Everything Language and Grammar

Archive for January, 2008

« Previous Entries

You Have a Couple of Something, Not a Couple Something

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 31, 2008

AP article, January 20, 2008: In a national economy teetering on the brink of recession, there are a couple bright spots for Pennsylvania.

Perhaps it’s not fair, but I expect more from institutions such as the AP. I actually didn’t need to use a quote from the newspaper, however; I hear and see this grammar error every day, everywhere I turn. I’m sure that you do, too.

We hear it from weather forecasters who talk about a couple snow showers approaching, news anchors and talk show hosts who tell guests that they have a couple questions, and sports broadcasters who discuss a couple poorly thrown passes; we read it in magazines about recipes that have only a couple ingredients and stories about world leaders who have a couple years left in office, and we’re told by friends, family, and co-workers that they have a couple ideas, a couple kids, a couple—I could go on, but you get the point. This grammar error seems to be one of the most pervasive in grammar history.

Unless making a reference to two people (the couple walked down the street), the word couple needs the word of after it. Why? Because that’s the expression: a couple of. You have a couple of something, not a couple something.

Note: I’ve seen a couple of very recent resources assert that couple of is the correct expression in formal writing and that you’ll hear couple without the of in casual conversation. Well, that’s half right. You’ll certainly hear couple without the of in casual conversation, but couple of is ALWAYS the correct expression in ANY type of writing or speaking, not just formal. Couple is not slang or colloquial or conversational English; it’s just plain wrong, and we should stop making excuses for using poor grammar. It’s as wrong as saying In a national economy teetering on the brink of recession, there are a few of bright spots for Pennsylvania.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Reason is Because

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 30, 2008

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, USA Today, January 3, 2008, talking about his victory in the Iowa Caucuses: I think sometimes the reason that our campaign is catching fire, Huckabee said in Burlington, is because people had rather elect a president who reminds him of the guy they work with — not the guy that laid them off.

Reason is because is a redundancy.  Because already means for the reason that, and some dictionaries also say that it means due to the fact that (although we could argue about the grammatical convolution of that one), so The reason that our campaign is catching fire is because …means The reason that our campaign is catching fire is for the reason that…. or The reason that our campaign is catching fire is due to the fact that…. Is there an echo in here?

Both are clearly redundant. You should be asking the reason is what, not the reason is why.

The correct construction is The reason that our campaign is catching fire is that people had rather elect a president… (You could also re-write the sentence to Our campaign is catching fire because people had rather elect a president….)

We all know that—as they’ve proven time and time again— the accuracy of language doesn’t count when it comes to politicians. If it did, then the world would be a different place—we might actually have some of those things that we’re promised during political campaigns. Until that happens, I’m at least going to hold politicians accountable for their improper use of language and grammar.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off

But Yet: Pick a Coordinating Conjunction, Any Coordinating Conjunction

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 27, 2008

Colin Cowherd Radio Show, January 22, 2008, talking about Tony Dungy: His family lives in Tampa, but yet Tony Dungy is part of a family….    

I have to admit that I didn’t actually hear the rest of the sentence. Once I heard but yet, he lost me, and all I could think was Why do so many people say but yet?  

When using both but and yet as coordinating conjunctions, you can only use one (otherwise, you’re creating a redundancy for the category of the redundancy category). The same thing goes for and yet when using both as coordinating conjunctions.

Use either but or yet when conveying two ideas that are in contrast, thus separating them. Tony Dungy’s family lives in Tampa, but he’s part of a family in Indianapolis or Tony Dungy’s family lives in Tampa, yet he’s part of a family in Indianapolis.

Use and when connecting two ideas. The example about Tony Dungy is not an appropriate place for the use of and because the clause before the comma and the clause after the comma are a contrast, not a similarity. A better example would be Tony Dungy’s family lives in Tampa, and Tony Dungy lives in Tampa—not a very attractive sentence but a good illustration nonetheless.

Don’t use and and yet together when both are being used as coordinating conjunctions because they convey opposite ideas. As a coordinating conjunction, yet means nevertheless or however, and and conveys a meaning of in addition.

I know, I know, someone out there is saying, But wait (or But yet wait); what about Shakespeare? He used but yet. Well, no offense to the bard, but Shakespeare was a famed poet and playwright—not a famed grammarian.

Sherry

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever and Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Where Are You At?

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 26, 2008

Asking where are you at is a common grammar mistake, and the mistake and error is as obvious and evident as is the redundancy and repetition of the second part of this sentence and complete thought.

More simply–and less redundant–the word where means at what location, so Where are you at is the equivalent of At what location are you at? Ats a problem–if you ask me! Never use where and at in the same question; just ask where are you instead.

I could go on, but I’d hate to repeat myself.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , | 12 Comments »

Candidates Lash Out

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 22, 2008

I know what you may be thinking by now: I thought this was a language and grammar blog, but it’s more like a language, grammar, and politics blog! That’s not true. In fact, there is no truth to the rumor that we at languageandgrammar.com are going to make an independent run at the presidency in the fall. It is true, however, that since politics is a finely crafted art of communication, there is much to be learned about language and communication by analyzing what politicians say, along with what the media reports about what the politicians say.

Garrison Keillor, the witty novelist and now political commentator, made an astute observation about how the media often portrays relatively minor discussions or altercations between two politicians as something much greater in a recent column (Lashing out at candidates for not really lashing out). Candidates no longer can question each other about policies or votes; they lash out at each other. He gives several examples in the article.

Why is that when Romney questions McCain’s record on voting for taxes, it’s considered some kind of an attack? Why is that if Clinton questions Obama’s record on war support, it’s considered an attack? Don’t we need to know the difference between candidates in order to be able to make a fair choice about which candidate we want to support?

Either simple questions have become attacks in our society (which might be the case to some degree since we can’t have problems–You Have Problems, not Issues and Update on Problems and Issues–any longer!), or the media wants to distract us from the message of the politicians, or they simply want to create the illusion of conflict where none exists because it will sell?

The reason for the change is for others to decide; I just want to point out that the media often defines conflict differently than do the rest of us.

Note: I know that Clinton and Obama had a more volatile exchange in a debate last night. That was actually the first time that an exchange between these candidates deserved to be labeled lashing out. Up until last night, however, the media mislabeled every civil discussion.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Is it Healthy or Healthful?

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 21, 2008

There’s a person for every diet plan. There are low-carbohydrate diets, low-fat diets, macrobiotic diets, vegetarian diets, raw food diets, etc., and for every diet, there is a different list of acceptable food. One thing that I’ve seen all diets have in common, however, is the espousal of eating healthy, eating a healthy diet, and living healthy.

Unfortunately, you can’t eat healthy. But don’t panic; it’s not all bad news. You can eat healthful food, and you can engage in healthful eating and even live a healthful lifestyle.

Healthy means free of disease. You can eat healthy vegetables (free of disease)—and, considering the alternative, who wouldn’t want to—but, generally, when you see or hear slogans calling for healthy eating, what they should really be saying is healthful eating.

Healthful means that something contributes to health, as in eat healthful food (food that is conducive to health), eat a healthful diet (a diet that is conducive to health), and live a healthful lifestyle (a lifestyle that is conducive to health).

A person can be healthy, and as I’ve already said, food can be healthy IF you’re describing food that is free of disease; otherwise, if you’re talking about something that encourages health or contributes to health, the word is healthful.

Some people (and some dictionaries) use both interchangeably, citing their uses as synonymous by some 16th Century writers; however, I’ve found inconsistencies both between dictionaries and within dictionaries.

Note: Being a writer doesn’t mean that you know everything about grammar. I know that we like to assume that every writer and editor knows everything about grammar and language, but we don’t. My own approach is to use the logic that extends from established grammar rules, and using healthful and healthy synonymously doesn’t make sense, both based on my own logic and the inconsistencies that I’ve seen in dictionaries. The media as a whole likes to use them interchangeably, but you might, by now, know how I feel about the media’s negative influence on grammar.

Of course, you have to decide for yourself. My advice: Don’t mix healthful and healthy; it could be a recipe for disaster.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Values Voters

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 19, 2008

Certain parts of the media–and by that I mean nearly every part of the media–have started to refer to the part of the electorate who supports candidates based mainly on Christian religious beliefs (in this case, those who support Governor Huckabee) as values voters. That, of course, implies that this group of people votes based on what they believe to be morally correct while the rest of the population does not, or at the very least, it implies that the values of this group are superior to the values of other voting groups.

That line of thought is prejudiced, and the fact that the media so readily repeats the myth is an example of how a repetition of misleading language can become accepted as fact if it is repeated often enough. Because the values voters line has been used often enough, many of us simply accept that they’re talking about those who believe certain conservative Christian beliefs, such as being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Those are not the values that many in this country consider to be moral, but as long as one group is labeled as the values voters, it might be more difficult for other groups to make valid arguments in favor of their own values, which are equally protected under the constitution.

Language and communication skills, as I talk about in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, are much more important than knowing grammar rules–although that’s important as well, especially to the staff at languageandgrammar.com! It’s understanding how words can be used to create a desired effect, and the person (or group) who devised the term values voters certainly understands that manipulative strategy.

 We all need to.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Impact Does Not Mean to Affect

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 18, 2008

A sports reporter talking about how Randy Moss’ latest legal trouble will affect the Patriots said that people are asking, How is this going to impact the team? Then, he said, Yes, it will impact the team.

This grammar error is becoming more popular than pointed ears at a Star Trek convention.  I know that this is going to come as a surprise to many people, especially those in the media (since they’re the ones who seem to love to use it the most), but impact is not a verb that is synonymous with the verbs affect or influence.

Although impact can be used as a verb, it means to strike forcefully or to fix firmly as if by packing or wedging. So, The meteor impacted Earth means that the meteor struck Earth forcefully. It does not mean that the meteor influenced or affected Earth.

I’m not sure why people have started to use this so much, but it seems that the people who use it think that it sounds more important and more dramatic than, for example, in this case, How is this going to affect the team. In reality, all it sounds is ridiculous. If you mean affect or influence, then how about using the words affect or influence?  

Power in speech comes from choosing the appropriate words, which already exist in our vocabulary, not from changing the meanings of words.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Career Opportunites

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 16, 2008

For decades, when a business was looking for employees, a Help Wanted sign would be hung in the window. Now, the help wanted sign is as rare as finding a pearl in a plate of oysters at a restaurant; now, the signs usually say something very similar to Career Opportunities Available or Join an Exciting Team–Apply Within.

The change in language was made for an obvious reason–it’s an attempt to switch the power from the employee to the employer. Instead of an employer having a need (a sign of weakness), they’re doing the potential employees a favor by offering them these wonderful career opportunities (a sign of strength). It’s ironic that most of these jobs are minimum wage jobs–with favors like that, who needs enemies.

Even in the few instances when a store or business posts a sign similar to the old help wanted sign, such as Now Hiring, it is now typically followed with something similar to A Great Place to Work.

Perhaps it’s merely a reflection of a change in times. Before there was as much efficiency through technology and as much outsourcing, jobs were more numerous, so maybe it’s only reasonable for employers to make it seem as if offering people a job is doing them a favor.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Update on Issues and Problems

Posted by languageandgrammar on January 16, 2008

Here’s a short update on the pervasive—and incorrect—use of the word issue to mean problem. Mistakes are everywhere (and we all make them).  

Ann Curry to guests, Today Show, January 15, 2008: It would be good if you could stop this obesity issue in your family now.

AOL headline story, January 14, 2008: A story about Hilary Duff’s microphone not working at her concert said that she had “mic issues.” (Headline story? Guess there was nothing else going on in the world.)

Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of The View, January 15, 2008: If you tell me the truth, then there’s no issue.

In all 3 instances, the word issue could have—and should have—been replaced by the word problem. As it stands now, Ann Curry told her guests that it would be good for them to stop the obesity topic at home, Hilary Duff’s microphone wouldn’t work because it had topics, and as long as Whoopi Goldberg’s friends tell her the truth, there won’t be any topics in their relationships.

Ok. Enough said.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged: , , | Comments Off

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers