1. You cant end a sentence with a prepositionMost of us learned in school that ending a sentence with a preposition was a mistake. This rule, however, is misguided, dating from the 17th century, when several notable writers tried to codify English to fit more neatly with Latin grammar.Clearly, there are instances where attempting to avoid ending a sentence in a preposition results in a statement that is either over-formal or simply poor English. An over-formal example might be: He told her that there was nothing of which to be frightened. An example of poor English (or Yoda English) might be: Paid for the house had not been.In her helpful, myth-busting post on the issue, Catherine Soanes identifies four typical situations in which it is more natural to end a sentence with a preposition. passive structures (she enjoys being fussed over) relative clauses (they must be convinced of the commitment that they are taking on) infinitive structures (Tom had no-one to play with) questions beginning with who, where, what, etc. (what music are you interested in?)2. You cant start a sentence with a conjunctionAnother common grammar myth is the rule about starting sentences with conjunctions. Conjunctions are words such as and, but, so, and if, which are used to connect clauses, sentences, or words. This grammatical superstition arises from the thought that because these words are used to connect separate clauses, they suggest the presence of a fragment when used at the beginning of a sentence. The argument against using and or but to introduce a sentence is that such a sentence expresses an incomplete thought (or fragment) and is therefore incorrect. However, this is a stylistic preference rather than a grammatical rule.3. Double negatives are always ungrammaticalWhen two negatives are used to communicate a negative, then the usage is ungrammatical. The reason for this is that two negatives actually cancel each other out and create an affirmative statement. For example, the sentence I dont have nothing for you is ungrammatical because the presence of two negatives technically switches the meaning to an affirmative one, so that it means I have something for you.Even though the use of double negatives in formal speech and writing is nonstandard, the use of double negatives is common in areas such as informal speech and popular music (Aint No Sunshine).However, there is one use of double negatives that is entirely grammatical. In this use, the double negative is used to express and reinforce an affirmative, by way of denial or understatement. For example, take the sentenceI couldnt not help him. [meaning: I strongly felt I should help him] The straight affirmative version of that sentence I could help him lacks the reinforced nature of the double negative version.Read more about double negatives.4. Splitting infinitives is a mistakeFor the uninitiated, splitting infinitives is the practice of placing an adverb between to and the corresponding verb, as in to lightly tap. Splitting infinitives is a common peeve of grammar enthusiasts, but like many such peeves it has been employed by well-regarded English prose stylists for centuries. However, take care before splitting those infinitives; many style guides and professors would still consider this a stylistic error.These two sentences display split infinitives:She used to secretly admire him.You have to really watch him.Those who believe that split infinitives are grammatically incorrect would rewrite these sentences as:She used secretly to admire him.You really have to watch him.Avoiding splitting infinitives can change the emphasis of whats being said. These sentences dont have quite the same meaning:You really have to watch him. [i.e. Its important that you watch him] You have to really watch him. [i.e. You have to watch him very closely] Read more about splitting those infinitives.5. You cant start a sentence with hopefullyYou absolutely can. This use of hopefully to mean it is hoped rather than the adverbial in a hopeful manner has been disputed in the past several years, though it has found its way into general acceptance. So despite the fact that all sentence adverbs were once frowned on, nowadays you should be able to use happily, along with most other sentence adverbs (such as sadly, strangely, or obviously).So why are thankfully and hopefully singled out for particular opprobrium? The answer lies in the fact that hopefully and thankfully cant be reworded along the lines of other sentence adverbs, using the constructions it is hopeful that or it is thankful that:Hopefully, planning delays will be minimal.X It is hopeful that planning delays will be minimal.Instead, you have to reword such sentences along the lines of:It is to be hoped that planning delays will be minimal.6. The passive voice should not be usedEven though your teacher possibly warned you against it, the passive voice is perfectly acceptable. The passive tends to be used in formal documents such as official reports or scientific papers, often where an action or situation is regarded as more significant than who or what did or caused it:active: Spain beat Brazil in the final match.passive: Brazil was beaten in the final.For example, in the above active example, the victor and loser of the match are made perfectly clear by the active structure: Spain, the subject of the sentence, beat Brazil, the object of the sentence, in a match. In the passive example, the information about Spain is missing, thus the agent of Brazils loss remains unclear what is most important is the outcome of the game, not the winner.However, even though the use of the passive voice is perfectly permissible, most people favor the active voice because of how it provides a fuller account.7. You cannot use whose to refer to thingsYes, you can use whose to refer to things, not only people or groups of people. Sometimes, sticklers will insist that rearranging the sentence using of which. The below is an example sentence on OxfordDictionaries.com using whose:Gasping for breath, they reached the row of houses whose gardens led onto the park.This is the same sentence rewritten to accommodate of which:Gasping for breath, they reached the row of houses, the gardens of which led onto the park.The rewritten version using of which is clearly awkward and unwieldy. The better option here is to simply use whose instead.

Myth #3: "i.e." and "e.g." mean the same thing.If you struggle with remembering which is which, you're not alone. I have to look it up every time. Here's what's up: "i.e." means "that is" or "in other words," and "e.g." means "example given" or "for example."Myth #4: "" and "" are totally different.This is a good one to know, especially if you're like me and use one or the other in your writing all the time. Both "" and "" are versions of the dash: "" is the en dash, and "" or "--" are both versions of the em dash. You can use either the en dash or the em dash to signify a break in a sentence or set off parenthetical statements.The en dash,notthe em dash, can also be used to represent time spans or differentiation (e.g. "that will take 510 minutes" and "we crossed the Spanish-French border"). The em dash,notthe en dash, can be used to set off quotation sources (e.g. "'To be or not to be, that is the question.' Shakespeare").Myth #5: You use "a" before words that start with consonants, and "an" before words that start with vowels.Actually, you use "a" before words that start with consonantsounds,and "an" before words that start with vowel sounds. For example, it's correct to write "I have an RSS feed" but incorrect to write "I have a RSS feed." When in doubt, sound the sentence out in your head.Myth #7: You can't start sentences with "and," "but," or "or."Here's what R.W. Burchfield has to say about starting sentences with a conjunction:"There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initialAndis a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues."Often, the choice is stylistic. If the sentence reads better starting with a conjunction, keep it. If it would function just as well without the conjunction, or if you can connect it to the previous sentence without compromising readability, then rethink it.Which other grammar myths can you debunk? Share with us in the comments