Believe it or not, there are at least two college instructors in the United States who use my grammar notes with their classes. They say it’s the best way they have ever found to make grammar interesting. Since it’s back-to-school time, I figured this would be a good time to repost my Advanced Celestial Grammar.

My Grammar Notes are incomplete. The basics are in Celestial Grammar. While the examples are often bizarre or irreverent, I assure you that the rules and concepts expressed herein are almost always correct. You can pass important tests by knowing, understanding, and applying these rules.

The following concepts are currently covered in The Advanced Celestial Grammar:

• Restrictive phrases and clauses.
• Dangling and misplaced modifiers.
• Relative and interrogative pronouns.
• Verb tense and time perspective.

Restrictive Phrases and Clauses

A restrictive phrase or clause is one that is so essential to the meaning of the sentence (or clause) that it cannot be omitted without substantially changing its meaning.

My girlfriend who likes oral sex was with me at the movie.

Restrictive phrases and clauses are not set off by commas. In general, when we say these phrases and clauses orally, we do not pause when we speak them.

On the other hand, the writer does not consider non-restrictive phrases or clauses be essential to the meaning of the sentence—they just add additional information and are set off by commas.

If the writer punctuates the sentence in this way, he is suggesting that the information conveyed by “who likes oral sex” is essential. The most likely explanation is that he has more than one girlfriend, and the one who was with him at the movie was the one who likes oral sex. The same words would have a different meaning if they were punctuated like this:

My girlfriend, who likes oral sex, was with me at the movie.

This would mean that he has one girl girlfriend (who likes oral sex and was with him at the movie). By putting the words “who likes oral sex” within commas the author is saying that they are non-restrictive—that is, they don’t change the meaning of the sentence—they just add some additional meaning.

Here’s why grammarians use the word restrictive to describe this use of commas. In the first example, the guy has many girlfriends, and “who likes oral sex” restricts the reference to a subset—in this case to just one of them. In the second example, the guy has only one girlfriend, and so “who likes oral sex” does not restrict the reference to a subset.

I recently read the following comment in the disclaimer at the beginning of a story:

This is my first story, written from a woman’s point of view.

I think the author meant to leave out the comma. Without the comma, the sentence would suggest that the author had written other stories, but none of these was written from a woman’s point of view. With the comma, it means that this is the first story he ever wrote (or published), and this first story is written from a woman’s point of view.

Technically, the same logic should be applied even to single words:

The woman enjoyed having sex with her dog Ralph.

Without a comma between dog and Ralph, this sentence technically suggests that the woman had more than one dog, but her enjoyment was restricted to Ralph. However, lots of good writers ignore this nuance—especially if the number of dogs would be clear from the context or if nobody would care anyway. Another good reason to omit the comma with a non-restrictive word or phrase occurs when the comma would add (rather than remove) confusion. For example,

In one evening Sharon had sex with Sue, her dog, Ralph, the night watchman, Bill, and Ray, her ex-husband.

In this example, it’s not obvious whether Ralph is the dog, the night watchman, or a separate person. It would be more obvious that Sue had fucked only four animate beings if the sentence were punctuated like this:

In one evening Sharon had sex with Sue, her dog Ralph, the night watchman Bill, and Ray, her ex-husband.

Of course, a better solution would be for Sharon to become celibate—or at least monogamous.

Dangling and Misplaced Modifiers

A misplaced modifier is a phrase that is supposed to modify one word but is placed in the sentence in such a way that it appears to modify the wrong word. A dangling modifier is a specific type of misplaced modifier. It just dangles (hangs there), usually at the beginning of the sentence or clause. In the following example, it logically sounds like the guy is sucking his own cock:

Having sucked my cock vigorously, I spread her legs and began to mount her.

The ambiguity is removed if the sentence is written like this:

Having sucked my cock vigorously, she spread her legs and invited me to mount her.

Here’s a dangling modifier I found in a story I was reviewing:

After thoroughly sucking the toes of both her feet, she sat down, placed her stockinged feet on either side of my still erect cock and began to masturbate me with the soles of her stockinged feet!

What this sentence literally says is that the woman sucked her own toes before she masturbated the guy’s cock. What the author meant to say was this:

After I had thoroughly sucked the toes of both her feet, she sat down, placed her stockinged feet on either side of my still erect cock and began to masturbate me with the soles of her stockinged feet!

Actually, either activity might be fun to watch, but the author should be clear.

Even single words can be misplaced and cause confusion. What does the following sentence mean?

I only made love to Bob that weekend.

Literally, this means

I only made love to Bob (and did nothing else with Bob or anyone else) that weekend.

However, the author probably meant

I made love only to Bob that weekend. (I didn’t make love to Tom, Dick, or Harry that weekend.)

Or the author might have meant

I made love to Bob only during that weekend. (I didn’t make love to him prior to or after that weekend.)

Even very good writers occasionally use misplaced or dangling modifiers. One of my students recently found a dangling modifier in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. (I understand this is what the advertisements mean when they say that the Demi Moore version is an “adaptation” of the original—the producers cleaned up the dangling modifiers.) More to the point, here is part of a sentence written by one of the best authors on a.s.s.:

…we enjoyed our platonic relationship and the chance to talk about our dates and relationships with a sympathetic member of the opposite sex.

What this author meant to say was this:

...we enjoyed our platonic relationship and the chance to talk with a sympathetic member of the opposite sex about our dates and relationships.

The most famous example, of course, is the sentence taken from the SAT:

He could only masturbate after the test was over.

That must have been a rough test! What the sentence literally says was that after the test was over all the poor guy could do was jerk off. The correct answer put only before after, suggesting that he simply had to wait till the test was over to do his more important solitary work. Actually, if you’re familiar with the SAT, you’ll probably agree that the original sentence is perfectly plausible.

In many cases the ambiguity is cleared up by the context. But if you have time to revise your work, why not make it easy on your readers by putting the modifier (in this case only in a place where it is clear what it modifies—in this case, right before the word or phrase to which it refers)?

Here’s your final exam on misplaced modifiers. Can you see why a person might say Ouch! while reading this passage from an actual a.s.s. story?

Kathy helped me up from my chair and removed my shirt. Cara bent down and untied and removed my shoes. Jennifer unbuttoned my pants and let them drop to the floor exposing a hard-on through my boxers, which Karen quickly removed.

Just to be cautious, the author should have considered putting the final clause in a separate sentence: Karen quickly removed the boxers. As it is, the reader might think Karen removed the hard-on. Snip!

Relative and Interrogative Pronouns

Relative and interrogative pronouns are who and whom (also whoever and whomever). Technically, who and whom are either relative or interrogative pronouns. That doesn’t matter for now. The rules for using relative and interrogative pronouns are identical.

The main rule is that the way the word is used in its clause determines the form to use. In general, if it’s a subject (nominative case) use who (or whoever). If it’s an object of a verb or of a preposition (objective case), use whom (or whomever).

If you are uncertain how to apply this rule, you can do it by ear. Simply replace who by he (or she) and whom by him (or her), and see if the sentence sounds right.

That is the man whom I plan to seduce tonight.

(Whom is the object of seduce. I plan to seduce him tonight. “I plan to seduce he tonight” sounds absurd.)

That is the woman who will seduce me tonight.

(Who is the subject of will seduce. She will seduce me tonight. “Her will seduce me tonight” sounds absurd.)

Whom do you plan to seduce tonight?

(Just answer the question: “I plan to seduce him (not he) tonight.)

Who will seduce you tonight?

(Just answer the question: She (not her) will seduce me tonight.)

In America, correct grammar is often viewed with suspicion. Therefore, some people use who almost all the time, especially when it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. Therefore, intelligent people may say the following, even though they know each sentence is incorrect:

Who did you fuck last night?

This should be:

Whom did you fuck last night?

If you say it correctly, the person to whom you are speaking will know you’re either an English teacher or a narc.

Who do you want to sleep with tonight?

This should be:

With whom do you want to sleep tonight?

However, guys to whom this would be said would suspect that they were in for an expensive and perhaps boring evening with a girl who would say this correctly. It’s just not cool.

My impression is that in written speech, almost anyone can feel comfortable using the proper word. I guess maybe the ordinary person thinks if you have time to revise, then it’s OK to use whom.

Sometimes confusion arises from the fact that who/whom appears to be part of a different clause. However, as long as you put the word in the right clause and follow the preceding guidelines, you will not make mistakes. Here are some more difficult examples:

I know who will seduce me tonight.

Some people think that who is the object of know. This is not accurate. Whois the subject of seduce. The whole clause “who will seduce me tonight” is the object of “know.” You can solve the problem by inserting he/him. He will seduce me.

The issue is sometimes more difficult with whoever. This is because many people who can distinguish who and whom by ear get confused by the longer word.

I’d like to have sex again with whoever seduced me last night.

Many people incorrectly say whomever, because they think the word is the object of the preposition “with.” This is incorrect; it is the subject of “seduced.” Again, you can solve the problem by inserting he/him. He seduced me last night.

I’d like to have sex again with WHOMEVER I seduced last night. (Many people correctly say WHOMEVER, but they do this because they think the word is the object of the preposition "with." This is incorrect; it is the object of "seduced." Again, you can solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. I seduced HIM last night.)

That’s all there is to it.

Verb tense and time perspective.

In general, you should start with one tense and stick with it, unless you have a reason to change. The most common mistake is for authors to mix the present and past tense together. I do this myself when I am writing my first draft of these reviews, but I make an attempt to go through my manuscript before I post it and adjust the verbs to a single tense—usually the present.

It would normally be considered a mistake to write the following:

Susie walked into the room. I go over to her and start to flirt with her.

On the other hand, a good writer might mix tenses like that on purpose. As written, the first sentence tends to describe a mundane, past event (in the past tense). By using the present tense in the second sentence, the author may be trying to bring us back into the past and feel that we re seeing it actually happen.

If my students do this and seem to be doing it for a purpose, I let them get away with it. Were I to find these sentences in Hemingway or Steinbeck, I probably wouldn’t even bother contacting their publisher.

A serious problem is once you start changing tenses, it may be difficult to get back to the regular (past) tense. As I said, if you re a good writer and have a feel for the language, you can possibly get by with changing tenses, and the shift may even enhance your story. But most authors should find a tense and stick to it.

Mixed Action: Once you choose a main tense for your story, you do have to change tenses to describe action that occurs before or after your main action. I am not going to try to describe exact guidelines for all the verb tenses that occur in the English language. Maybe I ll do that some other time. Right now, all I want to say is this: when you change tenses, make sure the change conveys what you really want to say.

Here is an example of a mistake made by a very good writer:

There was no sign of her at my place. I guess she went to see her boyfriend. It took me a long time to get to sleep that night, wondering about Brenda and her boyfriend, and what they did together.

The problem is with the verb guess. The author is describing something that happened in the past. All the other verbs are in the past tense. It would be reasonable to use guess in the present tense, but then it would mean that the guessing took place at a different time than everything else. As it is written, the second sentence can be paraphrased thus:

Even today I don’t know where she was. I guess she went to see her boyfriend.

In the context of the story, that paraphrase makes no sense. It’s not what the author meant to say. The narrator is writing now about something that happened many years ago. At the time the narrator is supposed to express this thought, he does know that Brenda was not with her boyfriend. (In fact, the main gist of the story is that the narrator was the mystery boyfriend—unknown to him at that time.) What the author meant to say was this:

Today I know where she was. At the time I assumed she had gone to see her boyfriend.

The problem is that the incorrect verb actually has a perfectly legitimate meaning; but that meaning is not what the author meant to say. If authors do this too often, readers have no choice except to ignore the author’s verb tenses. This deprives the author of an effective tool for communicating action clearly. I would have written the second sentence like this:

I assumed she had gone to see her boyfriend.

I would have used assumed instead of guessed, because I think that verb describes more clearly what the narrator actually did. He didn’t take a guess. He made an assumption

In the very next paragraph the author says this:

Sunday morning she was there again, sitting in the back. This time Brenda was wearing a bikini and sunning herself. I guess it was better than her just being wrapped up in a ball like the last couple of days. Communication lines were still down…

In this case, guess is fine. All the other action is in the past, but the author is now retrospectively making a guess why Brenda was wearing a bikini and sunning herself. The sentence means this:

Even today I’m not sure why Brenda was wearing a bikini and sunning herself. I guess it was better than what she had been doing.

My point is not that this author is an idiot. He’s a very good writer. Rather, my point is that verb tense does make a difference. I find that the best strategy is to find one tense and stick with it—except when you have a good reason to change tenses.

To put it differently, be sure to make your verb tenses actually describe the real sequence of thought and action.

In addition, the English language has a wide variety of verb tenses. It is not sensible to try to cover them all here; but here are some examples of verbs showing past action:

We fucked for nearly an hour.
We have fucked for nearly an hour.
We had fucked for nearly an hour.
We did fuck for nearly an hour.
We were fucking for nearly an hour.
We had been fucking for nearly an hour.
We used to fuck for nearly an hour.

Each of the preceding sentences expresses a slightly different nuance. Try them out, and see if you can tell the difference.

Finally, words other than verbs can help describe when an action took place. Use these words carefully and correctly. For example, a person might say

I am going to fuck my husband’s brains out tonight.

If that person carried out her plans and commented on the activity the next day, she would say:

I fucked my husband’s brains out last night.

Of course, she could also make the first statement, but that would require a second fuckation.

Where people sometimes make mistakes is when they put the idea into a more complicated sentence:

My husband sent me roses the next day because I had fucked his brains out last night.

The problem is that phrases like last night and words like tomorrow take their perspective from the time they are stated. The previous sentence should have said this:

My husband sent me roses the next day because I had fucked his brains out the night before.