Time to Run Down Run Up

Posted on February 7, 2008 by languageandgrammar

There are myriad reasons for objecting to the war in Iraq, and I will focus on the least important of all–the now-obsessive use of the term run up. Ever since that war was merely in the planning stage, the phrases run up to the war has been uttered about 800,000,000 times.

To given an idea of the overuse of the word run in general, I went to dictionary.com. Granted, dictionary.com is best used as a source of usage, not of correct grammar; however, with 150 separate definitions for the word run, it certainly gives an accurate accounting of the extent of its overuse. It’s hard to imagine a reason for inventing yet another use; that poor, little three-letter word must be exhausted from all the running around already!

There is no doubt that run up is in fashion today; it’s as popular as crop pants at retirement village on a sunny June day. Its popularity seemed to increase with the talk of the Iraq war, but it’s now used with regularity to describe the time preceding nearly any event, such as the run up to the election, the run up to the storm, and the run up to the holidays.

Trendy words and expressions are typically used because the speaker believes that the trendy word will make him sound more important, more intelligent, or more modern.  In this case, it merely makes the speaker sound less articulate because the phrases that it’s replacing, such as the time preceding or the time prior to or even the simple before, are all more articulate. (By the way, overly trendy words and phrases have their own chapter, It’s All Bad–Believe Me, in my upcoming book)

In the run up to the election, I think that we should seriously consider voting for the candidate who promises to run down this phrase.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Languageandgrammar.com Endorses…

Posted on February 5, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Endorsements are now more popular than fruit flies at a blackened banana convention, and now that the DailyKos.com has officially endorsed Barack Obama, supporters of languageandgrammar.com have been clamoring for our endorsement. With that in mind, languageandgrammar.com officially endorses SpongeBob SquarePants in his grass roots—make that seaweed roots—campaign to become the next president of the United States.

The choice was easy. Mr. SquarePants is a winner; everything he touches seems to work out well, and that’s very important in a world in which we have many, many problems. Also, everyone (except for Squidward, who doesn’t like anyone) gets along with the little yellow guy, so we finally really will have someone who will be able to reach out to and work with those on both sides of the cash register—we mean aisle.

Unlike the incumbent president, SpongeBob has an excellent work ethic. He’ll set a record for the fewest, rather than the most, vacation days taken while in office, and he’ll be ready to work on his very first day in the White Pineapple. 

He is also a man of peace; in one of the seedier parts of Bikini Bottom (insert your own joke here–this is a family Web site), he defused a potentially explosive situation with his renowned grace. When one fish used the ridiculously immature and inarticulate “bring it on” line on another fish, SpongeBob calmly stepped between the would-be combatants and said, “What we need here is to bring it off.” What simple, eloquent brilliance in these times of confrontation and uncontrolled emotion.

We could continue listing many of his qualifications, but it might be best to address what many of his opponents will undoubtedly attack as his weaknesses.

Many of those who believe that Hillary Clinton showed signs of weakness by almost shedding a couple of tears will undoubtedly point out that SpongeBob has a tendency to shed the odd tear himself. Ok, so maybe it’s more than the odd tear. Ok, it’s more like he cries so much that he, not global warming, might be the cause of the rising sea level. We at languageandgrammar.com believe that this alleged weakness is actually one of his great strengths; we need a sensitive leader, and SpongeBob is certainly sensitive.

In the past, there have been rumors and negative publicity about Mr. SquarePants’ sexual orientation; however, SpongeBob has neither confirmed nor denied any of the rumors. Regardless, surely civilization has grown beyond such homospongi-phobic attitudes.

Please join in the support of SpongeBob SquarePants as the next president of the United States. Let’s finally make Bikini Bottom a reality for one and all.

Posted in humor, off topic, politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Languageandgrammar.com Endorses…

Hope Against Hopefully

Posted on February 2, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The word hopefully is an adverb; notice the -ly, which to an adverb is analogous to the stripes on a zebra–most adverbs have them. An adverb is a word that describes a verb, so hopefully is a word that describes how something is done. Charlie Brown skipped hopefully down the street means that Charlie Brown skipped in a hopeful manner down the street; it describes the way in which he skipped. It’s an active process; in other words, it’s something that we can control.

The adverb hopefully, then, should not be used synonymously with the phrase I hope since hope, in this instance, means a wish or a desire. When we hope, the outcome is out of our control. In other words, it’s a very passive act, and using hopefully for I hope is a grammar error.

I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with hoping, of course; however, we always have more success when we actively pursue things than we do when we wish for the best. So, my adivce is to be active–decide to use these words correctly.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Hope Against Hopefully

You Have a Couple of Something, Not a Couple Something

Posted on January 31, 2008 by languageandgrammar

AP article, January 20, 2008: In a national economy teetering on the brink of recession, there are a couple bright spots for Pennsylvania.

Perhaps it’s not fair, but I expect more from institutions such as the AP. I actually didn’t need to use a quote from the newspaper, however; I hear and see this grammar error every day, everywhere I turn. I’m sure that you do, too.

We hear it from weather forecasters who talk about a couple snow showers approaching, news anchors and talk show hosts who tell guests that they have a couple questions, and sports broadcasters who discuss a couple poorly thrown passes; we read it in magazines about recipes that have only a couple ingredients and stories about world leaders who have a couple years left in office, and we’re told by friends, family, and co-workers that they have a couple ideas, a couple kids, a couple—I could go on, but you get the point. This grammar error seems to be one of the most pervasive in grammar history.

Unless making a reference to two people (the couple walked down the street), the word couple needs the word of after it. Why? Because that’s the expression: a couple of. You have a couple of something, not a couple something.

Note: I’ve seen a couple of very recent resources assert that couple of is the correct expression in formal writing and that you’ll hear couple without the of in casual conversation. Well, that’s half right. You’ll certainly hear couple without the of in casual conversation, but couple of is ALWAYS the correct expression in ANY type of writing or speaking, not just formal. Couple is not slang or colloquial or conversational English; it’s just plain wrong, and we should stop making excuses for using poor grammar. It’s as wrong as saying In a national economy teetering on the brink of recession, there are a few of bright spots for Pennsylvania.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Reason is Because

Posted on January 30, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Reason is because is incorrect.

The meaning of because is for the reason that, and the meaning of reason is a basis or cause, so using these together makes a redundancy.

The reason that our campaign is gaining in popularity is because people like our platform means The reason that our campaign is gaining in popularity is for the reason that people like our platform.

We ask the reason is what, not the reason is why. We would never say Why is the reason; we would say What is the reason.

The word is is a form of the linking verb to be. Linking verbs most often are followed by adjectives, not adverbs. Adjectives answer the question what. The word that can be used to introduce an adjectival clause.

Adverbs answer the question why. The word because can be used to introduce an adverbial clause. Since adjectival clauses, not adverbial clauses, usually follow linking verbs, the word because cannot be used here.

The correct construction is The reason that our campaign is gaining in popularity is that people like our platform. (You could also re-write the sentence to Our campaign is gaining in popularity because people like our platform.)

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Reason is Because

Where Are You At?

Posted on January 26, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Asking where are you at is a common grammar mistake, and the mistake and error is as obvious and evident as is the redundancy and repetition of the second part of this sentence and complete thought.

More simply–and less redundant–the word where means at what location, so Where are you at is the equivalent of At what location are you at? Ats a problem–if you ask me! Never use where and at in the same question; just ask where are you instead.

I could go on, but I’d hate to repeat myself.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments

Candidates Lash Out

Posted on January 22, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I know what you may be thinking by now: I thought this was a language and grammar blog, but it’s more like a language, grammar, and politics blog! That’s not true. In fact, there is no truth to the rumor that we at languageandgrammar.com are going to make an independent run at the presidency in the fall. It is true, however, that since politics is a finely crafted art of communication, there is much to be learned about language and communication by analyzing what politicians say, along with what the media reports about what the politicians say.

Garrison Keillor, the witty novelist and now political commentator, made an astute observation about how the media often portrays relatively minor discussions or altercations between two politicians as something much greater in a recent column (Lashing out at candidates for not really lashing out). Candidates no longer can question each other about policies or votes; they lash out at each other. He gives several examples in the article.

Why is that when Romney questions McCain’s record on voting for taxes, it’s considered some kind of an attack? Why is that if Clinton questions Obama’s record on war support, it’s considered an attack? Don’t we need to know the difference between candidates in order to be able to make a fair choice about which candidate we want to support?

Either simple questions have become attacks in our society (which might be the case to some degree since we can’t have problems–You Have Problems, not Issues and Update on Problems and Issues–any longer!), or the media wants to distract us from the message of the politicians, or they simply want to create the illusion of conflict where none exists because it will sell?

The reason for the change is for others to decide; I just want to point out that the media often defines conflict differently than do the rest of us.

Note: I know that Clinton and Obama had a more volatile exchange in a debate last night. That was actually the first time that an exchange between these candidates deserved to be labeled lashing out. Up until last night, however, the media mislabeled every civil discussion.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Is it Healthy or Healthful?

Posted on January 21, 2008 by languageandgrammar

There’s a person for every diet plan. There are low-carbohydrate diets, low-fat diets, macrobiotic diets, vegetarian diets, raw food diets, etc., and for every diet, there is a different list of acceptable food. One thing that I’ve seen all diets have in common, however, is the espousal of eating healthy, eating a healthy diet, and living healthy.

Unfortunately, you can’t eat healthy. But don’t panic; it’s not all bad news. You can eat healthful food, and you can engage in healthful eating and even live a healthful lifestyle.

Healthy means free of disease. You can eat healthy vegetables (free of disease)—and, considering the alternative, who wouldn’t want to—but, generally, when you see or hear slogans calling for healthy eating, what they should really be saying is healthful eating.

Healthful means that something contributes to health, as in eat healthful food (food that is conducive to health), eat a healthful diet (a diet that is conducive to health), and live a healthful lifestyle (a lifestyle that is conducive to health).

A person can be healthy, and as I’ve already said, food can be healthy IF you’re describing food that is free of disease; otherwise, if you’re talking about something that encourages health or contributes to health, the word is healthful.

Some people (and some dictionaries) use both interchangeably, citing their uses as synonymous by some 16th Century writers; however, I’ve found inconsistencies both between dictionaries and within dictionaries.

Note: Being a writer doesn’t mean that you know everything about grammar. We like to assume that every writer knows and every editor knows everything about grammar and language, but we don’t. My own approach is to use the logic that extends from established grammar rules, and using healthful and healthy as synonyms doesn’t make sense, both based on my own logic and the inconsistencies that I’ve seen in dictionaries. The media as a whole likes to use them interchangeably, but you might, by now, know how I feel about the media’s negative influence on grammar.

Of course, you have to decide for yourself. My advice: Don’t mix healthful and healthy; it could be a recipe for disaster.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Is it Healthy or Healthful?

Values Voters

Posted on January 19, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Certain parts of the media–and by that I mean nearly every part of the media–have started to refer to the part of the electorate who supports candidates based mainly on Christian religious beliefs (in this case, those who support Governor Huckabee) as values voters. That, of course, implies that this group of people votes based on what they believe to be morally correct while the rest of the population does not, or at the very least, it implies that the values of this group are superior to the values of other voting groups.

That line of thought is prejudiced, and the fact that the media so readily repeats the myth is an example of how a repetition of misleading language can become accepted as fact if it is repeated often enough. Because the values voters line has been used often enough, many of us simply accept that they’re talking about those who believe certain conservative Christian beliefs, such as being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Those are not the values that many in this country consider to be moral, but as long as one group is labeled as the values voters, it might be more difficult for other groups to make valid arguments in favor of their own values, which are equally protected under the constitution.

Language and communication skills, as I talk about in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, are much more important than knowing grammar rules–although that’s important as well, especially to the staff at languageandgrammar.com! It’s understanding how words can be used to create a desired effect, and the person (or group) who devised the term values voters certainly understands that manipulative strategy.

 We all need to.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Values Voters

Impact Does Not Mean to Affect

Posted on January 18, 2008 by languageandgrammar

This grammar error is becoming more popular than pointed ears at a Star Trek convention.  I know that this is going to come as a surprise to many people, especially those in the media (since they’re the ones who seem to love to use it the most), but impact is not a verb that is synonymous with the verbs affect or influence.

Although impact can be used as a verb, its meaning is to strike forcefully or to fix firmly as if by packing or wedging. So, The meteor impacted Earth means that the meteor struck Earth forcefully. It does not mean that the meteor influenced or affected Earth.

I’m not sure why people have started to use this so much, but it seems that the people who use it think that it sounds more important and more dramatic than using the correct words. If you mean to affect or to influence, then how about using the words affect or influence?  

Power in speech comes from choosing the appropriate words, which already exist in our vocabulary, not from changing the meanings of words.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment