Myself Cannot Be the Subject of a Sentence

Do not use myself as the subject of a sentence. Myself and the other -self words—himself, herself, ourselves, etc.—are  reflexives, and reflexives cannot be used as subjects. Nominatives should be used as subjects. The nominatives are I, we, he, she, and they. You is both nominative and objective, so it can be used as either a subject or an object.

Incorrect example: Myself and the rest of the team will be working on Saturday.

Correct example: The rest of the team and I will be working on Saturday.

The verb is will be working, and the subject (who or what will be working) always needs to be a nominative, so the correct pronoun to use is I.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Myself Cannot Be the Subject of a Sentence

Breaking News: Bank Robber Decides to Not Wait for Police

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Headline in today’s Daily Collegian, which is the excellent student newspaper at Penn State: Bank Robber Flees Scene.

I have to admit that I was not surprised by that–rarely do you find a bank robber who decides to wait around for the police to show up.

Seriously, the Collegian is great–often with better writing and reporting than the local paper–but that headline was too funny to pass up.

Posted in humor, language | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jefferson Mistake in Declaration of Independence

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

None of us is perfect, of course, but it’s interesting to note mistakes of particular notoriety, such as the one Thomas Jefferson apparently made in the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence.

He initially referred to “citizens” as “subjects.”

While that might seem like a heinous error to us today, it’s important to remember that before we gained our independence, that was the common reference.

Perhaps my making reference to this on July 14 and not July 4 might seem like a heinous oversight to some of you as well, but maybe I think all days are fitting to celebrate our independence. Did you ever think of that?

Or I forgot to post it earlier.

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Jefferson Mistake in Declaration of Independence

Classic Example of Over-Inflated Language

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever and Weather Whys: Facts, Myths, and Oddities.

Over-inflated and convoluted language does not make a person sound more intelligent, but it does make a person seem as if:

  • he’s trying too hard to sound smart
  • how he sounds is more important than what he says
  • he’s trying to deliberately confuse the listener (or reader)
  • he has a really big thesaurus and no real hobbies

None of those would fall into the category of effective communication, which is best represented by a direct, simple expression of thoughts.

Don’t Sound Like This Person!

On a recent Jon Stewart episode, Stewart showed a clip (he did not conduct the interview himself) of Beverly Ginn (an Arizona attorney) saying the following in reference to the controversial Arizona immigration law:

“Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer is aware of specific, articulable facts which, when considered with the objective and reasonable inferences, forms the basis for particularized suspicion.”

By the way, reasonable suspicion apparently includes speeding in a car based on an interview later in the show, but would you have known that from this quote?

Why the Big Words?

I’m no psychic, so there’s no way for me to know why Ginn chose to use that particular language; however, I got the distinct impression–perhaps from the fact that she couldn’t seem to say the line with a straight face–that she was clearly trying to add confusion rather than add clarity.

She didn’t want it to be obvious to her audience what would actually determine when a suspected illegal alien could be asked for identification based on the current law, so she spit out a bunch of inflated words that gave no real information.

Don’t be like that.

Speak Plainly

Stewart summed up her quote by saying, “Mexicans are ****ed.”

Now, that was short and direct…and I knew what he meant.

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Classic Example of Over-Inflated Language

Dear America–David Mitchell

For some reason, I feel that I should introduce this video of a funny British man giving a language rant with the line of “And now for something completely different.”

Posted in grammar, humor, language | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Dear America–David Mitchell

Common Grammar Errors

Since we changed the design of the site, I know that some of our other pages are not as obvious as they were in the past, but they’re still there, including:

  • Sherry’s Grammar List, which includes a heavy dose of grammar-related entries. This is (by far and away) our most popular page on the site.
  • Your Pet Peeves, where you can add your pet peeves to the growing list. (Note: This page is not intended to be a discussion forum; rather, it’s intended to be a list of pet peeves.)
  • Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, which gives information about Paul Yeager’s first book. Information on his second book can be found on his weather blog, Cloudy and Cool.
Posted in grammar, language, weather, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Common Grammar Errors

Facilitate Does Not Mean To Lead

By Paul Yeager, author of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

We all have those certain little words or phrases that just drive us crazy (If you need proof, see  our Pet Peeves page), and the word facilitate has become that word for me recently.

It seems as if this word is used a hundred times per day, every day.

Facilitate means to make go more smoothly; it does not mean to lead.

While I would hope that the leader of a meeting would take a role in ensuring that a meeting goes more smoothly, not every leader is a facilitator and not every meeting has a facilitator.

Don’t worry; it will mean leader soon enough by most accounts. Remember, according to many, a misused word (mistake)  becomes an acceptable word when it’s repeated often enough.

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Facilitate Does Not Mean To Lead

Meaning of Words

Our blog friend, Frume Sarah, recently wrote an excellent piece on the meaning of words.

The article focused on the shift of meaning of the word gay from happy to homosexual and how referring to something (such as the way a shirt looks) as being gay is clearly an insult.  She also mentioned a few other terms that are stereotypical insults, such as Indian-giver, retard, gypped, Jewed, and Dutch uncle.

As Sarah so astutely put it, “If the expression you are using refers to a specific people, culture, religion, disability, etc, you can be certain that it is a put-down.”

–Paul

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meaning of Words

Memorial Day: A Solemn, not “Happy,” Holiday

I enjoy a three-day weekend as much as the next person, and I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t enjoy the Memorial Day weekend——–but———Memorial Day is a day to remember those who died serving our country.

In other words, “Happy Memorial Day” is an oxymoron. It would be like wishing someone a happy anniversary of a death in a family.

I know. We’ve talked about this before, but if you can’t repeat yourself on your own blog, where can you?

As a Memorial Day bonus (not to be confused with all of the Memorial Day home-improvement sales–what is the connection between memorializing fallen soldiers and 50% off of paint supplies?), remember that there’s a big difference between the phrases “fighting for our freedom” and “serving our country.”

–Paul

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Memorial Day: A Solemn, not “Happy,” Holiday

Why Not Go for an Even Century…

Apparently, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED as it’s called by some) has had a mistake in it for the last 99 years.

It’s incorrectly stated that a siphon works because of atmospheric pressure, but it turns out that’s just good old fashioned gravity.

To be fair, though, research has indicated that nearly every dictionary has contained the same mistake.

I think the mistake is perfectly understandable. I’m sure that the editors at dictionaries are far more interested in determining what new words to include (I wish they’d spend less time approving some of them…) than analyzing the scientific validity of a word that’s been around for a couple of centuries.

–Paul

Posted in language | Comments Off on Why Not Go for an Even Century…