Archive for February, 2008
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 29, 2008
Here’s a look at your snows on your Saturday. We’re looking at wind-driven snows. Weather Channel, January 16, 2008. Although I saved these quotes for over a month before using them, I didn’t need to since this grammar error is a staple on the Weather Channel. It’s not just the Weather Channel personalities, however, who love to use rains and snows as the plurals of rain and snow; I hear this almost daily from both local and national weather personalities.
The plural of rain is rain, and the plural of snow is snow. Rain is water vapor that has condensed and is falling from the atmosphere (see, being married to a meteorologist has its great advantages!)—it is many, many, many droplets of this water vapor. You don’t need to say rains to describe the many, many, many droplets of water vapor.
Maybe the weather personalities are trying to describe rain that is falling in a variety of areas; however, whether it’s one area or more than one area, it’s still just rain, not rains. Rain is falling in New York. Rain is falling in New York, Minneapolis, and Seattle.
Maybe the weather personalities are trying to describe rain or snow that will be arriving in one particular area over an extended period of time, as in The rains are coming to Los Angeles. Instead, this should be, for example, The rainy season is beginning, bringing rain over the next few weeks or Several rain-bearing storm systems will move through Los Angeles in the next two weeks or There will be several storms over the next week, bringing rain.
The same is true for snow. Whether it’s snow in one area or snow all over the country, it’s still called snow, not snows. Snow will fall in New York. Snow will fall in New York, Aspen, and the Sierra.
Sherry
Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Posted in grammar, weather | Tagged: grammar, plural of rain and snow, rains as plural, snows as plural, weather channel, weather grammar, writing | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 28, 2008
I’ve already written about the redundancy of the reason is because, but I’ve noticed that many people are also curious about whether the reason why is correct grammar. Both the reason is because and the reason why have something very basic in common: they’re entries for the category of the redundancy category.
The reason is already the why, and the why already means the reason. When you ask why, you’re asking for the reason, and when you ask for the reason, you’re asking for the why. You can slice it any way you want, but it still comes out looking like a redundancy. Saying the reason I wanted to do this was to… is sufficient. There’s no need to say the reason why I wanted to do this was to….
Don’t even get me started on the whole the reason why is because thing. That’s a triple redundancy that would need a category of the redundancy category of the redundancy.
Sherry
Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Posted in grammar | Tagged: grammar, grammar error, incorrect grammar, reason why, reason why is because, writing | 3 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 27, 2008
When I talk about the need to communicate well, I’m not just talking about the need to use proper grammar rules at all times. It’s more about the need to express thoughts in a way that gives the listener an accurate picture of your thoughts. In other words, I’m talking about the need to be articulate.
None of us is as articulate as we’d like to be at all times, but phrases similar to It was like a nightmare or something or It was unbelievable or I had never seen anything like that before come spilling out of our collective mouth with frightening regularity.
The Onion, in a fake radio report (Search Continues for Articulate Witness of Tragedy), mocks the inarticulate nature of our communication. We at Languageandgrammar.com enjoyed the report, and we hope you do as well.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in humor, language, writing | Tagged: grammar, Inarticulate speech, language, The Onion, writing | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 26, 2008
I was horrified to see that an online dictionary is now even mentioning the word drug as a non-standard past tense conjugation of the word drag instead of what it is, which is substandard. I haven’t checked to see whether the latest print dictionaries have followed suit, but if they haven’t yet, I’m sure that they will. This is an excellent illustration of the dictionary being a wonderful reflection of current word usage but not necessarily a wonderful reflection of correct word usage.
Drag is what is called a regular verb. A regular verb follows a specific pattern of conjugation when making the past tense: you simply add ed to the root word. In some cases, of course, you have to double the consonant before adding the ed; in other cases, you only have to add d because the verb already furnishes you with the final e; and in still other cases, you have to change the y to i before adding the ed, but these are all part of the “regular verbs add ed to make the past tense” rule.
Again, drag is a regular verb; therefore, the past tense is dragged, and no amount of incorrectly using drug as the past tense is going to change that. When I was growing up, drug was considered to be substandard grammar–and no matter how many dictionary review boards want to encourage its use by upgrading it to non-standard in modern dictionaries because some people don’t practice good grammar, that’s what it will always be, which means that you should NEVER use it—not under any circumstances and not even in casual conversation—ever.
Sherry
Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Posted in grammar | Tagged: dictionaries, dragged vs drug, grammar, grammar error, past tense of drag, writing | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 25, 2008
Everyone had a good laugh at Roger Clemens when he recently said (at the congressional hearing about steroid use) that Andy Pettitte had misremembered since we all know that misremembered is obviously not a word. While I agree with those who believe that it is not a word, it’s an interesting case about the grey area of language and communication.
Nearly every word that has been used with any regularity appears in some dictionary somewhere because dictionaries are a typically a reflection of current usage, not of proper grammar. In other words, commonly used non-words usually appear in dictionaries and are then accepted into language as words by much of the population because they’re in the dictionary. The problem is that not everyone agrees that common usage is reason enough to declare a former non-word to be a legitimate word, and debate about the legitimacy might go on for generations.
That’s how the word drug has started to be accepted as the past tense of the word drag by some of us. (The correct past tense is dragged–look for a post from Sherry on this word soon.)
It’s the same with the word misremembered. It does appear in the occasional dictionary, but does that make it an acceptable word? Misremembered appears in these dictionaries not because of common usage, however; it appears there because of the belief that the prefix mis- can be added to nearly any root word to make a new word. Personally, I don’t believe that to be the case with misremembered; the result is an awkward, ineffective non-word that should be avoided.
That is my opinion, and if anyone wants to make the argument that it’s an acceptable word because it shows up in the odd dictionary, then he should misremember things to his heart’s content.
Just don’t misremember this: Good communication skills are more important than whether you can make an argument for using an awkward word. It’s about how to effectively express yourself, which ain’t gonna be happening with bad word picking.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in grammar, language, sports, writing | Tagged: Andy Petitte, grammar, language, misremembered, prefix, Roger Clemens, sports | 10 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 23, 2008
I have one piece of advice to all would-be apologists out there: If you’re not sorry, then don’t apologize!
I am tired of hearing the standard non-apology of I’m sorry if I offended anyone. Apologies are not conditional upon whether the listener was offended. The only condition should be that the person who made the mistake wants to express his or her regret in a sincere way.
This, I believe, is the first entry that is also included in the book, but I felt the need to talk about it when I heard Bill O’Reilly’s supposed apology for an offensive comment related to Michelle Obama (MediaMatters.org report on Bill O’Reilly). It was a classic non-apology–I’m sorry if my statement offended anyone.
In other words, Bill O’Reilly was not sorry for what he said–the offensive comment. He was sorry if anyone was offended, so I’m left to assume that Bill, himself, didn’t find the comment to be offensive; otherwise, Bill would have said something similar to I used poor judgment, and I’m sorry for the offensive comment.
Then why is he pretending to apologize–and using language to try to fool people into believing it?
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in language, politics, writing | Tagged: apologies, Bill O'Reilly, language, Michelle Obama, politics | 2 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 22, 2008
February 20, 2008, an AOL article headline says that You’ll Notice Less Lines Around Eyes With This: 10 best anti-aging products
Lines are countable things, and with countable things, use fewer, not less. With things that are not countable, such as emotions and things that are measured in bulk or total amount, use less. This headline should’ve read You’ll Notice Fewer Lines Around Eyes With This.
We have fewer stressful situations but less stress. (Stressful situations are countable, but stress is an emotion, so it is not countable.) We have fewer dollar bills, but we have less than five dollars. (Dollar bills are countable, but five dollars is a total amount, so it is not countable.) We have fewer minutes to wait for the train than for the bus, but we have less than 15 minutes to wait for each. (Minutes are countable things, but 15 minutes is a single total amount, so it is not countable.) We have fewer reasons to have lines around our eyes, but we’re applying less reason to our focus on such superficial matters. (Reasons are countable things, but reason is not.)
Sherry
Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Posted in grammar | Tagged: fewer or less, fewer vs less, grammar, grammar error, writing | Leave a Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 21, 2008
We all know that it’s important to avoid major grammar errors if we want to present ourselves in the best possible light, but it’s often subtle grammar errors that ultimately make the difference. Even when those subtle errors go unnoticed, they make the same difference that one off-key violin note might make to an orchestra. The average listener can’t pinpoint what’s wrong, but he knows that the performance wasn’t quite at its optimal level.
The incorrect usage of that instead of who when referring to a person is one of those subtle mistakes. John is the person that went to the store is incorrect, while John is the person who went to the store is correct. It makes complete sense to use who with a person and that with an obviously inanimate object, but sometimes, there are legitimate reasons for the confusion.
The media often uses that with a person, such as The person that robbed the bank also robbed the store because the media wants to dehumanize the report–they want it to be dry and factual, not human. While commonly used in that way, it’s wrong. A person, even a criminal, is animate.
There is also confusion about which to use when referring to animals–do they warrant a who or a that? That’s often a matter of personal opinion and usage. It’s hard to imagine that many of us would consider an ant to be a who; however, most of us probably consider good ol’ Rover to be a who. I’ve heard it recommended that named animals should be paired with who, and unnamed animals should be paired with that. In other words, both Whiskers is the cat who we all love and This is the cat that we all love would be correct.
Regardless of the instances of understandable confusion, there should be no confusion when dealing with people–while the point may seem debatable at times, we’re all worthy of being referred to as who rather than that.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in grammar, language | Tagged: grammar, grammar error, language, using who or that, who vs. that, writing | 2 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 20, 2008
Women are committing financial suicide to themselves, Oprah, 2/13/08. Suicide is already something that people do to themselves, not to other people, so adding the reflexive pronoun themselves is redundant. It means that women are killing themselves financially to themselves. Now, that’s verbal suicide if ever I’ve heard it.
The reflexive pronouns are myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, and themselves. (Notice that there is no themself, ourself, theirselves, or hisself in that list, so please don’t ever say those non-words again.) When you use one of the reflexive pronouns, do not use a -self word in the same sentence; and when you use a -self word, do not use a reflexive pronoun in the same sentence. Let’s look at some examples of what I’m talking about.
· He has no self-respect. (Self-word with no reflexive pronoun, so it’s correct)
· He has no respect for himself. (Reflexive pronoun with no self-word, so it’s correct)
· He has no self-respect for himself. (Self-word and reflexive pronoun) This is incorrect because self-respect is already respect for oneself, so adding the himself makes the sentence He has no respect for himself for himself, which, obviously, is one himself too many.
You cannot have self-control over yourself, be self-absorbed with yourself, or be self-deprecating to yourself. The problem is redundant, not to mention self-evident.
Sherry
Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Posted in grammar | Tagged: grammar error, reflexive pronouns, self grammar, self-control yourself, writing | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on February 19, 2008
Some of the most common grammar errors are those of redundancy. In fact, there are so many such errors that I devoted an entire chapter (Play It Again, Sam) to them in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever.
Examples in the book include: and also, absolutely essential, completely surrounded, and PIN Number. A redundancy that’s common but didn’t make it into the book is referring to National Public Radio (NPR) as NPR Radio.
It should be obvious that the R in NPR stands for radio; therefore, saying NPR Radio is the same as saying National Public Radio Radio. We don’t refer to ABC (American Broadcasting Company) as the ABC Company or LBLBE (Literally, the Best Language Book Ever) as LBLBE Book–although, if you ask me, that’s catchy–so neither should we say NPR Radio.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: National Public Radio, NPR, NPR Radio, redundancy, writing | Comments Off
