Ordinal Numbers: First, not Firstly

Posted on April 14, 2008 by languageandgrammar

When enumerating, don’t stick an –ly on the end of the ordinal number. It has become fashionable to do so, but it’s wrong. Use first, second, third, not firstly, secondly, thirdly; there’s no need to add an extra syllable. That goes for last/lastly, too.

Most people wouldn’t even think of saying I contacted the local businesses firstly, typed up the memo secondly, and distributed the plan lastly because it’s obvious that those are wrong. (At least I hope they wouldn’t!) They would say I contacted the local businesses first. (At least I hope they would!) So why say Firstly, I contacted the local businesses?

Ordinal numbers tell the order in which you’re doing something. First is an ordinal number; firstly is not. (I’m sure we all remember learning in school that cardinal numbers are counting numbers—one, two, three, etc.—and ordinal numbers tell in what order—first, second, third, etc.) In fact, despite its presence in some dictionaries, I’m not sure WHAT purpose firstly could serve. It’s grammatically illogical.

Sherry

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever and Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ordinal Numbers: First, not Firstly

Politically Incorrect

Posted on April 12, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Its been awhile since I’ve done one of my very unique entires that highlights all of the errors that we’ve talked about in the past month (28 Language Errors in one Post), so I thought I’d write another one today. To make it interesting, I gave this entry a political theme. Granted, it might not interesting enough for a press release, but I put enough sweat equity into it (along with doing research in the dictionary) so that I hope you enjoy it.

Irregardless of the need for the candidates to flesh out their positions on a number of important topics, the general consensus is that the election process has gone on expecially long this year. Living in Pennsylvania, which has traditionally been a blue state (but could be more accurately called a purple state), all of the candidates have telecasted commercials in recent weeks, and while I don’t mean to infer that the candidates could of been lying, their tendency to misspeak means that getting accurate information about the issues has been a hit-and-miss prospect.

I did some research before I started writing this post (I’d also done some site updates), and I’ve decided that the only reasonable resolution is to determine the Democratic nomination by having a taste test, as long as everything are done the same for both candidates. It seems fair, and, more importantly, it would save us time and money. It could be simulcasted on radio and television, and as long as none of the candidates becomes nauseous, we’ll know within minutes if the person we’d forecasted to win actually won.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, humor, language, monthly reviews, politics, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Politically Incorrect

The “Ex” Factor: Misspellings and Pronunciations

Posted on April 11, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Ex– words seem to be particularly prone to mispronunciations, and to a lesser extent misspellings, and if they’re not caught early, then they can be a challenge to correct—but who doesn’t like a good challenge?

 

Expecially is an especially perplexing English grammar error. It has the word special in it, so there really shouldn’t be so much trouble remembering the correct word, which is especially.

 

Espresso is often pronounced incorrectly as expresso.  Maybe people get confused because of how quickly the caffeine can hit them (hence, express-o), but it’s still just espresso.

 

Well, if you’re prone to saying expresso and expecially, then I can see why you also say excape. (Even just writing those words makes me squinch my face as if I’d just bitten into a lemon rind.) The correct word is escape, as in the scape escapes the underground and becomes part of the landscape. (Try saying that one ten times fast—without the caffeine!)

 

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

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

Red States, Blue States, and Purple States

Posted on April 10, 2008 by languageandgrammar

When (if) we finally get to the general election phase of our three-year presidential election cycle, there are going to be myriad overused words, phrases, and expressions that we’re going to hear. They will be as grating on my nerves as the sound of a room full of screaming children who are next to a construction yard with a non-stop jack hammer and vehicles with that annoying beep beep beep sound.

The leaders on that list of general election annoyances will be talk of red states, blue states, and the (mark my words) increasingly popular reference to purple states. I’m not even sure why I get so annoyed when I hear states referred to this way. It might be because of the implication that if certain states are so certain to vote in a certain way, then I wonder why we just spent the last three years talking about the election. It also might be because it’s a very general analysis of a complicated electorate, especially when the election is talked about for 23.5 hours every day on the major news networks. They certainly have enough time to go into a little more detail.

More likely, it’s just the mere repetition of the same words and phrases over and over and over again.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Red States, Blue States, and Purple States

Everything is All Right—and Singular!

Posted on April 9, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Many readers have expressed interest in learning how to use the indefinite pronouns everyone, everybody, and everything correctly, and I’m glad they did. We all (yes, all) fall prey to this English language error from time to time.  There are actually two parts to this topic. The first part has to do with whether to use a singular or plural verb. These indefinite pronouns are always singular, so we always use singular verbs with them.

  • Everything is all right. (not everything are)
  • Everybody likes to solve problems. (not everybody like)
  • Everyone agrees on the answer. (not everyone agree)

The second part has to do with whether it’s all right to use the plurals their, theirs, them, and they when referring to the antecedents everyone, everybody, and everything.  The answer is no. Because these indefinite pronouns are always singular, they must take singular personal pronouns.

  • (Incorrect) Everything gets a stamp put on them.
  • (Correct) Everything gets a stamp put on it.
  • (Incorrect) Everybody has their own opinion.
  • (Correct) Everybody has his own opinion.
  • (Incorrect) Everyone agreed to share their information.
  • (Correct) Everyone agreed to share his information.

If you’re talking about a group of only females, then you would, of course, say her information or her opinion instead of his. Especially within the recent past, many people have decided that using his to refer to all people is sexist. Well, we’ve been referring to humans as mankind and using the pronouns him and his to refer to people in general since—well, since beyond the reaches of memory. If you really feel that you’re contributing to the oppression of women by using the masculine pronouns, however, then you could certainly use his or her, as in Everybody has his or her own opinion. (It gets much more cumbersome to do this when you have a sentence such as Everybody has his or her own opinion and likes to do what he or she wants when he or she wants.) You could also just rewrite the sentence, as in Everybody has an opinion. The same rules apply to someone, somebody, something, anybody, anyone, anything, no one, and nobody.

  • No one likes to pay his bills.
  • Somebody left his briefcase in the conference room.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Everything is All Right—and Singular!

The General Consensus Is…

Posted on April 8, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The general consensus at languageandgrammar.com is that the expression general consensus is redundant.

Consensus means that the majority holds the same opinion; in other words, it’s the general opinion of the group. Logically, then, not only is there no reason to use the word general in front of consensus, but it’s an error of redundancy–unless saying general general opinion does not seem redundant to you to you.

Language redundancy is a common problem in English. Part of the reason for the redundancy issue–I mean, problem (No, I’m never going to let that go, so don’t ask me to)–is a tendency to repeat what we’ve heard before rather than think about what we’re saying. We’ve heard general consensus hundreds or thousands of times, so we don’t question the validity of the two words when combined; thus, we repeat the redundancy.

I talk more about redundancy in my book; in fact, one chapter in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever is devoted to redundancy and repetition.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

Awhile/A while

Posted on April 7, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The awhile/a while grammar error is, obviously, more of a written error than a spoken one. Awhile (one word) means for a period of time, as in Grandpa waited awhile before turning himself into a bat. It already includes the word for in its meaning.

A while (two words) means a period of time, as in Grandpa waited for a while before turning himself into a bat. Here, you need to add for because it is not included in its meaning. Please don’t use the word for when using the word awhile, as in Grandpa waited for awhile before turning himself into a bat; that means Grandpa waited for for (no, you’re not seeing double) a period of time before turning himself into a bat.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever  

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Awhile/A while

A Very Unique Error

Posted on April 4, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I recently heard a runway announcer (no, not the airport kind—the fashion kind) say that each model had her own very unique style.

Well, unique already means one of a kind, and putting very in front of it doesn’t make it any more one of a kind—but it does make it superfluous, not to mention grammatically incorrect.

There are two possibilities for this very unique problem: Either people are using unique to mean individual or rare, which it does not mean, or they’re trying to add emphasis to their feelings and descriptions by adding words such as very even when those words change what is right to what is wrong.

Unique means (sometimes I can’t find any other way than to just repeat myself) one of a kind—there aren’t any more like it anywhere else—if this one disappears, then it will be extinct—you can search and search all over the world, but you won’t find a second one—after they made this single one, they broke the mold and threw the pieces into 27 different trash cans so that no one would be able to make another one…. Oh, someone stop me.

Nothing is very unique. It’s either one of a kind or it isn’t.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Exclusive Breaking News!

Posted on April 3, 2008 by languageandgrammar

As regular blog readers certainly know by now, my first book, Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, will be published soon–on May 6, 2008. In fact, I have exclusive coverage of the press release related to the book’s release. I hope that it doesn’t stay exclusive for long since a press release is supposed to generate interest! Anyway, here it is, with the formatting removed:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Catherine Milne 212.366.2149catherine.milne@us.penguingroup.com

LITERALLY, THE BEST LANGUAGE BOOK EVER Annoying Words and Abused Phrases You Should Never Use Again

by Paul Yeager

Penguin Group (USA) created a sensation over punctuation with the release of Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss (Gotham), and now Perigee, an imprint of Penguin, tackles trite, trendy, inane, outdated, and grammatically incorrect words, phrases, and expressions with LITERALLY, THE BEST LANGUAGE BOOK EVER: Annoying Words and Abused Phrases You Should Never Use Again by Paul Yeager (Perigee Trade Paperback Original; May 6, 2008; $13.95). An astute commentary on today’s pop-culture style of speaking, Yeager’s guide goes well beyond grammar and punctuation to show why certain words or phrases should be “taken to the language dump to never be heard from again.”

Language lovers who find themselves frequently perplexed by illogical phrases (“centers around,” “It goes without saying, but…”), riled by redundancy (“brief summary,” “irregardless,” “mutual agreement”), and tired of nouns being used as verbs (“google it,” “scrapbooking”) will find their champion in Yeager, who attacks illogical expressions and misappropriated meanings with a linguistic scalpel. By turns annoyingly precise and happily contrarian, LITERALLY, THE BEST LANGUAGE BOOK EVER is a witty guide that can transform even the least literate into the epitome of eloquence.

Paul Yeager is managing editor for Accuweather.com and a freelance writer for local and regional magazines on topics ranging from humor and restaurant reviews to health and history. As a child, Yeager was annoyed when reading, writing, and arithmetic were referred to as the “Three Rs,” and he hasn’t changed much over the years. Not one television show, newspaper article, or appliance instruction booklet slips by without him editing or analyzing the effectiveness of its language.

LITERALLY, THE BEST LANGUAGE BOOK EVER

by Paul Yeager

Perigee Trade Paperback Original; May 6, 2008; $13.95ISBN-13: 978-0-399-53423-2 Visit us on the web at http://www.penguin.com

Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S. affiliate of the internationally renowned Penguin Group. Penguin Group (USA) is one of the leading U.S. adult and children’s trade book publishers, owning a wide range of imprints and trademarks including Berkley Books, Dutton, Frederick Warne, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Grosset & Dunlap, New American Library, Penguin, Philomel, Plume, Puffin Books, Riverhead Books and Viking, among others. The Penguin Group is part of Pearson, the international media company with market leading businesses in education, business information and consumer publishing. For more information, visit http://www.pearson.com.

 

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

 

Posted in grammar, language, off topic, writing | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Could Of, Should Of, Would Of—I Mean, Have

Posted on April 2, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Although this used to be more of a spoken error than a written one, it’s quickly gaining as a written error, so I thought that I’d do a short column on it before there’s no turning back.

When saying Snoopy would have been a great World War I flying ace, most of us tend to shorten would have to either would’ve or, what’s worse, woulda, both which result in being spelled would of, which is a false grammar construction.

We say Snoopy would’ve (or woulda) been a great World War I flying ace and then write it as Snoopy would of been…. (Well, most of us probably don’t actually walk around talking about Snoopy and his flying prowess all that much.)

We say I should’ve (or shoulda) gotten a better grade and write it as I should of gotten a better grade.

We say He could’ve (or coulda) gone skydiving if he’d brought his own parachute and write it as He could of gone skydiving if he’d brought his own parachute.

The correct written constructions are could have (or could’ve), should have (or should’ve), and would have (or would’ve). There is no could of, should of, or would of—and that goes for might of, must of, and may of, too.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment