her defense had to be postponed until spring.

 Faced with this error, there are really only three options:

• 1. Join the two clauses together;
• 2. Separate them; or
• 3. Change one of the independent clauses into a dependent clause.

 Joining the independent clauses together is done with a coordinating conjunction. These are:

• and
• but
• or
• nor
• for
• yet
• so

THOSE EXAMPLES AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH CONJUNCTIONS ADDED:

I didn’t have to get up in the morning, yet I still set my alarm for seven.

 He wanted to vacation at the beach, but she preferred the idea of a cruise.

She didn’t complete her dissertation on time, so her defense had to be  postponed until spring.

Separating the clauses is done by the use of one of four types of punctuation:

• the period [.]
• the question mark [?]
• the exclamation point [!]
• the semicolon [;]

NOTE that the comma [,] will not accomplish this purpose.

THOSE EXAMPLES AGAIN, THIS TIME SEPARATED BY PUNCTUATION MARKS:

I didn’t have to get up in the morning; I still set my alarm for seven.

He wanted to vacation at the beach. She preferred the idea of a cruise.

She didn’t complete her dissertation on time? Her defense had to be  postponed until spring.

Changing one of the clauses into a dependent clause creates one complex sentence that is not a run-on sentence. Remember that sentences are considered “run-on” not because of the number of words, but because of their structure. In these cases, run-on sentences are corrected by adding words:

 THOSE EXAMPLES AGAIN, THIS TIME WITH ONE CLAUSE MADE DEPENDENT:

Though I didn’t have to get up in the morning, I still set my alarm for seven.

He wanted to vacation at the beach, although she preferred the idea of a cruise.

 Since she didn’t complete her dissertation on time, her defense had to be postponed until spring.

With any of these three solutions, the problem of the comma splice is solved and the sentence is no longer a “run-on.”

Have thoughts or questions about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT to share.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor

In truth, that’s a trick question. It’s really a matter of perspective. No, really—that’s not an attempt to be wishy-washy about the answer. The key to understanding the use of bring and take is perspective. Take is used when you are moving away from something, and bring is used when you are moving toward something. Simply put: You take when you are going, and you bring when you are coming.

Please BRING that book over here so that I may look at it.

Would you remember to TAKE this plate with you when you leave?

OK—so who was right at lunch? Was I correct in telling my friend to take some napkins, or should I have asked her to bring them? In fact, in this case (and in many like it), both options are possible. From a perspective that focused on the counter (i.e., the way I saw it), I was asking her to take the napkins with her when she was leaving the counter—i.e., when she was going away from the counter. From a perspective that focused on our table (i.e., the way my friend saw it), she was saying she should bring the napkins with her as she was coming toward the table. Depending upon the perspective, her action could be viewed either as a going away from (the counter) or as a coming toward (the table). And as I noted above, we take when we are going, and we bring when we are coming.

In common, spoken American English, the terms are used almost interchangeably. But in formal, written English, it can be more important to be grammatically precise. If that’s the goal, remember that it’s take when you are going and bring when you are coming. Take that simple rule with you, and you should be fine. Or is it bring that simple rule with you? That, too, depends upon your perspective.

Have thoughts or questions about this topic? Leave us a COMMENT to share.

ALBERT—Read more about this editor