Penelope Trunk @ Brazen Careerist has an interesting post on grammar; I like these sentences:
Most grammar rules don’t matter, though. That is, if you get them wrong, the reader still can find the meaning.
Whether the particulars are true or not, I agree with the main idea: The best way to write is whatever gets your point across. (And yes, I'm aware of the grammatical failings of that statement.)
And grammar and spelling and the rules of the English language aren't as important as many people make them out to be (especially some of her commentors--
ouch!) -- for many of the reasons she cites, and, I'd also add, because they're always changing. Case in point: "Today" used to be spelled with a hyphen.
Something I do quibble with, and at least one commenter pointed this out, too, are the two "grammar" errors in the statement
Over 28,000 children drew doodles for our homepage.
Vote for the one that will appear here!
According to Penelope,
The AP Stylebook says "over" is a way to move—a preposition. And “more than” must precede a number. Also, if you are voting for one, specific doodle, then the AP Stylebook tells you to use “which” rather than “that.”
They're not so much grammatical errors as they are inconsistencies with the AP Stylebook. (And if it's true that the AP Stylebook was set up to minimize printing costs, "over" would seem more correct than "more than.")
Despite that, I get her point:
Anyway, if Google is deciding that these rules are no longer useful guidelines, then we can all follow suit. And if you don’t, you risk being more newspaper and less Internet, and we know where that’s going to put your career…
Read More...
Summary only...
People don't use colons to indicate omissions, so why do they use ellipses to introduce something?
Read More...
Summary only...
"A terrific book...opens up a dark door in the Victorian credenza--dense with detail, and yet with a nimbleness to the writing that's unusual even for a very good detective story."—Nicholson Baker, reviewing The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher
How many doors are there on this credenza? It seems every writer during, since, and everywhere between and beyond has something bad to say about the Victorian Era. People have been dragging it through the mud for 175 years, what the Hell of it is left to criticize?
Victorian-Era England had a strict moral code and people were rapaciously deviant perverts and violated it. Okay, that's cool. Can we move on?
Wouldn't it be much more novel if, instead of imagining up some new hypocrisy, a writer actually found something decent to say about the Victorian Era?
Read More...
Summary only...
It’s that time of year again: Lake Superior State University has published their "List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness," and, once again, we take issue.
Once again, LSSU uses the term "Queen’s English," which, depending on your dictionary, refers to either standard/accepted English speech, or English as spoken by educated persons in southern England. If we go with the latter definition, then we have to ask what business LSSU, an American university at that, has dictating the proper speech of the Cornish literati (assuming they exist…). If we go with the former definition, then we assume each word is standardized and acceptable English already—and that really monkeys with some of their more obscure choices.
Anyway, here’s the list:
- GREEN
- CARBON FOOTPRINT or CARBON OFFSETTING
- MAVERICK
- FIRST DUDE
- BAILOUT
- WALL STREET/MAIN STREET
- MONKEY
- <3
- ICON or ICONIC
- GAME CHANGER
- STAYCATION
- DESPERATE SEARCH
- NOT SO MUCH
- WINNER OF FIVE NOMINATIONS
- IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN
The total count is 15, down four from last year’s 19. Of the 15, only 6—or about 40%—are actually single words, the rest are terms and phrases, with the exception of one emoticon. "Wall street/main street," "icon," "game changer," and "not so much," are charged with overuse; "maverick," is charged with both overuse and mis-use; "it’s that time of the year again," with overuse and uselessness. That means only 6 of the 15 entries are cited for being among the "overused, mis-used, and useless"—the other 8—60% of the total list—do not fit into a category. Of the 15, green, and its derivative going green, purportedly received the most nominations. However, the criticisms are very insubstantial:
"I'm all for being environmentally responsible, but this 'green' needs to be nipped in the bud." Valerie Gilson, Gales Ferry, Conn.
"Companies are less 'green' than ever, advertising the fact they are 'green.' Is anyone buying this nonsense?" Mark Etchason, Denver, Colo.
"If I see one more corporation declare itself 'green,' I'm going to start burning tires in my backyard." Ed Hardiman, Bristow, Va.
Neither these three nor the others demonstrate an overuse, misuse, or uselessness of the word "green"; Mark Etchason and Ed Hardiman’s complaints aren’t even against the word "green"—they’re attacking companies that claim to be "green."
The same goes for Ginger Hunt’s argument for banning the term carbon footprint:
"It is now considered fashionable for everyone, tree hugger or lumberjack alike, to pay money to questionable companies to 'offset' their own 'carbon footprint.' What a scam! Get rid of it immediately!" Ginger Hunt, London, England.
Christy Loop’s argument is not much better:
"'Leaving a carbon footprint' has become the new 'politically incorrect.' "How can we not, in one way or another, affect our natural environment?"
The problem with this and many of the other entries on the list is that people don’t find fault with the actual word, term, or phrase; rather, they take issue with the ideas behind them. Whether you agree or disagree with offsetting your carbon footprint or a company "greening its office," that doesn’t mean the word used to describe it should be banished.
maverick
Commenter Matthew Mattila makes a very good point:
"The constant repetition of this word for months before the US election diluted whatever meaning it previously had. Even the comic offshoot 'mavericky' was terribly overused. A minimum five-year banishment of both words is suggested so they will not be available during the next federal election."
"maverick," was terribly overused, but Matthew’s recommendation of a five-year banishment raises an important observation: Many of the entries are topical, and so they’ll fade into obscurity soon enough. For example, with the 2008 election over, no one’s using, much less overusing, the word "maverick," and they probably won’t until the next election, so is there much of a point in banishing it? The same goes for first dude—as far as we know, this was used solely to describe Sarah Palin’s husband, and we for one haven’t heard it used since her defeat.
bailout and Wall Street/Main Street are similarly topical, and while we, too, cringe every time we hear them, it won’t be long before they join "maverick" and "first dude."
monkey—does anyone have an example of this? We’ve never seen it or heard it used, and we’re wondering if it’s apocryphal. Not even Rogier Landman, the lone voice decrying it, cites an example.
<3—much the same as "monkey," we haven’t come across this, so it can’t be that overused. Likewise, Andrea Estrata's entreaty—"Just say the word instead of making me turn my head sideways and wondering what 'less than three' means."—misses the point: "<3" saves the typist the trouble of typing "love"— and on those tiny keypads, brevity is a virtue.
*UPDATE* Actually, we nominate this term for eradication because it's f@cking with blogspot's posting software.
John Flood makes a similar plea regarding icon/iconic:
"Can't we switch to 'legendary' or 'famous for'?"
"iconic" has fewer syllables than "legendary" and is much faster to type than "famous for." Besides, if they caught on, it’d be them on the list instead of "icon/iconic."
game changer
"It's game OVER for this cliché, which gets overused in the news media, political arenas and in business." Cynthia, Mt. Pleasant, Mich.
Even if she's right, what makes "game changer" stand out among other so-called overused terms?
staycation is another topical term, evidenced by the references to high gas prices in both comments. Already it's fallen into disuse.
Rick A. Hyatt should've embarked on a desperate search of his own to find an actual complaint against the term:
"Every time the news can't find something intelligent to report, they start on a 'desperate search' for someone, somewhere."
Tom Benson of Milwaukee is even worse in his complaint against not so much:
"I wish that the phrase was used not so much,"
Suffice it to say, if you demonstrate the usefulness of a term when you mean to attack it, the effectiveness of your criticism is...well, not so much.
winner of five nominations
"It hasn't won an Academy Award yet. It has only been NOMINATED!" John Bohenek, Abilene, Tex.
This is actually a fair criticism, because the use of "winner" is misleading—but that doesn't make the term overused, misused, or useless.
it's that time of year again
– Nominated by Kathleen Brosemer of Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., for "general overuse and meaninglessness. When is it not 'that time of year again?' From Valentine's sales to year-end charity letters, invitations to summer picnics and Christmas parties, it's 'that time' of year again. Just get to the point of the solicitation, invitation, and newsletter and cut out six useless and annoying words."
If Kathleen is so upset by the term, we suggest she stop associating with people who use it.
Actually, that's our advice to anyone who takes this list to heart. We know it's tongue and cheek, but, judging from the comments, it shows that many people confuse the means of communication with the individuals using them. When there is a charge levied, it’s generally for overuse. But to us a term is overused for one of two reasons: Either 1) It’s not being overused; it’s just a very useful term or 2) The people using it are careless with how they express themselves. Neither reason faults the word, however, and instead of blaming the word, we’d all be better off helping the individuals who overuse, misuse, and carelessly use it.
Read More...
Summary only...
Voting is now open here.
We'll have our full writeup once the list is published. In the meantime, here's our take on last year's list.
*UPDATE*
The 2009 Writeup is here.
Read More...
Summary only...
A recent discussion [names changed to protect the innocent]:
[Facebook status:] Juanita has her exam in less than 8 hours!
The Editorial We: "less than 8 hours" -- fewer
Juanita: I thought that it was OK to use "less than" when referring to a period of time? I know that "fewer than" is used when referring to multiples of discrete items.
The Editorial We: We've always practiced the rules as, "Use 'fewer' to describe countable things; use 'less' to describe uncountable quantities and degree."
Some styles give leeway to time and money, others don't, and, of course, most folks use less and fewer interchangeably. But we side with those who don't make an exception because both time and money are countable and because we haven't heard a convincing explanation for why we shouldn't.
The standard explanation is that eight hours (taking your example) is not eight separate hours but a single period of time lasting eight hours, and because of that, it's argued that you should use "less." That seems very sketchy to us--you're using "less" because the individual units make up some implied whole, so why make the distinction at all? Ten items or fewer could make up a single purchase, so should you use "less" then as well?
If whoever writes the grammar manuals we're expected to stick to is going to make a distinction between "fewer" and "less" on the basis of countable and not countable, they should be consistent.
Read More...
Summary only...
The Sad Fate of the Comma
We liked the first part of the article, but we wish he'd stuck with his original topic rather than use it to segue into a sophomoric lecture of cultural pessimism. That kind of false advertising does the comma's fate a great disservice.
And what's wrong with multitasking or "feverish ardor" anyway? Machines don't understand the tasks they perform, and that doesn't hinder them in the least!
If all this involved only grammar, I might let it lie. But grammar's where he shouldn't let it lay! People still don't realize the danger of omitting the serial comma! "Which" and "that" are still confused! No one knows what the semicolon does!
The comma should be a clarifier of prose, not a weigh station on the freeway of shorthand.
Read More...
Summary only...
Co-Worker: Let me itch myself.
We: Don't you mean Scratch? You scratch an itch, right? You don't itch an itch or else it'll get itchier.
[Co-Worker stares blankly]
We: It's like when people say Gross when they mean Scary, right?
Co-Worker: Well, maybe they're talking about blood and guts and stuff like that.
We: No, no, when there's no blood or gore--when the emotion they're feeling is clearly Fear, and instead of saying, "Yikes!" or "Ahh!" they say, "Gross!"
Co-Worker: Okay...
We: But substituting Scratch with Itch is even worse, right? Because they have opposite meanings. What sense is it to have the noun mean one thing and the verb its opposite?
Co-Worker: Right.
Read More...
Summary only...
We've written before how much we enjoy Shakespeare, but sometimes his language gets a bit too flighty for our nit-pickiness.
For example, would anyone really be offended if they were referred to as "You scullion! You rampallian! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe!"?
Or "poisonous bunch-back'd toad!"?
Or "Hedgehog!"?
Then again, most of these insults tend to be directed at characters with ridiculous names such as "Pompey" or "Sextus" or "Lord Bouillabaisse."
We can't imagine young Shakespeare, after a long day of playing his dead son's father's ghost, retiring with the rest of the cast to tie one off at The Rampallian and Hedgehog's, and getting so unbelievably crocked that he tries to pick a fight with Ben Jonson by saying, "Your virginity breeds mites, much like a cheese."
If we were Ben Jonson, we'd be all like "What? Will, what the Hell are you talking about?"
Now if we were Shakespeare, trying to pick a fight with Ben Jonson, we'd say something like, "Bartholomew Fair? More like Bartolomew Poor!"
"I can't say that is too nice, Bill."
"Good on your father, Marlowe! The Jew of Malta? More like...The...BOO...of...Everywhere!"
"Oy! Whashs talkin' all there, then?"
"Don't start with me, Sheridan!"
"Who?"
Well, you get the idea. Point is, Shakespeare's insults need some polishing. Granted after four centuries it's only natural they'd tarnish some, but we just wanted to mention it. And here are plenty more.
Read More...
Summary only...
These kinds of representations of Jonah really bother us. He's on land, for Christ's sake! We just want to shout to him, "Jonah: Just move away from the water, and the whale won't 'et ya'!"
Read More...
Summary only...
Compound adjectives: No-one knows how to use them and fewer still even care. Mostly because discussing them involves strange and terrifyingly polysyllabic words like "coordinate modifiers" and "hyphenized ambiguity."
But it's an easy topic to understand, regardless of usefulness.
Compound adjectives are a combination of words that modify a noun. This is opposed to, say, multiple adjectives that each modify a noun. For example, in the phrase, "She exuded a quiet, pleasing grace," "quiet" and "pleasing" each modify "grace"; for whatever ridiculous reason, we would call "quiet" and "pleasing" coordinate modifiers.
Now say we altered the phrase slightly: "She exuded a quite-pleasing grace." Here two words are combined to form a single modifier, "quite-pleasing." Separately the two would not make sense, which is perhaps why this is known as a noncoordinating modifier.
This may seem excessively pedantic, but ignoring it can be especially embarrassing. For example, when the film Eight Legged Freaks was released, Roger Ebert correctly chided the studio for omitting the very necessary hyphen between "eight" and "legged"; without it, he pointed out, the title was not describing the film's eight-legged spiders, rather eight freaks with legs, seven of which don't even appear in the movie (we surmise that David Arquette makes one).
There's a perverse number of exceptions to this rule, many of which we'll cover in subsequent posts, but a good rule for remembering to hyphenate your compound adjectives is to ask yourself whether both adjectives modify the noun. Is that virgin 40 and old and years?
Read More...
Summary only...
We wince when apt asses bray the frayed phrase: Were you born in a barn?
Because it worries us when words are chosen to create a pleasant or amusing sound at the expense of a clear meaning. This we dub to be the case with, "Were you born in a barn?"
Now, whatever its origins, most people now use it as a pejorative to connote the foul manners of another.
Yet if one considers what the phrase literally says, they should quickly realize that its perceived meaning is a misconception--and a bullheaded one at that.
Where one is born has relatively little impact on their conduct. Most of the people we know were born in the hospital, and despite the cleanliness of most hospitals we know, many of these people wallow in what we would charitably refer to as a pig sty.
Our Saviour, for example, was said to be born in a manger, among all sorts of asses, pigs, horse and sheep, slop, filth, straw, hay, rotted wood, mold, mildew, and Magi--in short decorated with all sort of lurid and disgusting grime, yet who among you is willing to decry His manners?
A better expression then, or at least one more consistent with the connotation, would be "Were you raised in a barn?"--suggesting that the disparagee's rustic sojourn was both extended and formulative.
But we've been ducking our initial point: "Raised in a barn" lacks the alliteration of "born" and "barn." For those who accept the inherent brusqueness of consonant plosives, "raised" lacks that, too. So "Born in a barn" may sound more forceful, but it's certainly less clear, and what's the point in sounding forceful if no one knows what you mean? That sort of thing really gets our goat.
Read More...
Summary only...
Lady: Do you wish to accompany me to the Gala Ball this eve? Surely many Lords and Ladies of the highest standing shall be in attendance.
Scoundrel: Not this eve, I'm afraid, my gracious lady. For the fellow rogues, blackguards, scalawags, dastards, Svengalis, de Sades, Lotharios, Cheneys, and I plan to raucously booze it up at Barnadine's before we go a-hog-dogging. But give the upper elite my very best!
We recently wondered what "My Best" signifies in the command, "Give Them My Best." My Best what? My best tie? My best turtleneck? My best sacrificial goat? We figure it can't be My Best Greetings, because if it were our best greetings, why would we send them by proxy--we'd be there to deliver them ourselves.
Yet greetings seem to be the most common connotation of "My Best," which can only mean that the greeter who requests that his best be sent believes his greetees prefer the proxy to himself.
Read More...
Summary only...
Shouldn't the High Five really be named the High Ten? All things being equal, it's really ten fingers slapping each other rather than five. Wikiepedia.org defines the High Five as "usually meant to communicate mutual satisfaction to spectators or to extend congratulations from one person to another": It's a joint effort between the two High-Fiving parties, so shouldn't the gesture be named after end product instead of each party's individual contribution?
Read More...
Summary only...
A few thoughts on terms:
Why do people continue using "ATM machine" and "irregardless" when everyone, including themselves, knows it's wrong?
What does "same exact" denote that "same" and "exact" alone do not?
Why do people use "elect" when they mean "choose"?
Why do people who pride themselves on AP fluency fail to hyphenate their compound adjectives?
Why won't people realize that "alot" is not a word and that "awhile" means "for a while"?
Read More...
Summary only...
We disagree with this New Yorker cartoon. Lighting a cigarette with a road flare just lessens the duration of each smoke; if anything he would need to smoke more cigarettes to compensate.
Something else is making him smoke less. The only possible explanation is that he can't afford to buy both the flares and enough cigarettes.
Therefore, we feel a more appropriate caption would have been, "I find that I tend to smoke less since I started buying road flares, because I can't afford to buy as many cigarettes."
Read More...
Summary only...
