Does This Happen Everyday or Every Day?

Everyday is an adjective; it describes a noun and answers the question what kind of, as in the old song I Am Everyday People (what kind of people are you?), so it normally comes right before the noun. Temper tantrums are everyday occurrences (occurrence is a noun) with toddlers. Worship is an everyday event (event is a noun) at our home. These are my everyday shoes means these are the shoes that I wear for no special occasions; they’re my general footwear. Everyday can mean commonplace, and it can also mean daily, but it when it means daily, it is in the adjectival sense.

Every day is an adverb, answering the question when, as in the other (relatively) old song Every Day I Write the Book. It means every single day, so if you can insert single between every and day, then you should use them as two separate words. My toddler has a temper tantrum every day (when?). We worship at our home every day (when?). I wear these shoes every day except for special occasions. Every day means daily in the adverbial sense.

What’s important to remember is that whether you use it as one word or two depends on its position in the sentence. Are you asking what kind of (a daily occurrence) or are you asking when (it occurs daily)?

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Does This Happen Everyday or Every Day?

Exact Opposite

An oxymoron is a word or phrase that is contradictory. My favorite is jumbo shrimp–although I’m not sure that this is actually contradictory. You have your small shrimp. You have your medium shrimp. You have your large shrimp. Finally, you have your jumbo shrimp. I guess it’s contradictory because how jumbo could a shrimp be? Anyway, I’m not here to talk about shrimp.

In Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, I wrote about the redundancy of exact same or exactly the same. (I don’t know why I didn’t write about jumbo shrimp–maybe volume 2.) Exact opposite is the counter to exact same, except rather than a redundancy, it’s an oxymoron.

Exact means the same and opposite means different, so they shouldn’t be paired–unless you like sounding like a moron–well, at least an oxymoron.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Manage the Game

I’ve been a professional sports fan for a very long time, but it’s only been during the last couple of years that quarterbacks have started to manage the game. I’m not sure why this trend of talking about a quarterback in terms of game management, rather than performance, started, but it’s hard to sit (or stand if you prefer) through a football game without hearing the term several times.

The He manages the game well commentary seems to be reserved for an inexperienced quarterback who doesn’t have great statistics but the team manages to win anyway. I guess the expectation of the pass-heavy league is that all quarterbacks are expected to throw often and for a significant number of yards; when one doesn’t but still somehow leads his team to victory, they can’t say that He played well or even that He played well enough to win within the limited offensive game plan. The best they can spit out is that He managed the game well. The goal of the game is to win, and the quarterback is arguably the most important player, so if the team wins, give the guy some credit–especially if he’s an inexperienced player. I’ve heard the manage-the-game-well comment about J.T. O’Sullivan and Joe Flacco.

The only time that I hear the term mentioned for a premier quarterback, such as Peyton Manning or Donovan McNabb, is with the negative. He’s not managing the game well is said about these players during a poor performance. Hey, even the greats have an off-day, so just say so. Manning is not playing well; the world won’t come to an end.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, sports, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Biden-Palin Vice-Presidential Debate

It turned out that the conservative (i.e., mainstream) media had a point when they said that they feared a tone of condescension might be set at the Vice-Presidential debate. Where they were wrong was in their insistence that it would be Joe Biden who was condescending toward Sarah Palin. Instead, it was the other way around.

Palin’s failed attempt at condescension and her insincerity toward Biden were laughable, if not sickening. Her ridiculous winks at the camera, her insistence on calling herself Joe six-pack, and her misdirected attempts at catching Biden in lies that he hadn’t told were all that she had in her very small arsenal of attack. Her dog-gone it Joe, there you go again and her simpering, condescending smiles as she said First you were for it, and then you were against it did not, however, mask her terror at being presented, politically naked, to the American people, who could judge for themselves that she could not actually answer a question with specific ideas and plans.

In answer after answer, Palin sounded as if she were a new-hire telemarketer reading from the sales pitch script to her telephone target for the first time. And she rambled and rambled and rambled but never actually said anything——at least anything of substance. Her replies were full of generalities, she kept just repeating the same few words—corruption on Wall Street, do what’s right for the American people—and she just kept re-stating the questions and problems instead of answering them. At one point, she even admitted that she wasn’t going to answer the questions the way that it was expected of her. To me, that sounded like just another preemptive attack so that when she had no real answers, she could cry foul if confronted for it. And how annoying was it that she kept calling McCain and herself mavericks? I have found, in life, that the people who run around telling anyone who’ll listen how talented they are really aren’t all that talented, the ones who tell anyone who’ll listen how smart they are really aren’t all that smart, and people who run around telling anyone who’ll listen that they’re non-conformists are usually the first ones to line up to do what everyone else is doing. And so it is for people who run around telling anyone who’ll listen that they’re “mavericks.” It’s just a word—and kind of a silly one at that.

How anyone could think that she actually won the debate is truly beyond me. Senator Biden ripped her to shreds—and calmly, with one hand tied behind his back, I might add—-providing specific answer after specific answer, dispelling media myths about him and correcting lies—yes, that’s right, I said it; I’m using the “L” word that no one wants to use—-she and McCain have been telling some LIES—-about his and Senator Obama’s records and plans. Yet, even after he had corrected her, she seemed to be unable to adjust her answers to counter his truths, and she just repeated the same lie the next time.

Example: Again and again, she accused Obama of planning to raise taxes on the middle class. (By the way, this is a time-honored tactic of right-wingers: lie and say that Democrats raise taxes on the middle class. Actually, over the last several decades, it has been the Republicans who have raised taxes on the middle class and lowered them for the rich. As noted Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels points out in his book Unequal Democracy, “Under Democratic presidents, poor families did slightly better than richer families [at least in proportional terms], producing a modest net decrease in income inequality; under Republican presidents, rich families did vastly better than poorer families, producing a considerable net increase in income inequality.”  He also says that as far as taxes, Republican presidents, especially since Reagan, have pushed for tax cuts that have disproportionately helped the wealthiest Americans. And lest any of you start crying left-wing, fringe Democrat!, left-wing, fringe Democrat!–-which I just KNOW some of you are already doing—the last time that Bartels voted, he voted for Ronald Reagan.)

Even after Biden laid out Obama’s plan with specifics, explaining that anyone earning under $250,000 would not get a tax increase, that 94% of small business owners have personal earnings of under $250,000, etc., she stuck to the script, blindly perpetuating the lie, as if she hadn’t even heard Biden’s responses.

And so it went for the entire debate. I will say this much for Palin: Karl Rove and his minions did, indeed, do an excellent job of helping her prepare for this event. As has been shown over the past couple of weeks, she obviously knew nothing about most of the issues, didn’t know anything about the Supreme Court, couldn’t name even one newspaper that she regularly reads, didn’t have any foreign policy experience (oh, except, of course, for when Vladimir Putin rears his head in the air space over Alaska——which, we now know, doesn’t even happen, as if that should be considered foreign policy experience anyway), and couldn’t name a single issue that John McCain had fought for regarding middle-class Americans until this week. So I give her credit for not imploding on the stage, which many people thought she would. I knew that she would be able to make it through. Rove et al. have been pulling off bigger magic tricks than this for over 8 years.

Sherry

Posted in language, off topic, politics | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Being Condescending Toward Palin

We know that this is a blog about language and grammar, not politics, but we can stand it no longer. This nonsense about how difficult it will be for Senator Biden not to appear condescending to Governor Palin in this week’s vice presidential debate has to stop.

Nearly every single “news” programs on cable television (news is in quotes because these are not news but, at best, a combination of news and opinion) has extensively discussed the topic. How can Biden debate her and not sound condescending? How will he be perceived if he attacks her positions? It just goes on and on and on, day after day after day, as if guests and hosts were asked to lock their common sense in the dressing room before heading to the set.

The only reason that people are concerned about whether Biden will be viewed as being condescending to Palin is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about Palin’s qualifications to be vice president. That’s why people are concerned that Biden will look like a big, tough man bullying a poor, defenseless woman.

There has NEVER been any such discussion about Biden, Senator Barack Obama, or Senator John Edwards being condescending to Senator Hillary Clinton, nor should there have been. Did you ever hear a talking head saying before a debate, “How does Barack Obama talk to Clinton and not come off as condescending?” Clinton was running for president, just as they were. They were as respectful, or as disrespectful, to Clinton as they were to the other candidates; if anything, they were tougher on her because she was a serious candidate. She was their peer, not a little girl trying to do a man’s job.

The whole thing about Biden having to be careful to not be condescending toward Palin is because people, especially those on the political right, are concerned that Palin will look childish in comparison to Biden— not because she’s a woman, not because she’s younger, and not because she’s less experienced but because she may not be able to answer questions in an intelligent manner. So just to be sure, they’re making a preemptive strike so that if she doesn’t do well, they can distract attention from her lack of qualifications or preparation and shift the focus to Biden’s “condescension” toward her. Setting the stage in this way is, itself, what is condescending to Governor Palin. They, themselves, are implying by the very idea that Biden will be condescending that Palin will not be able to handle the debate. And, by the way, why is Senator Biden suddenly being characterized as condescending? Has this been a theme in his 30-plus years in Congress because this is all news to us. This seems to be something that the right-wing started as a preemptive strike, and it has shifted to a larger part of the media.

Remember, the woman is running for vice president, with a running mate who is in his 70s. There is a legitimate chance that she will be the president if she’s elected vice president. And we know very little about her. She has done, what, two interviews? And nothing she said in either has done anything to prove that she’s ready to be president–but they did raise very serious doubts about her knowledge on a whole host of important topics.

The only respectful thing to do–and something that is of vital importance to the country–is to treat her like any other vice presidential candidate. Maybe everyone, including her own Republican party, should give her a chance to either fail or succeed on her own.

Sherry and Paul

Posted in language, off topic, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Up to More than the Limit

Many a late-night infomercial and women’s magazine hawk products that promise we can lose up to 50 pounds or more, save up to 100 dollars or more, and cut housework by up to 2 hours or more. I don’t buy it.

When you say up to, you’re putting a limit on it, saying that that’s as high as it will go. To say up to…… or more is bad grammar. You could say lose 50 pounds or more or save 100 dollars or more, but once you put up to on it, you’re saying that 50 pounds is as much as you can lose, and you can’t lose any more, and 100 dollars is as much as you can save, and you can’t save any more. That’s what up to means—it’s the farthest you can go, the most you can do, the highest you can climb. As I said before, it’s the limit—and you can’t have more than the limit.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Up to More than the Limit

One of Your Problems Is…

While we, especially Sherry, focus on common grammar errors, my book (Literally, the Best Language Book Ever) discusses words or phrases that should be avoided for other reasons. That brings me to any sentence that begins with the phrase One of your problems is…. Don’t ever say that unless you’re a psychiatrist, and a patient asks you for a diagnosis.

Seriously, no one likes to have his flaws brought to his attention, and besides, who are you to decide what problems another person has? Focus on your own problems, not someone else’s.

If a co-worker or member of your family is saying something that you believe is illogical, then tell the person why you think the statement is illogical, such as I think you need to consider how much money this is going to cost. Avoid, however, making general statements about the person’s approach, such as One of your problems is that you never think about how much things will cost. That’s not going to help with the specific situation, it’s probably not always accurate, and it’s going to sound condescending.

What amuses me most is when this statement is turned into a question, as in Do you know what one of your problems is? When people ask me, I say No, and I don’t want you to tell me.

–Paul

Posted in language, writing | Tagged , , | Comments Off on One of Your Problems Is…

Presidential Debate–Contrast in Style

The first presidential debate just ended, and we at languageandgrammar.com want to join the ranks of millions of bloggers who are currently penning posts about who won the debate.

It’s our opinion that the difference between the two candidates is as stark as it’s been between any two candidates in the history of the United States. We’re not endorsing either candidate–that’s not the purpose of the blog (and technically, we already did with an earlier post), but it’s clear that the difference between the candidates extends to their debating style.

Senator Obama clearly used a cerebral style of debating while Senator McCain employed a much more aggressive, almost physical style. Obama’s cerebral style matched his personality–he’s always been one to think about issues, calmly make decisions, and explain them thoroughly and completely. McCain’s more aggressive debating style also matched with his personality–reactionary and rash with a more simplified approach to issues.

The most striking difference between these two styles, according to the crack staff at languageandgrammar.com, was the manner in which McCain was often dismissive of and condescending toward Obama–an aggressive tactic indeed. McCain insisted on a couple of occasions that Obama “didn’t understand” this or that and half-heartedly laughed at Obama’s comments while making his own.

The differences are clear. What type of president do Americans want?

Posted in language, off topic, politics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

See, Saw, Seen: See the Difference?

I seen (or he seen, she seen, you seen, they seen, or we seen) is substandard grammar. Do not use seen as the past tense of the verb to see. The past tense is saw, as in the old movie The Last Time I Saw Paris or the old song I Saw the Light. (The conjugation is I saw, you saw, he/she/it saw, we saw, you saw, they saw.)

Seen is the past participle of to see; it should be used with the auxiliary verb to have, as in My eyes have seen the glory… or He has seen the light. See?

Sherry

Continue reading

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on See, Saw, Seen: See the Difference?

Pardon the Interruption

A recent Internet headline read Bear Interupts Live TV Broadcast. I had planned to read the article, but I got interrupted—and sidetracked—by that headline. If it had been possible, I would have interrupted the site editor before he or she posted the headline in order to correct the mistake, but of course, that wasn’t possible. The only thing that suffered interruption was my day—-since I spent too much time wondering how and why that obvious error was posted. Did the editor think that it was the correct spelling, or did he or she get interrupted while proofreading the article and then just forget about it?

I suppose that I should let it go since this happened several days ago, but once in a while, I still interrupt whatever I’m doing and reflect on yet another minor shortcoming of the information superhighway.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments