Who Versus That

Posted on February 21, 2008 by languageandgrammar

We all know that it’s important to avoid major grammar errors if we want to present ourselves in the best possible light, but it’s often subtle grammar errors that ultimately make the difference. Even when those subtle errors go unnoticed, they make the same difference that one off-key violin note might make to an orchestra. The average listener can’t pinpoint what’s wrong, but he knows that the performance wasn’t quite at its optimal level.

The incorrect usage of that instead of who when referring to a person is one of those subtle mistakes. John is the person that went to the store is incorrect, while John is the person who went to the store is correct. It makes complete sense to use who with a person and that with an obviously inanimate object, but sometimes, there are legitimate reasons for the confusion.

The media often uses that with a person, such as The person that robbed the bank also robbed the store because the media wants to dehumanize the report–they want it to be dry and factual, not human. While commonly used in that way, it’s wrong. A person, even a criminal, is animate.

There is also confusion about which to use when referring to animals–do they warrant a who or a that? That’s often a matter of personal opinion and usage. It’s hard to imagine that many of us would consider an ant to be a who; however, most of us probably consider good ol’ Rover to be a who. I’ve heard it recommended that named animals should be paired with who, and unnamed animals should be paired with that. In other words, both Whiskers is the cat who we all love and This is the cat that we all love would be correct.

Regardless of the instances of understandable confusion, there should be no confusion when dealing with people–while the point may seem debatable at times, we’re all worthy of being referred to as who rather than that.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Self Words: This Redundancy is Self-Evident

Posted on February 20, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The reflexive pronouns are myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, and themselves. (Notice that there is no themself, ourself, theirselves, or hisself in that list, so please don’t ever say those non-words again.) When you use one of these reflexive pronouns, do not use another self word in the same sentence; and when you use a self word, do not use a reflexive pronoun in the same sentence. Let’s look at some examples.

· He has no self-respect (not He has no self-respect for himself); self word with no reflexive pronoun in the sentence.

· She has confidence in herself (not She has self-confidence in herself); reflexive pronoun, herself, with no other self word in the sentence.

· He has no self-respect for himself (self word and reflexive pronoun) is incorrect because self-respect is already respect for oneself, so adding the himself makes the sentence He has no respect for himself for himself, which, obviously, is one himself too many.

You cannot have self-control over yourself, be self-absorbed with yourself, or be self-deprecating to yourself. The problem is redundant, not to mention self-evident.

Sherry

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

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

NPR Redundancy

Posted on February 19, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Some of the most common grammar errors are those of redundancy. In fact, there are so many such errors that I devoted an entire chapter (Play It Again, Sam) to them in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever.

Examples in the book include: and also, absolutely essential, completely surrounded, and PIN Number. A redundancy that’s common but didn’t make it into the book is referring to National Public Radio (NPR) as NPR Radio.

It should be obvious that the R in NPR stands for radio; therefore, saying NPR Radio is the same as saying National Public Radio Radio. We don’t refer to ABC (American Broadcasting Company) as the ABC Company or LBLBE (Literally, the Best Language Book Ever) as LBLBE Book–although, if you ask me, that’s catchy–so neither should we say NPR Radio.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on NPR Redundancy

It’s These, Not These Ones

Posted on February 18, 2008 by languageandgrammar

These ones come from Paris. Those ones come from Australia.

Used in this way, these and those are demonstrative pronouns that should never be followed by ones. These already refers to the objects (the ones, the things) that are near, and those already refers to the objects (the ones, the things) that are farther away, so it’s redundant—and poor English—to say these ones or those ones—unless the these or those ones to which you’re referring are one-dollar bills!

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s These, Not These Ones

Ideation and Ideating

Posted on February 16, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I wasn’t paying much attention to the television, but when I heard a guest on an MSNBC broadcast say ideation, it grabbed my attention. The exact quote was There is a lot of ideation out there.

I’m not sure of the topic that was being discussed, but that shouldn’t matter. Many of us latch onto non-words, incorrectly used words, or trendy words with unclear meanings with regularity; however, we usually know what the speaker intended to say. With that in mind, it’s clear that the guest was trying to say There is a lot of…wait, I have no idea what the guest was trying to say.

I was so confused about the potential meaning of the sentence that I went to dictionary.com to see if I could find a definition for ideation, which I assumed was a trendy, newly invented non-word. (Remember, dictionaries are often a reflection of usage, not of correct grammar, so there are instances when non-words appear in a dictionary, especially online dictionaries.) Imagine my surpise when the listing in dictionary.com stated that the word ideation has been around since approximately 1820. Ideation (and for that matter, ideating) has been around for nearly 200 years.

Ideation is clearly not a word that is commonly used, and its original definition was the process of forming new ideas or images, so now it makes complete sense. The MSNBC guest was trying to say There is a lot of the process of forming new ideas out there. Wait, that still makes little sense, at least to me. It sounds convoluted and confusing.  

Even though these words (ideation and ideating) have existed for generations, they have not been used with any regularity for a very long time, similar to words such as thee and thou. I think it’s clear that ideation and ideating are now trendy new words being used in a new way. In the IBM commercial (IBM Gets It), people ideating are people who are thinking. In the MSNBC example, ideation is being used to mean thinking of new ideas.

It’s the humble opinion of this language expert (meaning that you might not agree) that the words ideating and ideation, which will undoubtedly become very popular in the coming months and years, are newly invented trendy words that happen to have been used in the past. Those who have revived the words most likely had no knowledge of their previous existence, but since they were used in the past, the words will likely be accepted more readily. I believe, though, that unless we’re ready to bring back thee and thou, they don’t have much place in today’s language except as a trend.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Is it Literally or Figuratively?

Posted on February 14, 2008 by languageandgrammar

A news anchor after the congressional hearing on Roger Clemens’ alleged use of steroids, February 13, 2008: You‘ve been watching Roger Clemens, the rocket of baseball, literally in the hot seat.

I don’t think so.

Literally means that something occurred exactly according to the words used; that is, it means that it actually happened. Do not use it for exaggeration or for figurative expression. When the news anchor said that Clemens had been in the hot seat, he was speaking figuratively, not literally. If he had been speaking in a literal sense, then we would have seen a campfire burning under Clemens’ chair.

What the anchor meant was You’ve been watching Roger Clemens, the rocket of baseball, figuratively in the hot seat. He also could’ve just said …the rocket of baseball, in the hot seat (minus the word figuratively).

As another example, I saw a commercial on the TV Guide channel in which the participants talked about their show being literally in the heart of Hollywood.

Doubt it.

A heart is literally an internal organ; heart as it refers to the center of something is a figurative term. Literally in the heart of Hollywood conjures up all kinds of images of some 1960’s science fiction B-movie in which a giant heart from outer space swallows Los Angeles and then sits in the middle of the city, its ventricles and valves spilling over with blood while the hosts of the show make their ways through the twists and turns of the superior vena…. Well, you get the picture.

Just saying that the show is in the heart of Hollywood (minus the word literally) would’ve done the trick since it can be assumed that it’s figuratively when a literal example is impossible.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Is it Literally or Figuratively?

More on Impact

Posted on February 13, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I’ve noticed that many people are as interested in the misuse of the word impact as a verb as am I. In my IMPACT DOES NOT MEAN TO AFFECT post, I explained that impact isn’t a verb unless it’s used to mean to strike forcefully, as in The meteor impacted Earth, and that it shouldn’t be used to mean to affect or to influence. I didn’t, however, fully explain how impact should be used. 

Impact is otherwise a noun just as are table, car, happiness, and health.

You can have an impact on something, but you cannot impact something.

  • The approaching cold front will have an impact on the weather, not The approaching cold front will impact the weather.
  • Consumer spending will have an impact on corporate profits, not Consumer spending will impact corporate profits.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on More on Impact

You Think You Have Issues?

Posted on February 12, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The use of the word issues to mean problems has become so pervasive that many of us no longer know that there is a difference between the two words–but have no fear: we here at languageandgrammar.com are always here to remind you. I’ve included an entry about it in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, and Sherry recently wrote two posts about it (You Have Problems, Not Issues and Update on Issues and Problems). As if that were not enough (notice that I’m using the subjunctive), here’s yet another entry.

A recent article about the Pittsburgh Pirates talked about the top 10 issues facing the team in the upcoming season (Pirates Spring Preview: Top 10 Issues). For most teams, I might relent and allow issues to be used in a preview article since the article might, indeed, be a list of topics. For this team, though, there’s no doubt that they’re highlighting problems for the team–if not problems, at least challenges that the team needs to overcome.

This once-proud franchise is a major league disaster. They haven’t had a winning season since 1992, and it’s not likely to change any time soon. The payroll is limited, prospects are few and far between, their best players have little trade value, and the owners seems to be completely committed to lining their pockets with the revenue-sharing money. In fact, a recent free agent who received a competitive bid from the team said that he wasn’t really interested in playing for the team.

Believe me, this team has problems, not issues–and a lot of them.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, sports | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on You Think You Have Issues?

And Etc.

Posted on February 11, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I do quite a bit of academic editing of journal articles, proposals, and dissertations, and I find that students and professors of all ages and levels like to use the redundant and etc.

Et cetera (etc.) is an abbreviation that already means and others or and so forth, so the and is unnecessary—and incorrect. For example, Several attempts were made to reposition the satellites, and etc., but the technicians failed should be Several attempts were made to reposition the satellites, etc., but the technicians failed.

In addition, be sure to put a comma both before and after etc. I’ve seen many sentences such as Several attempts were made to reposition the satellites, etc. from the lab. This should be written as Several attempts were made to reposition the satellites, etc., from the lab.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on And Etc.

Everything Half Off *

Posted on February 10, 2008 by languageandgrammar

During the last holiday season–meaning December, not the extended holiday season of December, November, October, September, and late August–my wife and I wandered into a well-known woman’s clothing store, attracted by the sign Everything Half Off .

Prices reduced by 50% were certainly enough of a reason to go into the store, but we were a little surprised when we realized that not everything in the store was 50% off since that’s what the sign outside of the store had indicated. Most items were, indeed, 50% off, but some were 40% off, 25% off, and even regular price. It was upon closer inspection of the signs in the store that we noticed the *, which led to the word Almost at the bottom of the sign, which was written in much smaller font.

We all know what’s going on when this happens. Retailers are deliberately attempting to fool consumers into thinking that they’ll get a better deal than they actually will or that more items are on sale than actually are, and they’re using subtle language tricks as tools of manipulation.

There was nothing wrong with the sale as it was, and the retailer would have drawn as many people into the store by saying Almost Everything 50% Off. The only difference is that they would have been communicating in an honest way.

There are many other instances in which this happens, such as Free Gift in bold letters and a couple of exclamation points that invariably has a with every 50-dollar purchase written in much smaller print below. There are also times when department stores put coupons in the local paper that indicate an extra 20% off everything in the store, including cleareance items *. The asterisk excludes designer labels, housewares, jewlery, and cosmetics.

Here’s some free advice (no asterisk, no strings attached): Don’t fall into this silly trap when communicating or writing. Just be honest!

 –Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, off topic | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Everything Half Off *