Archive for January, 2009
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 30, 2009
There’s a song whose lyrics include Must I always be waiting on you and I can’t always be waiting on you. It’s a love song, of course. (What song isn’t a love song?)
The song seems to be about a man who’s had just about enough of sitting around and waiting for a woman to come to her senses. (Doesn’t that sort of thing usually happen the other way around? Aren’t women always honest about their feelings?) Well, good for him; who wants to sit around and wait forever on the chance that someone else will straighten up and fly right? Right?
But back to my grammar point: When I hear must I always be waiting on you, I can’t help picturing him wearing a bowtie and holding a tray of canapés and caviar. Waiting on should be reserved for what a server does for people in a bar, dining establishment, or cocktail party; he or she waits on them.
If you’re sitting around and doing nothing until some man finally tells you that he’s always been in love with you, however, then you’re waiting FOR him—and you should have better things to do, as well as more self-respect than that.
Don’t use wait on (serving someone) for wait for (putting your life on hold until someone else decides what you should be doing). We wait for colleagues to show up at the morning meeting, we wait for news about the latest political scandal——-and we wait for the people we love to come to their senses.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: English, grammar error, language, Must I always be waiting on you, Waiting for you, Waiting on you, writing | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 29, 2009
Most cliches have enough truth to them that, while the use of the phrase is monotonous and ineffective, there is at least some logic behind using it. That’s apparently not the case with the ever-popular like a bull in a china shop.
Based on a recent episode of The Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters program, bulls are apparently discerning and respectful shoppers when it comes to china. In an episode when they tested whether red was a color that infuriated bulls (it’s not), they also set up a mock china shop to see how the bulls would react, fully expecting that grandma’s china would soon look like the windows of a home that had had the misfortune of being located along the 18th fairway during the Beer and Vodka Semi-pro Golf Tournament.
The staff set up rows of shelves loaded with plates inside of a bull pen, and the bull walked up and down the aisle as if he were shopping for the perfect wedding gift. Even when a second bull was added to the pen, the china was left largely unscathed as the bulls dodged deftly down the aisle and between the rows of china.
To me, what was busted was another cliche.
–Paul
Posted in language, off topic, writing | Tagged: bull in a china shop, cliches, Discovery Channel, English, language, mybusters, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 26, 2009
Winter is nearly as important to baseball as summer, when the games are played, because the foundation for the team is set during the winter off-season. With that in mind, it appears as if the Pittsburgh Pirates, the team that I’ve followed for about 40 years, are setting the stage for an outstanding year.
Oh, I know that the Pirates have been in a slump lately–their last winning season was 16 years ago–but I think that’s all about to change. While some teams continue to waste time acquiring new and better players (winter transactions), the Pirates have taken a more enlightened approach.
The New York Yankees have signed the two best pitchers available (CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett) and the best offensive player (Mark Teixeira), but it’s the Pirates who have stolen the headlines recently: They’ve added sleeves to their uniforms (Pirates Add Sleeves to their Uniforms).
My initial reaction to the headline was “What? The Pirate uniforms didn’t have sleeves last year?” I’ll admit that I didn’t watch many games (who would? They lost 97 of them), but I don’t recall seeing them in tank tops or sleeveless shirts.
Then, I thought about the big picture (which is hanging over a very large sofa in the Guggenheim, I believe). There’s an adage in fashion that a person should dress for the job that he or she wants. The theory is that dressing for the life you want will help you to prepare for that life, making it more likely to actually happen.
That’s what the Pirates are doing. While the Yankees waste their time signing players that will help them win baseball games, the Pirates are preparing themselves to be a good team by focusing on looking good. And what is a better way to do that than by wearing sleeves?
Better times are ahead.
–Paul
Posted in humor, sports | Tagged: AJ Burnett, baseball, CC Sabathia, humor, Mark Teixeira, New York Yankees, off topic, Pittsburgh Pirates, sports | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 23, 2009
I’ve already written about general pronoun choice, but the we/us dilemma is worth tackling separately. We is a nominative pronoun, which means that it is used as a subject, and us is an objective pronoun, which means that it is used as an object—–but I doubt that clears up the confusion that occurs when we or us is next to a noun that describes it.
We/Us humans are composed of 60 chemical elements.
The noun humans describes the we/us pronoun. This kind of construction often poses a problem, but the solution is generally simple: Just drop the noun that describes the pronoun, and the correct pronoun choice becomes obvious.
In our example sentence, we would drop humans, which would give us We/Us are composed of 60 chemical elements. The correct choice is, of course, we, so when we put humans back into the sentence, it reads We humans are composed of 60 chemical elements.
There’s nobody here but we/us cowards.
Just drop the noun cowards, which describes the we/us pronoun, and the correct pronoun choice becomes apparent. Is it There’s nobody here but we or There’s nobody here but us? Obviously, the correct one is us, so when we put the noun cowards back in, the full sentence becomes There’s nobody here but us cowards.
More examples:
We/Us students get too much homework. (We)
The company takes advantage of we/us employees. (us)
Note: You’ll notice that in each of these cases, we is, indeed, the subject of a verb and us, indeed, is an object.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: English, grammar error, language, nominative pronoun, objective pronoun, pronouns, we or us, We the people, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 22, 2009
I don’t know the origin of the phrase It’s not what it’s cracked up to be, and I’m not particularly interested in finding out. The phrase is overused and doesn’t make sense to most people who use it.
It’s not what it’s cracked up to be is often used as a way of explaining that something isn’t as good as was advertised or expected. That terminology must have made sense at some point in our history, but few people saying it now know that history. They’re just spitting out a long-outdated phrase that has no literal meaning in our current language.
I know that there is a segment of our audience who doesn’t care about whether a phrase makes literal sense (or about following traditional grammar rules, for that matter). There is a larger segment, however, who is interested in questioning the meaning of what they say in an attempt to choose more articulate, effective language (and learning traditional grammar rules).
All I know is that this phrase isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, whatever that means.
–Paul
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: colloquialisms, grammar, idioms, It's not what it's cracked up to be, language, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 20, 2009
Try to avoid the can’t help but construction. While it has been around for a while, most grammarians agree that it’s not the most logical construction. It’s considered to be a confused mix of the expressions can but and can’t help. It’s better to use the always correct can’t help —ing construction.
For example, instead of I can’t help but think he wasn’t telling the truth, say I can’t help thinking he wasn’t telling the truth.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: can't help but think, can't help thinking, English, grammar error, language, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 19, 2009
Man up is a relatively new term that’s all the rage. All I can say is: Oy.
I know that it’s intended to be funny. I know that men-are-different-than-women humor has been popular since Eve picked the apple from the tree and gave it to Adam to eat. Such humor has been responsible for careers in stand-up comedy and fodder for countless sit-com scripts. I know. I get it. I know that the man up phrase is the bread-and-butter of the popular morning sports talks show, Mike and Mike on ESPN radio. Every day is a rerun—different topic but the same tired jokes.
I know that the phrase is not used as an attempt to add yet another sexist, pointless term to a language that already has too many such words—that’s just a bonus.
Perhaps I’m the only person in the country who feels this way (based on how often the term man up is being used, I wouldn’t be surprised), but I tire as much of the phrase as I do of the countless times each morning that Mike and Mike refer to the manliness of Mike Golic and the lack of manliness of Mike Greene. Enough already.
By the way, the term lawyer up is not any better, and any other such up words that are waiting to be upped aren’t going to be any better either.
–Paul
Posted in grammar, language, sports | 3 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 16, 2009
As a verb, to complement is to complete or supplement. The wine complemented the meal.
As a noun, complement is something that completes something else. The addition of the B6 vitamin to my morning routine now gives me a full complement of B vitamins.
As a verb, to compliment is to praise. Don’t compliment me unless you mean it.
As a noun, compliment means praise. The compliment you gave me was insincere.
Sherry
Posted in language | Tagged: compliment or complement, English, grammar error, language, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 15, 2009
The number of times that I’ve seen these words confused is more than I can count—and that’s actually the point of the amount/number topic. Number refers to things that can be counted as individuals. Amount refers to a mass quantity, that is, things that cannot be counted as separate items. It’s similar to the fewer/less differentiation.
You can have a number of problems, a number of boyfriends, a number of business deals, a number of classes, a number of hobbies, a number of debts that you owe, and a number of 50-dollar bills. These are all things that can be counted individually: 3 boyfriends, 6 business deals, 4 classes, 8 debts, twelve 50-dollar bills, and a whole lot of problems.
On the other hand, you can have an amount of angst, an amount of debt, an amount of confusion, an amount of money, and an amount of compassion. These cannot be separated into individual items. For example, while you can have 3 debts to repay, each one a separate debt, debt (without the –s) cannot be separated; it is a mass concept.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: English, grammar error, language, number or amount, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on January 13, 2009
While the blast of bitterly cold Canadian air will be the major weather story across the country for the next several days, I thought that it was a good time to correct a common pronunciation (and possibly spelling) error.
The first “c” in the word arctic is not silent. The word is pronounced ahrk-tik, not ahrt-tik. I know that countless meteorologists and reporters will say it incorrectly, and this common mistake will undoubtedly lead to more widespread acceptance and perhaps even a secondary spelling (artic). Do your part and add the extra c; remember that c stands for cold!
As an aside, we at languageandgrammar.com do not believe that mistakes should be accepted just because they’re made often. If people add 2+2 and get 5, then we correct the mistake. We wouldn’t change it so that 2+2 equals both 4 and 5 just because the mistake is made frequently.
Capitalization of the term can be confusing as well. When it’s used as an adjective to describe cold, such as It was arctic cold last week, use a lower case a. When it’s being used to refer to the Arctic region, such as Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, which is in the Arctic, the a is capitalized. Also, when describing the type of air mass as one from the Arctic region, such as The Arctic air mass resulted in high temperature of below 0 in Chicago, it is also capitalized.
–Paul
Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever
Sherry’s Grammar List
Posted in grammar, language, weather, writing | Tagged: Arctic, Artic, English, language, meteorology, spelling errors, writing | 2 Comments »
