Archive for October, 2008
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 30, 2008
Tolerate means to allow or to permit, and a person has no more right to allow or to permit another person (or group of people) to be different from himself or herself than I have to permit or to allow you to do what you’re doing right now.
I know that tolerance of others is considered a good thing, especially in political circles; however, tolerance is different–much different–from acceptance. If you decide to tolerate a person because of that person’s gender, sexuality, race, religious beliefs, or anything else, then you are doing so with the assumption that you have the right to establish some sort of random standard on what is acceptable—that the person somehow falls short of what he or she should be but that you are generously making allowances. You don’t, and you shouldn’t claim that right–unless you want others to make a claim on accepting–or not accepting–you based on your gender, sexuality, race, religious beliefs, or anything else and on their standards of what you should be.
Tolerance implies superiority.
Accept people for who they are–don’t tolerate anyone.
–Paul and Sherry
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in grammar, language, politics, writing | Tagged: acceptance, English, grammar, language, politics, tolerance, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 28, 2008
A reader asked whether we could shed some light on the correct use of the word fun; this is one of my pet peeves, so I’m only too happy to oblige.
I hear of people who had fun birthdays, movies that were funner than other movies, and vacations that were the funnest in the world. I even saw a category titled Funnest Party Boy on an ESPN list. Many of us are not amused—including my spell checker, which rejects both funner and funnest. On this, the software writers and I obviously agree. But back to the point…..
Fun is a noun, not an adjective. It is not in the same category as words such as blue, tall, attractive, ugly, unhappy, interesting, or complicated. Adjectives have comparative and superlative forms; nouns do not. For example, I have a large desk. (The adjective large tells what kind of desk. That’s what adjectives do—they answer the question what kind of.) I have a larger desk than you (comparative form). I have the largest desk in the office (superlative form).
Fun is not an adjective. It does not answer the question what kind of; that is, it does not modify a noun. It is the noun!
Many people now use the noun fun incorrectly as an adjective, but that doesn’t make it right. Perhaps some modern dictionaries have now acquiesced to the people who somehow have learned to use fun incorrectly as an adjective and list it as one. I don’t know, but that wouldn’t change the facts.
So, reader, that’s why saying fun painting is wrong. Your sister, as well as many other people, is using it as an adjective, but it’s a noun. The painting could be beautiful, intriguing, interesting, colorful, or intricate—all adjectives. What it cannot be is fun.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: adjective, English, fun, funner, funnest, grammar error, language, noun, writing | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 27, 2008
The terms patriotic and unpatriotic have been tossed around in recent years more than a drunken rookie bull rider, with its most common usage being a repeated assertion by the McCain campaign (on many fronts–by himself, Governor Palin, campaign workers, and unofficial representatives) that certain parts of the country are more patriotic than others. That’s why I thought it would be a good idea to look what the word patriotic means.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary (and with the word American in it, it ought to know what the word means!), patriotic means feeling, expressing, or inspired by love of one’s country. That sounds clear enough, but do we ever stop to think about what a statement like that might really mean?
It’s easy enough to see that swelling with pride when hearing the national anthem or saying the Pledge of Allegiance would fall into that category, as would feeling pride that we have enacted policies that assist our older Americans (such as Social Security, Medicare) or that we have a right to express our opinions as freely as we would like. We love our country at these times, and we are patriotic.
Americans can very well be patriotic (feeling, expressing, or inspired by love of one’s country) while disagreeing with invasions conducted by the country or yelling from the rooftops about perceived injustices in the tax code, health care, or a lack of government regulation. If the act of disagreement is done out of love of the country, then it’s patriotic–and, in many instances, the love requires those acts. What would our country be like if we just blindly accepted everything that is done in the name of patriotism?
Feeling pride at nationalistic displays can be true patriotism or it can be a mindless act that is done with no emotion and, therefore, no patriotism. Those acts, in and of themselves, do not make someone patriotic. Similarly, acts of defiance and protest can be acts of hatred or they can be acts of the truest patriotism, those that require action instead of mere acceptance.
Either the McCain campaign doesn’t understand the definition of patriotism or he is using patriotism as a way to further divide us in at attempt to be elected at all costs.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in language, politics, writing | Tagged: election 2008, English, language, McCain, Palin, patriotic, patriotism, politics, Presidential election, unpatriotic | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 24, 2008
Once upon a time (isn’t that how they start stories that happened so long ago that no one could ever prove that they actually did happen?), when I was in school, the words transitive and intransitive verbs scared me when I’d first heard them; I thought that they were going to be too difficult to understand. When my teacher explained them, however, I came to view them as just fancy words made up by someone with a bad sense of humor who wanted to scare little children.
Verbs are either transitive or intransitive. That essentially means that they either need a direct object or they don’t. With a transitive verb, the action (verb) is being done to something else or someone else—a direct object. With an intransitive verb, the action is a state of being, not of doing to something or someone else—so there’s no direct object.
- He feels the inside wall to find the light switch. Feel is transitive; it is being done to the wall.
- He feels sick. Feel is intransitive; it isn’t being done to anything but, rather, it is a state of being.
- They took their client to lunch. Took is transitive; they’re doing the taking to a client.
- She grew tired. Grew is intransitive; it is her state of being, not of doing something to someone or something else.
- She grew three cacti last summer. Grew is transitive; it is being done to the cacti.
Knowing whether a verb is transitive or intransitive can be helpful in deciding what form of a pronoun to use in the same sentence. For example, is it She gave the opera tickets to Bill and me or She gave the opera tickets to Bill and I? Transitive verbs take the objective cases, and intransitive verbs take the nominative cases. So, if we know that gave is a transitive verb, then we know that it should be She gave the opera tickets to Bill and me.
Here’s a tip: If you’re having some trouble, you can determine whether a verb is transitive or intransitive by re-writing the sentence in the passive voice and adding a by phrase because only transitive verbs can be written in the passive voice with a by phrase.
- Three cacti were grown by her last summer.
- The client was taken to lunch by them.
- The inside wall was felt by him.
You can’t do that with the intransitive sentences (he felt sick doesn’t make sense as sick was felt by him, and she grew tired doesn’t make sense as tired was grown by her).
For more common grammar errors, refer to Sherry’s Grammar List.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: English, grammar, intransitive verbs, language, passive voice, transitive verbs, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 23, 2008
Storm chasing is one of the rare instances where science and cool seem to meet, which is evidenced by the preponderance of television shows that highlight storm chasers. In fact, there is at least one reality show based on storm chasing (The Discovery Channel’s Storm Chasers). As a language expert and a meteorologist, though, I’d like to point out that the name should be more like Storm Approachers than Storm Chasers.
Chase means to pursue to overtake or seize, such as the police chasing a suspected criminal or a sprinter in second place chasing the race leader. The intention, to be clear, is to capture or to overtake the object in question. That’s not what I’ve seen from storm chasers, who are “chasing” tornadoes.
They want to get close to the storm–close enough to film it, close enough to feel the rush of adrenaline associated with nearly being killed. They certainly don’t want to catch up with the storm, though, and the proof is in the video that’s shown on television. When the chasers actually catch up with a tornado, they scream more than children in the Haunted Funhouse. They drive 100-mph in reverse. They hide in ditches and whimper. Believe me, they don’t want to catch up to a tornado, and I don’t blame them. The closest I come to storm chasing as it’s defined is looking out the window on the first floor as I head to the basement. My only point is that it should be called something else–perhaps storm approaching or storm getting dangerously close or even nearly completing a storm chase.
I guess that’s why I don’t have a job as a writer of reality television show titles.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in humor, language, weather, writing | Tagged: humor, language, meteorology, storm chasing, TLC's Storm Chasers, tornadoes, writing | 3 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 21, 2008
In Shakespeare’s time, double negatives such as can’t hardly were common, but in current standard usage (and by current, I don’t mean that I just made it up this week!), double negatives are substandard grammar.
Hardly means scarcely or barely, as in almost never or almost not capable of, so to say I can hardly understand grammar rules means that for the most part, I don’t understand grammar rules. To say I can’t hardly understand grammar rules means, then, the opposite, which would be for the most part, I don’t not understand grammar rules or I cannot almost never understand grammar rules, which is not what you mean to say—and it even sounds wrong, doesn’t it?
When you use hardly, the negative is already included in that word, so you don’t need to add another negative—in this case, the can’t—in order to make it a negative. Doing so cancels the negative.
The bottom line is that when using hardly, use can hardly, not can’t hardly.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: can hardly, can't hardly, English, grammar, grammar error, language, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 20, 2008
Vetting is just like the Olympics–there’s a lot of talk about it every four years whether we want to hear it or we don’t.
Vetting means to subject to a thorough examination or evaluation, and the only vetting that ever seems to happen is of a potential vice presidential candidate by a presidential candidate. That’s usually not just vetting, either; it’s a vetting process. Politics is very uncertain in this country, with misleading statements, candidates misspeaking or misremembering, and negative advertising; thank goodness no one ever LIES–a word that you’ll never hear. It’s good to know that with all of the uncertainty, the presidential nominees go through a detailed vetting process before selecting a vice presidential candidate.
This detailed, extensive, and thorough vetting process ensures that no one who is ever selected for vice president isn’t qualified to be president. For instance, no presidential candidate would ever select a candidate who is facing a scandal in his or her home state, does not have experience with international leaders, or cannot speak about the issues in detail.
Well, the election is almost here–and the word vetting will be put on the shelf for another four years.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in language, politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, election 2008, Joe Biden, John McCain, language, pollitics, Sarah Palin, vetting, vetting process, vice presidential nomination | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 17, 2008
I’d never really considered that proceed could ever be used incorrectly to mean precede—until I saw it on a job application—for a university—a major university that prides itself on being highly discriminating in its admission of students because it bases such admission on the highest scholastic standards. Oh no they didn’t……………Oh, yes, they did.
The application required the applicant to give his employment history for the proceeding seven years. I, of course, did a double-take. Proceeding seven years? I pondered.
Proceeding means what will come after the present; preceding means what has come before the present. What the application should have asked for was the employment history for the preceding seven years—and it did—after my trusty red pen and I got finished with it.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: English, grammar, grammar errors, language, precede, proceed, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 16, 2008
Senator John McCain accurately made the point in the final presidential debate last night that you need to look closely at the words people use. He did it in reference to a point about Senator Barack Obama, but I’ll do it in reference to McCain.
McCain stated that he was proud of his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin. Being proud of Sarah Palin is much different from being proud to have Sarah Palin as my running mate. Being proud of Sarah Palin is a sign of superiority, such as a parent is proud of a child who does well in school. The child did well, and the parent, who is in large part still responsible for child’s action, feels that the child’s success is a reflection of the parent. And that’s largely true for children. It’s appropriate be proud of a child’s accomplishment to some degree. Sarah Palin, of course, is not in the same situation as a child; she is as qualifed to be President of the United States as John McCain is; otherwise, she would not have been selected to be his Vice Presidential nominee. She is not in need of his approval; she is his peer.
In contrast, being proud to share the ticket with someone places the other person on the same level, not a level below. The ticket, of which we are both a part, is something we, together, can take pride in. While the presidential candidate has a higher place on the ticket, it is still a team.
There is a huge difference in being proud of someone and taking pride in a shared accomplishment, and if the McCain campaign wishes Palin to be treated with respect, perhaps it should start with McCain talking about her as if she were his equal.
–Paul
Posted in language, politics | Tagged: 2008 presidential election, Biden, condescension toward Palin, language, McCain, McCain condescension, Obama, Palin, proud of, third presidential debate | 2 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on October 14, 2008
A reader sent me something from a newspaper and said that it sounded incorrect but that she couldn’t quite explain why. The sentence in the newspaper was If the house would have been newer, it would have been demolished. I tip my hat to the reader for immediately recognizing a grammar error when she saw one.
This is a case of an incorrectly constructed conditional sentence. In these types of hypothetical sentences, we need the conditional perfect in one part of the sentence and the past perfect in the other. The conditional perfect is used to indicate that something would have happened if something else had been true.
In If the house would have been newer, it would have been demolished, the speaker is using the conditional perfect (would have been and would have been) in both parts of the sentence, but, as I said, it should only be in one part of the sentence if you want to be grammatically correct.
When constructing a conditional perfect sentence, use the past perfect for the if clause and the conditional perfect for the main clause. In our example sentence, then, we would have to change it to If the house had been (past perfect) newer, it would have been (conditional perfect) demolished.
For those who want more information, here it is—–but don’t say that I didn’t warn you.
To form the past perfect in the if clause, you need had and the past participle of the main verb. For example, If he had known… Here, you have had and the past participle of the verb to know, which is known.
To form the conditional perfect in the main clause, you need would and the perfect infinitive of the main verb. (The perfect infinitive is just have and the past participle of the verb.) For example, He would have stayed. Here, you have would and the perfect infinitive, which is have stayed.
If we put them together, we get He would have stayed if he had known or If he had known, he would have stayed.
It’s the same for our newspaper example: If the house had been (past participle in the if clause) newer, it would have been demolished (conditional perfect, which is composed of would and the perfect infinitive have been).
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: conditional perfect, English, grammar errors, language, past perfect with conditional, writing | Comments Off
