Everything Language and Grammar

Archive for April, 2008

Rid Yourself of Hisself

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 30, 2008

I’ve already written about the correct use of reflexive pronouns in This Redundancy Is Self-Evident, but several people still wanted confirmation on the use of words such as hisself.

 

The indefinite pronouns are myself, ourselves, yourself, yourselves, herself, himself, themselves, oneself, and itself.

 

Hisself, theirselves, theirself, ourself, and oneselves are not legitimate words; they are, rather, what you would call grammar errors. You can also call them substandard grammar. Actually, you can call them anything you want; just don’t use them in either speech or writing, casual or formal, with friends or at work, in your thesis or in your office memo, when you’re at dinner or at the roller derby, at a hockey game or at the opera….

 

Sherry

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

War on Everything

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 29, 2008

Many of us have heard of the law of attraction, which is the belief that whatever a person experiences is a direct reflection of what he believes. For instance, if he believes that he has to fight for every penny, then he will, indeed, have to work extremely hard to become financially secure. Conversely, if he believes that life is meant to be easy, then a successful endeavor will be attained with little effort.

This is a language blog, not a philosophy blog, but perhaps the two (philosophy and language) should be paired more often. In language terms, the law of attraction is reflected in many of the statements that we make, such as It always rains on my birthday or The Eagles always lose when I watch the game (a reference to the magical results-altering ability that many of us think we have is included in the book, by the way!). Statements such as You’d better be careful what you wish for, You get what you fear, and You get what you focus on do the same thing.

It makes us wonder why, if we truly believe all of these self-fulfilling statements, we would want to frame nearly every problem we have as a “war.” We can’t say that it’s because we don’t think about the semantics of words because we most clearly do; otherwise, all problems wouldn’t be mis-labeled as issues (I know–here he goes again). We know that we’re labeling the war on drugs as a battle. We know that we’re labeling the war on crime as a battle. We know that we’re labeling the war on poverty as a battle. We also know that we’re labeling the potential problems related to global warming as a battle when we refer to it as the war against global warming, which we recently saw in a publication.

Why can’t we focus on a solution rather than focusing on an us-versus-them war-like mentality? Everything is a war. A war means that we’re defending ourselves from attack or that we’re going on attack against an enemy. Is global warming attacking us–or are we attacking the enemy of warming, which we are taking credit for causing? So, does that mean we’re at war with ourselves? And what about the wars on poverty, crime, and drugs, too? Who is this enemy attacking us? Aren’t we the enemy, causing our own problems? Isn’t the problem not a foreign intruder but, rather, the economic, political, and social policies that we, ourselves, enact?

We can focus on solutions without focusing on violence, and we might be happier if we stop labeling everything as a war and following the lead of those in the media and government when they do so.

–Paul and Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Every One and Any One

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 28, 2008

This grammar error only makes itself obvious in the written word, but it does seem to be fairly common.

 

 

Use anyone if you can substitute it with anybody.

  • Did anyone else hear Andrea Mitchell use the slang (read inappropriate) word “diss” this morning during an MSNBC report? (You could say Did anybody else hear…?)
  • Did anyone care? (Did anybody care?)

 

As far as using any one, it means any single one. Try this: If you can substitute any two, then use any one.

  • Did any one of the anchors find it odd to hear a reporter use diss? (You could easily say Did any two of the anchors find it odd?)

 

The same is true for everyone; it can be substituted with everybody.

  • Everyone is here. (Everybody is here.)

 

Every one means every single one.

  • Every one of the guests is here. (Every single one of the guests is here.)

 

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Definite Possibility

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 26, 2008

An oxymoron is the pairing of two or more words to create a meaning that is contradictory or seems to be contradictory. A couple of examples of oxymorons that seem contradictory include objective opinion, speed bump, and jumbo shrimp. (For what is billed as the “largest list of oxymorons collected online,” please visit oxymoronlist.com.) These, however, are logical pairings of words, and since they’re logical, they are reasonable ways to communicate. In fact, I wouldn’t mind a few jumbo shrimp in a scampi sauce now.

Some oxymorons don’t just seem to be contradictory; they are contradictory, which renders them ineffective as communication tools–that would be illogical communication, to coin my own oxymoron. To me, the always-popular definite possibility falls into that category since there is no logical reason to pair the certainty associated with the word definite and the uncertainty associated with the word possibility. How can something be certain and uncertain at the same time? We would never pair the equally contradictory possibly definite in any instance.

I understand that the intention is to express a smaller amount of uncertainty, such as a house shopper might say This house is a definite possibility about a house that nearly meets all of the family’s needs and is worth further consideration. A better way to express it, though, would be to say This house is a distinct possibility since it expresses the intended thought without the obvious contradiction.

–Paul

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

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

O, that this too too grammar error would melt…

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 25, 2008

I’m sure that Shakespeare wouldn’t mind my re-writing one of his most famous and quoted lines—as long as it’s done in the name of good grammar.

 

Most people don’t have problems remembering that two refers to the number 2, just as twins (notice the tw) refers to two (notice the tw) of something. The problem usually comes in trying to determine whether to or too is the preposition.

 

To is the preposition. (We’re going to the opera. They drove to the lawyer’s office.)

 

Too generally means also (You can’t have your cake and eat it, too) or refers to something done in excess of what is normal or desirable (The soprano was too loud).

 

Sherry

 

Sherry’s Grammar List

Paul’s Language Posts

 

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

There, Their, They’re

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 24, 2008

There, there now; they’re really not as confusing as their reputations might have you believe.

 

They’re is the contraction for they are.

  • They’re related to a prominent New England family.
  • They’re not sure which candidate they’re going to hire.

 

Their is a possessive pronoun.

  • Their patience is waning.
  • Their main concern is their lack of funds.

 

There is used for everything else, such as:

  • There are two qualified candidates.
  • Your next appointment is waiting in there.
  • Let’s discuss it and go from there.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List

Paul’s Language Posts

 

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

I Want to Be a Statistic–Sometimes

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 23, 2008

A statistic is a numerical value or fact or an inanimate numerical representation of a piece of information. Examples include 53% of the the vote, $3.59 cents per gallon, a .309 batting average, and 63% of all bananas that my co-worker brings to the office do not meet the limited ripeness standard necessary for him to enjoy eating them.

Being inanimate, of course, means that the numbers, themselves, are neither good nor bad, but we often interpret them to be something that is either positive or negative. The commonly used (euphamism for used with annoying regularity) expression I don’t want to be a statistic typically refers to something tragic, often a death statistic. Not only is that morbid, but it doesn’t make much sense to me.

I’m going to be the bigger language expert and look past the lack of logic of being a statistic (it’s not possible for a person to be a numerical representation of fact) and discuss only the lack of logic of focusing on negative statistics. I can think of a couple of statistics that I would be happy to have represent me–100% forecast accuracy (I’m a meteorologist, remember) and 1,000,000 books sold (and a writer).

There are times that I’d love to be a statistic.

Note: A couple of comments recently mysteriously disppeared from the site. Ok, so it was no mystery. We accidentally deleted them while deleting spam. We vow to be more careful.

–Paul

Paul’s Language Posts

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Song She Brang to Me…

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 22, 2008

In the 1970s, singer Neil Diamond sang a song that included the words Song she sang to me, Song she brang to me, Words that rang in me….

 

Now, I’m not averse to giving an artist a little poetic license, but as for the rest of us, let’s just stick to standard English. Bring is an irregluar verb, that is, a verb that has its own particular conjugations rather than following the same pattern followed by other verbs. That irregular pattern might not seem logical to us, or we might not like the pattern; nevertheless, it’s the correct pattern.

 

Despite how many times I’ve heard brang and brung uttered not only in the Neil Diamond song but also in everyday conversation, there is no brang or brung in the conjugation of bring. The correct pattern is bring, brought, has/have brought.

  • I bring my portfolio to every job interview.
  • She brought the baby home in a white blanket (not She brang the baby home).
  • He has brought enough donuts for the entire department (not He has brung enough donuts).

 

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List

Paul’s Language Posts

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

Whether or Not

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 21, 2008

When I was in high school, I wrote a short, humorous poem about my potential future career; it was titled Weather or Not. Unless you’re reading that poem, which is highly unlikely since it’s never left the back of my closet, you should never say whether or not when using the other whether.

Whether, in this instance, is being used to introduce multiple alternatives, such as I don’t know whether I should stay, go to the store, or go to the bank. There are three alternatives (staying, going to the store, and going to the bank), and whether introduces them.

It has become widely accepted to use whether or not as a shortcut, such as saying I don’t know whether or not I should go instead of I don’t know whether I should go or stay. In the former example, whether is not being used correctly since the alternative has not been introduced, but since it’s implied, you’re certainly not going to hear many people complain about its use in this way, especially in informal situations; in the latter example, whether is used as intended, introducing two well-defined alternatives.

What is clearly incorrect is using whether or not with well-defined alternatives, such as I don’t know whether or not I should go or stay since this example introduces more possibilities than intended. In the example, it introduces four alternatives: going, not going, staying, and not staying, as opposed to the intended two. This example mirrors some of the other entries that Sherry and I have discussed in the blog. Enough people use whether or not with well-defined alternatives for it to have gained acceptance; however, acceptance of something that is not logical is not the best way to communicate.

–Paul

Paul’s Language Posts

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Jeff Corwin, Move Over

Posted by languageandgrammar on April 20, 2008

We at languageandgrammar.com took a brief respite from saving our readers from language pitfalls–just long enough to save nine ducklings in what could only be called a “daring rescue.” Ok, so it wasn’t that daring, but it was a rescue nonetheless.

On a drive back to the languageandgrammar.com headquarters, we were forced to stop on an entrance ramp to a relatively busy suburban road to wait for a mother duck and her 10 fluffy, waddling ducklings to finish crossing the street. We patiently waited for “mom” to hop onto the curb and move into the grass and for all of the ducklings to be safely by the curb before continuing, and as we were driving away and talking about how cute the baby ducks were (and how fortunate they were to have made it across the road), Sherry noticed that while mom and the first duckling had made it onto the curb, the second duckling was having trouble making it over–and none of the others seemed to be trying.

We didn’t want the ducklings to be separated from their mother–or, more important, be the victims of a hit-and-run driver–but there was no place to pull over or turn around. We needed to go back to make sure that they were ok, though, and it took us nearly 10 minutes to drive back to the same spot, only to find that the nine ducklings were still huddled in the street along the curb while the mother and the first duckling were across the field–away from view because of a slight hill.

We jumped into action as quickly as we would have if we had seen a dangling participle, parking illegally along the side of the entrance ramp and jogging to the ducklings that were slowly moving, en masse, on a path parallel to the curb–farther away from the mother, who was visibly looking for the ducklings but not able to see them.

We lifted the ducklings over the curb one at a time, with their little wings flapping and their barely audible chirps of protest, and placed them in the grass, thinking that the mother duck would see them and return to her frightened brood, but it was not to be. The duck and the ducklings were only 50 to 75 feet apart, but with the hill between them, they might as well have been a million miles apart.

While Sherry had some luck shooing the ducklings in the general direction of the mother, it was a slow process, and the mother continued on her path forward, moving at the same speed while looking around for the ducklings from time to time. I tried to shoo the mother back toward the ducklings, but I was afraid that she would become frightened and fly away.

The best idea seemed to be to move the ducklings closer to the mother, so I took off my coat, and we gently placed them inside, where they seemed to be very cozy and happy, and carried them to the top of the little hill. As we placed the coat on the ground and the ducklings started to hop out one by one, one of them chirped loudly enough for the mother to hear. She quacked back, and within a couple of minutes, the family was reunited. The mother seemed to take a head count (perhaps she should have thought of that a little earlier!), and the happy family waddled away.

Jeff Corwin, move over.

–Paul

Paul’s Language Posts

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in off topic | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers