Red Sox/Yankees on TV?

Posted on July 28, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Imagine my surprise when I turned on the television on Sunday night and found that the national baseball game on ESPN was the New York Yankees versus the Boston Red Sox. Why, that hadn’t been the national game since way back on Saturday, and before that, it hadn’t been since Friday.

The obsession with the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry has become so extreme that I have a suggestion for Major League Baseball:  Baseball should re-align its two leagues. In its current arrangement, we have the National League and American League. In the new alignment, it would be the YankeeSox League and the Every Other Team League.

The Every Other Team League would closely replicate the current system, with the teams playing one another, and a couple of teams would make the playoffs. That would not be too exciting without the Yankees or Red Sox involved, but every new idea has its flaw. The excitement would be made up for in the other league, the YankeeSox League.

In that league, the Yankees and Red Sox would play 162 games against each other—and every single one of them would be broadcast on national television and national radio. On their rare days off, highlights of previous games could be shown. After the 162-game season was complete, the first place team would make the playoffs as the division winner. Now, if there were to be a tie, then the Yankees and Red Sox would play a best-of-three series to determine which one of them was the first place team. Imagine how exciting that would be—as many as three more games between the Yankees and Red Sox! The team that finished second in the YankeeSox League would be the wild card team, also making the playoffs.

This would set the stage for the Important World Series, which is not to be confused with the World Series. The World Series would be between those teams in the Every Other Team League. Boooring! The Important World Series champion would be determined by a best-of-19 series between the division champs and wild card team of the YankeeSox League. I’m sure that Fox and ESPN can’t wait for that. I know I can’t.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, off topic, sports | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Stealth Advertising

Posted on July 24, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Have you heard the concept of stealth advertising? It’s proof that we’ve officially gone insane.

I heard the term recently when discussing with co-workers the possible validity of the viral video showing people popping popcorn with cell phones. I’m sure that most of you have heard about the video by now, but for those who haven’t, the video shows several groups of people who put three or four cell phones on a table, surrounding unpopped kernels of popcorn. They then call all of the phones, and within seconds of the phones ringing in unison, the kernels of popcorn all pop to the unbridled amazement of those gathered around the phones.

While we had briefly considered buying popcorn to try it (although I wanted to try to pop the corn on my MacBook Pro instead since I knew that would work!), we realized that it was most likely a hoax. A quick search on the Web proved that to be the case–the video was fake. (See YouTube for the fake video and the video talking about it being a hoax).

The video was prepared as a form of stealth advertising, meaning that the purpose of creating the fake video about popping popcorn with cell phones was to sell a product in a way that wasn’t obvious. The idea of selling products in an indirect way has been around for a very long time, but the concept of stealth advertising seems to take that idea a step further in order to try to sell a product with absolutely no indication that it’s an ad. It’s not indirect selling; it’s stealthy, or secretive, selling. That makes as much sense as trying to sell Coca-Cola by showing someone drinking a Pepsi.

Regardless of the lack of logic of this type of advertising, I’m confident that the term stealth advertising will become very popular.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, off topic | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Stealth Advertising

Fun with Pronouns: you and me, you and I, him and me…

Posted on July 22, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Nominative pronouns are pronouns that can be used as subjects of clauses or sentences. The nominatives are I, he, she, we, they, who, whoever. Objective pronouns are pronouns that can be used as objects. The objectives are me, him, her, us, them, whom, whomever. You, used either in the singular or plural, can be either nominative or objective.

Knowing the nominatives and objectives can come in pretty handy in determining which pronouns are correct in any given sentence.

  • Him/he and I/me went to the races. In this sentence, the verb is went, but we need a subject, so we know that we need nominative pronouns.  The sentence, therefore, should read He and I went to the races.

The second way of finding the correct pronouns is by separating each one into its own sentence. Him/he went to the races. I/me went to the races. We would never say Him went to the races or Me went to the races. It’s clear that the correct pronouns are he and I.

A third way is to combine both pronouns into one. Is it Us went to the races or We went to the races? Of course, it’s We went to the races, and since we is a nominative, we know that we need he and I, also nominative pronouns, when we convert the sentence back to singular pronouns.

  • He gave the tickets to he/him and I/me. First, if you dissect the sentence, you see that gave is the verb, and he is the subject of that verb. To is the preposition, so the only thing we don’t have is an object of that preposition. Now, we know that objective pronouns are used as objects of prepositions, so it should be clear that the sentence is He gave the tickets to him and me because him and me are both objective pronouns.

If we separate the pronouns, we get He gave the tickets to he/him and He gave the tickets to I/me. It’s clear that it would be He gave the tickets to him and He gave the tickets to me. So, of course, it should be He gave the tickets to him and me.

Using our third method, we would combine the two pronouns into one. Would it be He gave the tickets to us or He gave the tickets to we? Of course, it’s He gave the tickets to us, and since us is objective, when we convert the sentence back to singular pronouns, we must also use objective pronouns. Thus, again, we have the correct sentence He gave the tickets to him and me.

  • A popular phrase that often gets the wrong pronoun is Just between you and I/me…. , as in Just between you and I/me, I thought the dinner was overcooked. Many people automatically say Just between you and I…., but let’s test that.

In this case, because it is just an introductory phrase (not a sentence with a subject and verb), we can go straight to our third method: Would it be Just between us or Just between we? Of course, it would be Just between us, so the sentence should read Just between you and me, I thought….

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fun with Pronouns: you and me, you and I, him and me…

Ripe in One to Two Days

Posted on July 21, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Warning: The following post contains information that might be interpreted as “the old days were better than today.”

Summer fruit, such as nectarines, peaches, and plums, used to be my favorite types of fruit–flavorful and moist; however, the fruit that I now typically find in the grocery store is as hard as a rock–and just as juicy. I call most of the fruit in the grocery stores “spalding brand” since it would be better served with a baseball bat or 7-iron than with lunch.

I don’t know if it’s genetic engineering of the fruit designed to give it a longer shelf life, or if it’s the fact that the fruit has to be picked before it’s ripe since it’s sent across the country or from the southern part of the globe, but fruit never used to be like this. You used to be able to go to the store and buy soft, edible fruit.

Some of the stores have now started to put signs in front of the spalding fruit that say something such as This fruit will be ripe in one or two days. I’m no fruit expert, but that sounds suspicious to me. Fruit ripens on the tree; it doesn’t ripen in a grocery store or on your window sill. It might get softer–if you’re lucky, soft enough to be able to eat without paying for your dentist’s heated swimming pool–but I don’t think it gets more ripe. The ripe in a couple of days line is an attempt to make it sound as if rock-hard fruit is to be expected.

If you’re reading this and think I’m a curmudgeon; don’t blame me. You saw the warning at the beginning of the post.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, language, off topic | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Comprised of Errors

Posted on July 18, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I don’t know when or how it started, but comprise and composed of have somehow become intertwined, resulting in the use of comprised of. Well, unfortunately, comprised of is a faulty construction.

Comprise means include, as in Haydn’s Piano Sonata No. 6 comprises (includes) four movements. If you say Haydn’s Piano Sonata No. 6 is comprised of four movements, then you’re saying Haydn’s Piano Sonata includes of four movements. Now, that just can’t be music to anyone’s ear!

You could also say Haydn’s Piano Sonata No. 6 is composed of four movements. That means Haydn’s Piano Sonata No. 6 is made up of four movements.

Let harmony be restored.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Comprised of Errors

Meeting Double-Talk

Posted on July 17, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The business world is the breeding ground for trendy words and phrases, so it’s not surprising that a recent business meeting I attended was full of such words and phrases. Since my co-workers already look at me suspiciously (Not the Only One Who Hates Verbing), I want to make sure to note that this meeting didn’t include any of them!

Some of these words or phrases have already been discussed, either in my book or in the blog, but there were so many terms mentioned by the representatives of this company that I thought it was worthy of a post. A problem space was mentioned, which was the first time that I had heard the word problem mentioned in a meeting (other than when I say it) in the last five years; of course, that was tempered by the fact that I have no idea what a problem space is. I guess they could have been talking about a parking problem, but I doubt it since it was a meeting by telephone.

Concerns and issues were mentioned, but expecting to not hear those in a meeting would be like not expecting to hear thunder after lightning strikes a tree in your own yard. A couple of other noteworthy terms included verticals, horizontals (no diagonals, though!), compromises the user experience (I have never met a user who likes to be compromised), and valuable revenue opportunity.

That last one is the one that sold me because I think that means we’d make money on the deal!!

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, language | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Meeting Double-Talk

Who/Whom Needs It!

Posted on July 15, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Who/whom usage is one of the most common grammar errors in the English language. Some people, and even some grammarians, believe that whom should be cast out of the language forever. Perhaps they’re right, but for now, for those of you who are interested in learning a little more about their usage, here’s something that I hope will help.

Who is used as the subject of a verb; whom is an object. I know that doesn’t sound like much help, but stay with it; there’s more. Pronouns that can be used as subjects are called nominative pronouns, and they are pronouns such as I, he, she, we, they, and who. Pronouns that can be used as objects are called objective pronouns, and they are pronouns such as me, him, her, us, them, and whom. So, when faced with a who/whom problem, try substituting he and him, and that will tell you whether who or whom is correct.

The best way to learn the difference is to look at some sentences. When the sentence is interrogative, it’s easier to find the answer by re-writing it in declarative form.

  • The best candidate is the one who/whom is honest. In substituting for the who/whom, you would say He is honest, not him is honest, so it’s The best candidate is the one who is honest. You can also see here that in the who/whom clause, the verb is is, and it needs a subject, so who would be correct.

 

  • Who/whom are you voting for? For this one, you have to not only use substitution, but you also have to re-write the sentence to make it declarative, which yields You are voting for him/he. Obviously, the correct pronoun is him, so the sentence should be Whom are you voting for? (Or For whom are you voting?) You can also see that him/he is the object of the preposition for, so you need the objective pronoun, which is whom (unlike in the first example above, in which you needed a subject for the verb is.)

 

  • Who/whom shall I say is calling? First, re-write to I shall say who/whom is calling. Then substitute: I shall say he/him is calling. The obvious answer is he, so the sentence should read Who shall I say is calling? (For this sentence, many people do believe that it should be Whom shall I say is calling, but it isn’t. As you can see, in the who/whom clause, is is the verb, and it needs a subject, so we indeed need the nominative pronoun who.)

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Who/Whom Needs It!

It’s Doable

Posted on July 14, 2008 by languageandgrammar

What’s doable for me is writing a blog about how annoyed I get at hearing everyone say it’s doable. Just so I’m being clear, I’m not saying that this is not a word; however, just because something is a word doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily the best way to express yourself.

I have included many similar examples in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, and for doable, it’s a combination of factors that makes it a less-than-stellar language choice. Not only is it horribly overused, and overuse tends to make even snappy phrases boring, but it’s also informal and inexpressive.

While I think that there is always a better choice than it’s doable, I think it’s especially important at work since studies have shown that employees with good communication skills (effective, direct, and professional) have more success (higher wages, more promotions). If you’re asked to do a project, then simply responding with Yes, I can do that will be direct, effective, and more professional than It’s doable.

Do something good for yourself–stop saying doable!

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Doable

Disinterested or Uninterested: Very Interesting

Posted on July 11, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Disinterested and uninterested are not synonyms; they are two different words with two different meanings.

To be disinterested is to be impartial, unbiased, and neutral, sort of like the referees are supposed to be in football. (Don’t even get me started about SuperBowl 40.) Being uninterested in something means that you have no interest in it and don’t care to partake in it, for example, The referees in Superbowl 40 were uninterested in performing their roles as disinterested parties.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Disinterested or Uninterested: Very Interesting

Nuclear Power=Green Energy?

Posted on July 10, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I recently heard on television that nuclear power is the ultimate green energy source, and I wasn’t sure whether the person speaking didn’t realize the inanity of her statement or she just has a different definition of green energy than most of us do.

Green energy is a relatively new term, and as with all new terms, the definition is not always as clear as the definition of an established term might be. Generally, though, green energy seems to be energy that is produced in a way that does little or no damage to the environment. 

That’s certainly what I think of when I hear nuclear power–safe for the environment. Yes, it’s completely safe for the environment—except for the possibility of a failure at the power plant that could kill tens of thousands of people and pollute food and water sources for decades to follow. I’m sure that it’s also very safe for the environment when we bury radioactive waste deep under the ground in areas such as the Nevada deserts. To be fair, the contamination risk for the waste under the ground will only last for a couple of thousand years–what are the odds that there will be an earthquake in that short of a time period? It’s not as if the western part of the country has any fault lines.

Seriously, nuclear power is the ultimate green energy source? I don’t know what would be worse– whether the person actually believes that nuclear energy is “green” or whether she thinks that we’re dumb enough to believe it.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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