Hold on to your hat ...

JUNE CASAGRANDE

Passive sentence structure was chosen by me as a topic for this

column.

My guess is that, even those who don’t really know the difference

between active and passive structure still sense there’s something

wrong with my opening line. It’s the kind of writing that makes a

reader glaze over with boredom and quickly turn a page.

As Elvis might have observed if he were the world’s first rock ‘n’

roll grammarian, the sentence needs a little more action.

Compare it to, “I chose passive sentence structure as the topic of

this column.” Much more engaging, right?

OK, I’ll come up with a more exciting example: “Grammar was

revolutionized by Elvis Presley when his hit, ‘You Ain’t Nothin’ But

a Dangler,’ topped the charts.” Silly I know, but stay with me.

Compare “Grammar was revolutionized by Elvis ... “ with “Elvis

revolutionized grammar ... “

Active sentences almost always take the structure of subject-verb

or subject-verb-object. Someone does something to something; it’s the

most direct and action-packed way to recount an event. The subject

performs the action -- immediately, directly and with a minimum of

goofing around.

Passive sentences almost always flip things around in a way to

make the sentence or phrase much less direct: action-(performed

by)-subject.

The preposition “by” is the red flag. Whenever you think you smell

a passive sentence, check for the word “by.” If it’s there, ask

yourself whether you can flip-flop the sentence.

For my money, this is the single most important and striking

difference between professional (or professional-quality) writers and

amateurs.

Most good writers don’t know much about grammar, many aren’t great

spellers and they don’t necessarily have the best vocabularies. But

effective writers all know how to retell an action in a way that

makes it most interesting.

It takes some practice, but it’s worth it. A quick search of the

business news wires produced a number of cases in which an effective

communicator could better grab a reader: a rally “was attended by

60,000 people” would have been much more eye-catching written “60,000

people attended the rally.”

Any questions? No? Then we’ll move on to a topic I’ve been

avoiding for a while. A reader had asked how to know when to use

“onto” versus “on to.” I’ve been avoiding it because the answer just

isn’t all that clear to me. The answer lies in some blurry

distinctions between prepositions, adverbs and prepositions that are

“adverbial” in flavor. But those distinctions don’t help me

understand the difference.

Here’s my best grasp of the matter: When the “on” is part of a

verbal phrase such as “hold on” don’t mash it together with a “to”

that follows. The Chicago Style manual gives as an example “the

gymnast held on to the bars.” Otherwise, use “onto”: “The gymnast

jumped onto the bars.”

Vague, I know, especially because “on” is a word that often

follows the word “jump.” But they’re not really working together to

create a single verb. You tell someone “jump,” but if you said, “jump

on,” there’s a specific something you’re telling them to jump onto.

That’s your clue that the “on” is a preposition -- it refers to an

object.

On the other hand, you might yell to someone, “hold on!” But, in

the same instance, you’d never just yell, “hold.” That’s because the

“on” is working as part of the verb in a way that makes it mean

something different from just plain old “hold.”

* JUNE CASAGRANDE covers Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport. She

may be reached at (949) 574-4232 or by e-mail at june.

casagrande@latimes.com.