Me, Myself, and I

Posted on May 29, 2008 by languageandgrammar

A story on a regional news show ended with the interviewee saying, It was good for the neighborhood and myself. I was glad that things had worked out for the community, but, being as concerned as I am with grammar, I couldn’t help thinking, Why is that grammar error becoming more common?

The error of which I speak, of course, is the incorrect use of the pronoun myself. The –self pronouns are called either reflexive or intensive depending on their function in a sentence. What’s important here, though, is that in either case, myself shouldn’t be used unless there’s an I previously in the same sentence.

  • I prepared it myself.
  • I saw myself in the mirror.
  • I consider myself fortunate.
  • I, myself, haven’t had that problem, but I know someone who has.
  • They asked whether I, myself, had ever encountered that particular problem.

Don’t use –self pronouns when a nominative or objective pronoun is in order.

  • It was good for the neighborhood and me (not myself).
  • He gave the book to him and me (not myself).
  • She and I (not myself) are going to the opera.

It might be easier to determine the correct pronoun if you separate each pronoun into its own sentence. For example:

  • He gave the book to him. He gave the book to (I, me, or myself). It’s clear that the correct pronoun is me, so the sentence is He gave the book to him and me.
  • She is going to the opera. (I, me, myself) am going to the opera. The correct pronoun is, of course, I, so the correct sentence is She and I are going to the opera.

It’s interesting to note that there have been reputable writers who have used the reflexive pronouns incorrectly (as is true with all grammar errors), so if you, yourself, are an offender, you’re in good company.

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Pre-owned Car Salesman

Posted on May 28, 2008 by languageandgrammar

As a meteorologist, I have sympathy for people with jobs that don’t get much respect—and I’m not talking about the egg processing factory. (Maybe Rodney Dangerfield should have considered a job as a weather forecaster.) I feel bad for the urologist, the dentist, and even the used car salesman.

The difference is that no one has changed the name of the urologist or dentist as a way to make what they do sound more appealing. We can’t say the same for the good ol’ neighborhood used car salesman. I don’t know exactly when it happened, but cars are no longer used; rather, they’ve been previously owned, which is most commonly referred to as pre-owned.

Who wants to buy a car that’s been used? It’s been driven for years, so the transmission might be one cross-state trip from dropping onto Route 80. Kids have spilled ice cream in the back seat. The two-color paint job is most likely not the creative work of an artist; it’s probably a quick-fix way of trying to hide the rust. A pre-owned car, though, is different. Sure, someone else had owned it before you did, but it’s been carefully preserved through regular maintenance. The owner might not have even had children. The color is a cheerful tone-on-tone combination.

The change from referring to cars as used to pre-owned is just another example of how language can be subtly manipulated in order to try to change the way something is perceived. I wrote about something similar months ago when I talked about the change from help wanted to career opportunities.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, language, politics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Monthly Review, Radio Style

Posted on May 27, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I thought that it was a definite possibility that my monthly review of errors posted on languageandgrammar.com would be more impactful if it were combined with the review of radio promotion that I promised every one. I’ll let that up to you to determine.

Anyways, even before Literally, the Best Language Book Ever reached the stores, I did an interview too promote the book. I was nervous before it began, but it didn’t have any affect; I did a total 360 within minutes, which allowed the interview to go well. All of the hosts who interviewed me were charming, supportive, and friendly–although some of the shows were very early in the morning, so the hosts had jobs I’d hate to have. One of the interviews snuck up on me since I nearly overslept, but I didn’t get any blowback since the interview went well.

For the most part, I was able to make the points I wanted to make in the interviews–that the words we chose are important, many of our phrases loose effectiveness when their said too often, and that we should be fed up with certain grammar errors–while keeping the topic light. Whether or not the listener at home agreed was up to hisself.

I don’t want to diss myself, especially after saving nine ducklings, but I have to tell you about the stupidest part of all of the interviews. The host brang me a question about one of the entries in the book (I’ve went), and while I set in my chair, there was a war going on in my head–I couldn’t remember that the entry was about the past participle, so I struggled through the explanation. At least I didn’t have to talk about Obama Republicans or becoming a statistic.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, monthly reviews | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Monthly Review, Radio Style

Enjoy the Funeral

Posted on May 23, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I don’t know too many people who would say enjoy the funeral, but that’s as logical as saying Happy Memorial Day. Memorial Day is a day to honor those who died in service of the country; it’s a solemn occasion.

Believe me, I’m as happy as the next person about having the extra day off. Spending a Monday at home or with family or with NPR Wisconsin is a much-needed change of pace, and we have every right to enjoy the extra day without guilt or sadness. It probably wouldn’t be too much of a burden, though, to remember that the day is intended to be one that honors deceased members of the military. At least we can try to remember that when greeting each other rather than mindlessly lumping the day with the likes of Happy Valentine’s Day, Happy Fourth of July, and Happy President’s Day.

There is, as an aside, a significant difference between the statements died serving the country and died fighting for our freedom, but that’s for another day.

–Paul

 

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Enjoy the Funeral

You’re, Your

Posted on May 22, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I often enough see your used where you’re should be used.

You’re is the contraction for you are.

Take the following sentence: You’re your own worst enemy. You’re (you are) your own worst enemy.

Your shows possession just like my, his, her, its, their (your worst enemy, his worst enemy, their worst enemy, etc.).

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on You’re, Your

Insightful Political Analysis

Posted on May 21, 2008 by languageandgrammar

An MSNBC political pundit must have heard about my unadvertised use one amorphous cliche from my book, get the second free special since he gave this insightful analysis of the extended Democratic nomination process last night using two entries from the book: At the end of the day, the delegate map is what it is.

Believe me, especially since I’ve been doing an extensive amount of radio promotion for Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, I understand that live broadcasts do not always result in the most crsip, articulate discussions (I plan to write an off-topic post this weekend about doing the radio interviews); however, there was nothing in that phrase that added anything to the discussion. At the end of the day is a trendy, non-descript expression, and it’s unclear under these circumstances if he meant literally at the end of that day (Monday), or if he meant at the end of the following day (Tuesday) since there would be additional primaries, or if he meant at the end of the entire primary season.

That part of the phrase–at the end of the day–was great American novel material compared to the whopping conclusion, it is what it is. That, or any slight variation of it, says absolutely nothing. Of course, it is what it is! What else could it be–what it isn’t?

Ok, let’s make a couple of logical assumptions and replacements to see if we can determine what was meant by the statement. Let’s assume that he was referring to the end of the primary season when he said at the end of the day since that’s the most important of the three possible time frames being discussed, and let’s replace the it in it is what it is with delegate map since that was the reference.

The new, more specific statement is then at the end of the primary season, the delegate map is what the delegate map is. I don’t know about you, but that didn’t help me. I wish he would have just said what he meant in his own words; I might have learned something.

–Paul

 

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

 

 

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Insightful Political Analysis

What Is a Comma Splice?

Posted on May 20, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I’m a legitimate punctuation mark, get me out of here. This is supposedly a quote by someone who wrote a popular book on punctuation (that I have not read). If this is true, then it’s shocking to me. If this was quoted incorrectly to me, then I give the author his due apology. Regardless, it’s still a wonderful illustration of what is called a comma splice, and the comma splice error in English is becoming more and more prevalent.

Do not put a comma between two independent clauses. Either use a semicolon, or punctuate them as two separate sentences. For the aforementioned quote, then, you would write either I’m a legitimate punctuation mark; get me out of here or I’m a legitimate punctuation mark. Get me out of here. (I endorse the one with the semicolon since the two clauses are so closely related.) You could also leave the comma if you connect the two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction, as in I’m a legitimate punctuation mark, so get me out of here.

Here are more examples:

  • Incorrect: I couldn’t put the book down, I read it in one sitting.
  • Correct: I couldn’t put the book down; I read it in one sitting.
  • Correct: I couldn’t put the book down. I read it in one sitting.
  • Incorrect: Benjamin Franklin was an inventor and a philosopher, he was also quite a scoundrel.
  • Correct: Benjamin Franklin was an inventor and a philosopher. He was also quite a scoundrel.
  • Correct: Benjamin Franklin was an inventor and a philosopher; he was also quite a scoundrel.
  • Correct: Benjamin Franklin was an inventor and a philosopher, but he was also quite a scoundrel.

There are limited exceptions to this rule, for example, short colloquial expressions such as Here today, gone tomorrow, and, of course, we have the famous Dickens quote from A Tale of Two Cities: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, which is more of a poetic construction.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What Is a Comma Splice?

Radio Head

Posted on May 17, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Here’s an update on some of the radio interviews I’ve done to promote the book (Literally, the Best Language Book Ever), along with a list of some upcoming appearances.

I already mentioned this in the blog, so this might sound familiar. I was on CJAD in Montreal (simulcast in Toronto), WGY in Albany, New York, WIBC in Indianapolis, Indiana (pod cast link below), WTKF in Greenville/New Bern, North Carolina, and WFAW in Fort Atktinson, Wisconsin.

Upcoming radio appearances (I’ll include the date and time in case you’re in the area or want to try to listen to a streaming feed on any of the station’s Web sites) include: WJBC in Bloomington, Illinois, from 2:10 until 2:25 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 19; KFOR in Lincoln, Nebraska, from 10:10 until 11:00 a.m. EDT on Tuesday May 20; L.E.W.D. Show on SportsTalkNetwork.com from 2 until 2:20 p.m. EDT on Thursday, May 22; NPR Madison, Wisconsin (Wisconsin Public Radio), from 7 a.m. until 8 a.m. EDT on Monday, May 26. (I was looking for a good reason to get up at dawn on Memorial Day.)

I will also appear on the nationally syndicated program Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers at some point in the future. It’s been recorded, but the release date hasn’t been set yet.

For those of you who might be interested, WIBC has my May 12 appearance archived on their Web site. Follow the link for morning news archives; go to May 12, and click on What is your verbal pet peeve?

I expect that there will be additional radio shows to follow, and I’ll keep you posted.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Radio Head

Total 360

Posted on May 15, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I know (believe me, I know) that it sometimes seems as if it’s difficult to change direction in life, and perhaps that’s a reflection of our tendency to say the phrase I did a total 360 instead of the correct statement I did a total 180.

The statement is based on the fact that there are 360 degrees in a complete circle, so if we’re using the analogy of the circle to talk about change, 180 degrees indicates the greatest possible change. If you pick a point as zero on your circle (that is, your starting point) and draw a line from there to the farthest point opposite there, it is 180 degrees of the circle. In other words, to go 180 degrees is to go as far as possible opposite your starting point.

To go 360 degrees is to come full circle, ending up exactly where you started. That’s how the phrase I did a complete 180 came to signify a complete change, as in I did a complete 180 about exercise. That person may have gone from being Susie the Spud (Couch Potato) to Suzanne the Non-stop Swimming Machine. If she had done a complete 360, then you’d have needed to pass the gravy to Susie the Spud since she’d have been right back on the couch, with remote control, hot-buttered popcorn, and back-to-back-to-back reality television shows.

It’s easy enough to confuse since, for many of us, it’s been a long time since high school geometry class, but if we want to change, we might as well start with getting the phrase right.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

 

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Affect vs. Effect

Posted on May 14, 2008 by languageandgrammar

This is one of those strictly written errors in English; nevertheless, it’s still a grammar error. Affect and effect have several meanings, but people get them most mixed up when trying to use the noun effect as the verb to affect. Stay with me; it gets much easier.

Affect is a verb. When you affect something, you influence it (verb) or change it (verb), as in the following sentences:

  • Grammar affects my life.
  • Cheating in the presidential race affected the outcome.
  • That decision will affect our profit margin.

The use of effect is usually as a noun meaning an influence (noun) or a result (noun).

  • Grammar has an effect on my life.
  • The cheating in the presidential race had an effect on the outcome.
  • The decision had the effect of increasing our profit margin.

Effect can be a verb also, but it isn’t used often; it means to bring about.

  • The new CEO effected change in the company.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Affect vs. Effect