Archive for June, 2008
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 30, 2008
Redundancy is common in our language, and we use many of the redundant phrases without even realizing it. Blazing inferno, terrible tragedy, and heavy downpours are three examples that I included in my book; these are said so often that we don’t even realize the redundany. Wait, I already said that–who’s being redundant now? Anyway, stuck in one place is another such redundant phrase.
Stuck has several definitions, but in this case, it means brought to a standstill, such as The car was stuck in the snow drift. If you’re at standstill, you’re in one place; therefore, stuck in one place is a redundant phrase–unless you have some metaphysical ability to be in more than one place at a time.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever;
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: grammar, language, stuck in one place, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 27, 2008
I’m a writer, not a computer repairman–and I have proof.
Here at the languageandgrammar.com headquarters, we recently needed to buy a new laptop. It’s not that the old laptop quit working, but the hinges that held the screen in an upright position broke, so it either needed to be propped up against a wall (negating the advantages of being a laptop, I might note), or we needed to write on the computer with the screen lying parallel to the keyboard.
Since there are advantages to having two computers, I decided to try to fix the older computer. I purchased a couple of L braces and some Super Glue, and since I’m writing a blog about it, I’m sure that you can imagine that the repairs did not go smoothly. I’ll avoid all of the details–I’ll just say that super glue is not easy to remove from your fingers, and you should always check to make sure that the power cord hole isn’t in the same location as the metal that you’re about to glue to the computer.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever;
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in humor, off topic | Tagged: computer repairs, humor, off topic, super glue | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 26, 2008
This English grammar error has followed the same path as another error that I talked about just a couple of weeks ago. Wanna isn’t a word; it’s a verbal laziness, same as the non-word gonna. It started as only a spoken error, but now, it has made the all-too-familiar leap to written one, at least on the Internet. Do you want to go to the movies becomes Do you wanna go to the movies. I don’t want to talk about it becomes I don’t wanna talk about it.
For many of us, articulating want to has become much more troublesome than just allowing wanna to roll off our tongues. While some might say that that’s fine, at least in casual conversation, I say what’s wrong with articulating our words no matter where we are or to whom we’re speaking? Why not strive to be the best that we can be in all situations? Besides, let’s be honest: How much trouble is it really?
Sherry
Posted in grammar | Tagged: English, grammar, wanna, want to, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 24, 2008
I know what’s going on. I know that co-workers are starting to speak to me less often for fear that what they say will end up in the blog. I’ve noticed the family members giving me evil looks because they think that page 117 of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever was inspired by their poor language skills. I’m kidding, of course, but I do enjoy it when I find that other people get as annoyed as the staff at languageandgrammar.com does when a perfectly innocent noun is turned into a perfectly awful and awkward verb.
Dave, a reader, recently referred me to a Calvin and Hobbes comic that pokes fun at that very topic. I also recently saw a promo for a situation comedy. I have no idea what show it was, but I know that it was the standard American situation comedy because there was an attractive woman married to an unattractive, sloppy man with his gluteus maximus planted on the couch. Anyway, the dialogue for this show was refreshing to me. The young, attractive woman said All I want to do is club and spa. The man responded with You like all of your verbs to be things. I’m going to sofa for a while.
I’m just saying–we’re not the only ones.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever;
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: calvin and hobbes, grammar, language, verbs being used as nouns, writing | 2 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 23, 2008
This is another one of those problems of mistaking an apostrophe for a possessive. It doesn’t sound likely, I know, but it really is an easy mistake to make. It happens with its/it’s, and it happens with whose/who’s. (I’ve even seen it with hers/her’s, and her’s isn’t even a word!)
Whose, the word without the apostrophe, is the true possessive pronoun; think of Robert Frost’s poem Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening: Whose woods these are I think I know (the woods that belong to someone).
Or for a more modern-day illustration: Whose button popped off in the dryer?
Who’s is a contraction for who is or who has. Let he who’s (who is) without sin cast the first stone. Is he the one who’s without sin? Are you the one who’s missing a button?
If you can substitute who is, then use who’s; otherwise, use whose.
Sherry
Posted in grammar | Tagged: grammar, who's, whose, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 19, 2008
A friend who has read Literally, the Best Language Book Ever sent me a link to a recent Good Morning America segment in which the hosts talked about a recent MSN-Zogby data poll about annoying co-workers. It turns out that the use of ”jargon” is the third-most annoying trait a co-worker can have.
Some of the words and phrases talked about on the show were: think outside the box, efforting, we’ll talk offline, and get all of our ducks in a row. There was also Dianne Sawyer’s pet peeve of hearing “good morning,” and since that happens at 4 a.m., who can blame her? I don’t like hearing it at 8:30.
Yahoo has the video; it’s called “Annoying Coworkers”–although co-workers is the correct spelling since there are no cows in co-worker!
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever;
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in language | Tagged: Good Morning America, Jargon, language, language pet peeves, MSN-Zogby Data Poll | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 18, 2008
Today’s post is about the conjugation of the verb to run. (Someone asked for help with this, specifically the past participle, and I’m happy to oblige.)
The present tense of run is run. The association members run a sloppy office.
The past tense is ran. I ran out of patience.
The past participle is run. I have run into resistance every time I’ve tried to solve the problem. She has run from her responsibilities.
Regarding the problem that arises when forming the past participle, some people mistakenly use the past tense ran instead of the correct past participle run, as in I have ran into resistance every time I’ve tried to resolve this problem or She has ran from her responsibilities. (I’ve also heard some people make the same mistake when forming a sentence in the past perfect tense, as in I had ran them down before they left the office, which should be I had run them down…) Do yourself a favor: Run as far from these constructions as possible—and don’t look back.
Sherry
Posted in grammar | Tagged: conjuation of run, English, grammar error, language, run or ran, wriiting | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 16, 2008
You might recall that in the wet days of spring, we stopped the languageandgrammar.com presses just long enough to save nine ducklings from certain demise (Jeff Corwin, Move Over) alongside a busy road. Spring is technically not over yet, and we recently jumped into action once again, trying to save a tiny toad from a similar fate.
As languageandgrammar.com was enjoying an evening walk as a much-deserved break from blogging, we noticed what appeared to be a large cricket jumping across the sidewalk. In a manner similar to how we analyze the effectiveness of grammar, further inspection revealed that it was not a cricket but, rather, a toad the size of a nickel. He was quickly headed toward the street–where we didn’t think that he would fare well against 2,000-pound cars and 6,000-pound buses.
Now experienced wildlife rescuers, we jumped into action with the polish and precision of an Olympic Synchronized Swimming Team. Sherry placed her massive foot (massive in comparison to a tiny toad, not massive for a grammar expert!!) in the toad’s path. With his path effectively blocked, I tried to lift the tiny toad and turn him around in the direction of a small lake (o.k., drainage pond). The little amphibian instantly pulled his tiny legs toward his body and crouched himself down on the pavement as if he were going to be able to stubbornly resist this unwanted assistance.
Not wanting to injure the toad, I decided that it was safer to use a leaf to nudge him toward the grass and water. It took a little prodding, but he soon jumped into action and headed in the right direction. After he jumped onto the grass, we noticed that he had quite a few siblings hopping around with him.
We hope that he passed on the warning about the massive foot and rude leaf.
–Paul
Paul’s Language Posts
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in off topic | Tagged: daring rescue, off topic, toads | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 13, 2008
How often do we hear people say things such as This is exactly the same problem as we had the last time or I have the same exact shoes or Why do politicians use the same exact words every time they give speeches? (Well, maybe that last one is repeated ad nauseam only at our house.)
If something is the same, it’s already identical, that is, it’s exact; adding the word exactly or exact is redundant—-so don’t do it. If we have the same problem as last time, then we have a problem that is exactly as the one we had the last time. If we have the same shoes as someone else, then we have shoes that match exactly to that person’s shoes. It’s either the same, or it isn’t; sticking an exactly in front of it doesn’t make it any more so.
It follows, then, that we should be saying This is the same problem (not exactly the same problem) as we had the last time and I have the same shoes (not exact same shoes); and around our house, we should be constantly talking about how politicians use the same words (not exactly the same words) every time they give speeches.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language | Tagged: exactly the same, grammar error, language, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on June 12, 2008
If you thought that I was going to talk about Shakespeare, then prepare to be disappointed. I’m going to talk about the use of like versus the use of as. It’s not nearly as stimulating, but it’s still necessary.
The like/as grammar error in English is so often repeated that I doubt most people even know that it’s a grammar error. Interpretation: I might be fighting a losing battle, but I’ll make my stand anyway.
Choose the correct sentence:
a. SpongeBob loves his spatula like he loves his friends.
b. SpongeBob loves his spatula as he loves his friends.
I hope that you chose (b).
When introducing an independent clause, use as. (An independent clause is a group of words with both a subject and a predicate, and it can stand alone—I’ll talk more about the different types of clauses in another post.) When introducing nouns or noun clauses or phrases, use like.
In the above sentence, he loves his friends is a clause: the subject is he and the predicate (the simple verb with all of its accoutrements) is loves his friends. (The simple verb is just loves.)
SpongeBob feels like a soggy, squishy sponge. Here, we use like because we’re just introducing the noun phrase soggy, squishy sponge.
By the way, SpongeBob really does love his spatula as he loves his friends.
Sherry
Posted in grammar | Tagged: English, grammar, language, like versus as, writing | 1 Comment »
