Monthly Error Report

Posted on July 6, 2008 by languageandgrammar

It’s definately been an exciting month here at languageandgrammar.com, so my monthly post on all of our errors is gonna be a little late. When I wasn’t being handy (at least the stainless steel appliances and pre-owned car didn’t break), we (Sherry and myself) were executing a daring rescue or following the latest breaking news story, such as a Clinton heist.

The simple fact is that I’m not stuck in one place—as I have been efforting to ran down abusers of nouns. I guess that’s the exact same thing that I did last month, but whose counting. Due to the fact that I have more promotion related to the book, I wanna keep working hard–even if I’m not on Good Morning America.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, humor, language, monthly reviews, off topic, writing | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

(Basic) Anatomy of a Sentence

Posted on July 3, 2008 by languageandgrammar

In talking about sentences, you’ll hear people (especially English teachers) use the words subject and predicate sometimes, while using subject and verb other times. You might, at that time, ask yourself What is a predicate, and why is it taking the place of the verb? Well, I’m glad you asked.

A sentence, in its most basic form, has two parts: a subject and a predicate. (Don’t worry, I’m getting to the verb part.) The subject is the part that tells us who or what is doing the action; that is, it tells us who or what the sentence is about.  In Myanmar suffered a devastating cyclone, the subject is Myanmar. It is what the sentence is about. (Of course, in order to find the subject, you find the simple verb, which in this case is suffered, and then you ask who or what suffered, and presto, you have the subject: Myanmar.)

Now for the predicate, which is where the verb comes in. The predicate is the part of the sentence that tells us what the subject did or had done to it, and it contains the verb. I like to think of it as the verb with all of its accoutrements. In the sentence Myanmar suffered a devastating cyclone, the verb is suffered, and the predicate is suffered a devastating cyclone.

In The three American hostages were flown to safety, the verb is were flown, and the predicate is were flown to safety. (The subject is the three American hostages.)

On a lighter note, in Linus turned his blanket into a sport coat, the verb is turned, and the predicate is turned his blanket into a sport coat.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Comments Off on (Basic) Anatomy of a Sentence

Stuck in One Place

Posted on June 30, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Redundancy is common in our language, and we use many of the redundant phrases without even realizing it. Blazing inferno, terrible tragedy, and heavy downpours are three examples that I included in my book; these are said so often that we don’t even realize the redundany. Wait, I already said that–who’s being redundant now? Anyway, stuck in one place is another such redundant phrase.

Stuck has several definitions, but in this case, it means brought to a standstill, such as The car was stuck in the snow drift. If you’re at standstill, you’re in one place; therefore, stuck in one place is a redundant phrase–unless you have some metaphysical ability to be in more than one place at a time.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Stuck in One Place

I’m Very Handy

Posted on June 27, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I’m a writer, not a computer repairman–and I have proof.

Here at the languageandgrammar.com headquarters, we recently needed to buy a new laptop. It’s not that the old laptop quit working, but the hinges that held the screen in an upright position broke, so it either needed to be propped up against a wall (negating the advantages of being a laptop, I might note), or we needed to write on the computer with the screen lying parallel to the keyboard.

Since there are advantages to having two computers, I decided to try to fix the older computer. I purchased a couple of L braces and some Super Glue, and since I’m writing a blog about it, I’m sure that you can imagine that the repairs did not go smoothly. I’ll avoid all of the details–I’ll just say that super glue is not easy to remove from your fingers, and you should always check to make sure that the power cord hole isn’t in the same location as the metal that you’re about to glue to the computer.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Wanna Bet?

Posted on June 26, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Wanna isn’t a word; it’s a verbal laziness, same as the non-word gonna. It started as only a spoken error, but now, it has made the all-too-familiar leap to a written one, at least on the Internet. Do you want to go to the movies becomes Do you wanna go to the movies. I don’t want to talk about it becomes I don’t wanna talk about it.

 

For many of us, articulating want to has become much more troublesome than just allowing wanna to roll off our tongues. While some might say that that’s fine, at least in casual conversation, I say what’s wrong with articulating our words no matter where we are or to whom we’re speaking? Why not strive to be the best that we can be in all situations? Besides, let’s be honest: How much trouble is it really?

Sherry

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Wanna Bet?

Not the Only One Who Hates Verbing!

Posted on June 24, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I know what’s going on. I know that co-workers are starting to speak to me less often for fear that what they say will end up in the blog. I’ve noticed the family members giving me evil looks because they think that page 117 of Literally, the Best Language Book Ever  was inspired by their poor language skills. I’m kidding, of course, but I do enjoy it when I find that other people get as annoyed as the staff at languageandgrammar.com does when a perfectly innocent noun is turned into a perfectly awful and awkward verb.

Dave, a reader, recently referred me to a Calvin and Hobbes comic that pokes fun at that very topic. I also recently saw a promo for a situation comedy. I have no idea what show it was, but I know that it was the standard American situation comedy because there was an attractive woman married to an unattractive, sloppy man with his gluteus maximus planted on the couch. Anyway, the dialogue for this show was refreshing to me. The young, attractive woman said All I want to do is club and spa. The man responded with You like all of your verbs to be things. I’m going to sofa for a while.

I’m just saying–we’re not the only ones.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Whose/Who’s Woods These Are…

Posted on June 23, 2008 by languageandgrammar

This is another one of those problems of mistaking an apostrophe for a possessive. It doesn’t sound likely, I know, but it really is an easy mistake to make. It happens with its/it’s, and it happens with whose/who’s.

Whose, the word without the apostrophe, is the true possessive pronoun; think of Robert Frost’s poem Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening: Whose woods these are I think I know (the woods that belong to someone). Or for a more modern-day illustration: Whose button popped off in the dryer?

Who’s is a contraction for who is or who has. Let he who’s (who is) without sin cast the first stone. Is he the one who’s without sin? Are you the one who’s missing a button?  If you can substitute who is, then use who’s; otherwise, use whose.

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Whose/Who’s Woods These Are…

Good Morning America on Language

Posted on June 19, 2008 by languageandgrammar

A friend who has read Literally, the Best Language Book Ever sent me a link to a recent Good Morning America segment in which the hosts talked about a recent MSN-Zogby data poll about annoying co-workers. It turns out that the use of “jargon” is the third-most annoying trait a co-worker can have.

Some of the words and phrases talked about on the show were: think outside the box, efforting, we’ll talk offline, and get all of our ducks in a row. There was also Dianne Sawyer’s pet peeve of hearing “good morning,” and since that happens at 4 a.m., who can blame her? I don’t like hearing it at 8:30.

Yahoo has the video; it’s called “Annoying Coworkers”–although co-workers is the correct spelling since there are no cows in co-worker!

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Good Morning America on Language

Run, Ran: Have You Run into This Grammar Error?

Posted on June 18, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The present tense of run is run. The association members run a sloppy office.

The past tense is ran.  I ran out of patience.

The past participle is run. I have run into resistance every time I’ve tried to solve the problem. She has run from her responsibilities.

Regarding the problem that arises when forming the past participle, some people mistakenly use the past tense ran instead of the correct past participle run, as in I have ran into resistance every time I’ve tried to solve this problem or She has ran from her responsibilities. (I’ve also heard some people make the same mistake when forming a sentence in the past perfect tense, as in I had ran them down before they left the office, which should be I had run them down…) Do yourself a favor: Run as far from these constructions as possible—and don’t look back.

Sherry

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Run, Ran: Have You Run into This Grammar Error?

Daring Rescue–Part II

Posted on June 16, 2008 by languageandgrammar

You might recall that in the wet days of spring, we stopped the languageandgrammar.com presses just long enough to save nine ducklings from certain demise (Jeff Corwin, Move Over) alongside a busy road. Spring is technically not over yet, and we recently jumped into action once again, trying to save a tiny toad from a similar fate.

As languageandgrammar.com was enjoying an evening walk as a much-deserved break from blogging, we noticed what appeared to be a large cricket jumping across the sidewalk. In a manner similar to how we analyze the effectiveness of grammar, further inspection revealed that it was not a cricket but, rather, a toad the size of a nickel. He was quickly headed toward the street–where we didn’t think that he would fare well against 2,000-pound cars and 6,000-pound buses.

Now experienced wildlife rescuers, we jumped into action with the polish and precision of an Olympic Synchronized Swimming Team. Sherry placed her massive foot (massive in comparison to a tiny toad, not massive for a grammar expert!!) in the toad’s path. With his path effectively blocked, I tried to lift the tiny toad and turn him around in the direction of a small lake (o.k., drainage pond). The little amphibian instantly pulled his tiny legs toward his body and crouched himself down on the pavement as if he were going to be able to stubbornly resist this unwanted assistance.

Not wanting to injure the toad, I decided that it was safer to use a leaf to nudge him toward the grass and water. It took a little prodding, but he soon jumped into action and headed in the right direction. After he jumped onto the grass, we noticed that he had quite a few siblings hopping around with him.

We hope that he passed on the warning about the massive foot and rude leaf.

–Paul

Paul’s Language Posts

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in off topic | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Daring Rescue–Part II