The Compulsive Copyeditor

December 11, 2016

“Both” Abuse . . .

. . . committed in The New York Times:

“There are splits both within the intelligence agencies and the congressional committees that oversee them.”

“Both” splits a sentence into two streams that have to be equal and parallel. At first glance, either of the following would have been correct:

“There are splits within both the intelligence agencies and the congressional committees that oversee them.”

But no, that wouldn’t have worked because “both the intelligence agencies” can be misread as “You mean the CIA and the NSA?”

So the only correct option (short of rewriting the whole sentence), redundant as it may seem, is:

“There are splits both within the intelligence agencies and within the congressional committees that oversee them.”

Actually, I should refine the rule above:

“Both” splits a sentence into two streams that have to be equal and parallel. The split must be executed by a correctly placed “and.”

A family member of mine who committed this related form of “both” abuse in print—

“sharing their stories online was both an attempt to sort out what they were going through but also to . . . help other[s]”

graciously changed “but” to “and” after I apologized for being so pinheaded as to point it out.

Next, I’ll tackle “between” abuse, if I haven’t already. But I need to assemble some good examples. Like “both,” “between” requires “and,” and you wouldn’t believe the exotic substitutes writers come up with. (Yes, we are now allowed to end a sentence with a preposition, though some friends of mine who are made of sterner stuff still refrain and disapprove.) Scientists in particular seem prone to writing the likes of “Between 5 to 24 seconds . . .”

Stay tuned, fellow pinheads.

August 24, 2016

Me Meme: Pedantry of the Day

Filed under: grammar,language degenerating,pedantry of the day — amba12 @ 10:33 am

Me, me, me.

We have banished this little word. Sent it to its room for an indefinite time-out.

Maybe it’s spiteful overreaction to too many stern corrections of “Joey and me went to the store.” Or maybe it’s that “me, me, me” is used to mock and shame selfishness in children, to the point where the word itself sounds piggy, whiny, grabby. We think we sound more dignified and grown-up when we say “Joey and I” — in ALL contexts.

But in some contexts, it’s just wrong. “Me” serves a grammatical purpose. Technically, it’s the dative and accusative form of the first person singular, the form that is the direct and indirect object of transitive verbs.

Huh? (I know. I wouldn’t know a dative from a dating app either if I hadn’t studied German in high school with a very stern, authentically German teacher.)

Well, just as (after age two) you wouldn’t say “Me went to the store,” you wouldn’t say, “Make sure to visit I next time you’re in town,” or “Mom is throwing I an anniversary party.” But that’s exactly what you’re saying when you say “Make sure to visit Joey and I” or “Mom is throwing Joey and I a party.”

There’s a simple trick for knowing when to say “Joey and I” and when to say “Joey and me”: get rid of Joey. Not for good, of course. Send him to his room for a brief time-out, and try the sentence with just you in it. Works every time.

February 1, 2016

Sigh

Filed under: grammar,shop talk — amba12 @ 1:44 pm

grammarnazi

November 17, 2015

Dangler for an Angler

The Coelacanth

“Thought to have been long extinct, scientists discovered these ‘living fossils’ in 1938.”

Coela

September 24, 2015

Dangler of the Day

“Destined to be called an instant classic, I could not put this stunning book down.” ~ Julie Klam, author of Friendkeeping and You Had Me at Woof, on Erica Jong’s new novel Fear of Dying.

Okay, in the spirit of “Call me a cab.” “You’re a cab,” I’ll fulfill her destiny: Julie, you’re an instant classic!

(I wonder if she did that in her books, and if there was anyone to catch it.)

August 23, 2015

For true grammar nerds only

Filed under: grammar — amba12 @ 2:16 pm

This grammar article (an example of what we might call “demotic snobbery”) is not only gracelessly written itself (shame on JStor, a scholarly archive); it takes on the straw men of stuffy grammar “rules” that have long since fallen (the august Chicago Manual of Style gives its approval to the judicious, natural use of split infinitives and prepositions ending sentences); and, it fails to make the key distinction between SPEAKING and WRITING. We do not observe the same rules in speaking as in writing, nor should we. The critically endangered rule on dangling participles and dangling appositives — avoid them, because they are literally misleading — does not apply to speech because in speaking, you never even get there. Who ever uses an appositive or participial phrase in speech?! It’s a formality of writing to begin with, and one that is designed to lay out thought with an unambiguous precision and clarity that is particular to writing. Why do people who themselves are WRITING write only about SPEAKING?! /rant

April 25, 2015

Dangling Slowly in the Wind

All right, all right. I get the message:

Charged with involuntary manslaughter, a jury ultimately acquitted the film’s director, John Landis, of the charges.

It’s past time to tackle the issue of dangling participles, appositives, and what-have-you. The only reason I haven’t done it yet is that I actually don’t know the terminology. This is embarrassing and prevents me from being a certified expert. I live and breathe grammar, but I don’t really know what its parts are called. I can conjugate and decline with the best of them, but I can’t remember which is the operation you do on verbs and which on nouns. I know that a dangling participle is a phrase beginning with the -ed or -ing form of a verb that is not properly attached to the subject it’s meant to modify. But what’s a dangling appositive? Like the judge with the porn, I know it when I see it. I know it’s wrong, and I know why, but I don’t know it by name. I had to Google it. This is a dangling appositive:

A lawyer by training, her intelligence was keen, her commitment to health care reform and poverty unwavering.

Here’s another one:

Known for his sound character, military service, and political reforms, his passing came as a shock nationwide.

OK, millennials (my favorite straw man and woman, shorthand for the hapless victims of successive generations of progressive education, fading out like Xeroxes of Xeroxes), here’s a simple rule that will keep you from ever dangling a participle or an appositive again:

A participial or appositive phrase is like a baby duck: IT FOLLOWS THE FIRST THING IT SEES.

In the case of dangling participles, not knowing this rule often leads to unintentionally comical results, such as the above example of the jury charged with involuntary manslaughter, or yesterday’s example of the homeless men on their way to see Les Miz. The dangler simply attaches itself to the first thing it sees, like one of Konrad Lorenz‘s baby geese: [jeez, I had to copyedit the quote to make it fit for polite company!]

What he’s best known for and [what] led him to become internationally recognized was his classic experiment with newly hatched goslings (baby geese). For this experiment, Lorenz [divided] the eggs from the same goose into two randomly picked groups. Group A hatched in a natural environment and immediately began to follow mother goose around. Group B hatched in an incubator and the first living being they saw was Konrad Lorenz. So they immediately began to follow Mama Lorenz around… All the time.

In the case of the dangling appositive, the poor thing often has nothing to follow. The subject of the sentence has gone AWOL, and there’s no one to take its place. (In the above examples, you’d really have to work at the misreading “her intelligence was a lawyer by training” or “his passing was known for his sound character.”) The appositive just stands there, bewildered, like a teenager in a foreign train station, a follower without a leader and without marching orders. The grammar maven who provided the example also provides “one possible fix”:

A lawyer by training, she had a keen intelligence . . .

Or, in the second case,

Known for his sound character, military service, and political reforms, Beau Biden was mourned across a nation shocked by his passing.

In the opening example, the participial phrase can only be saved from the noose by a resort to the passive voice:

Charged with involuntary manslaughter, the film’s director, John Landis, was ultimately acquitted of the charges by a jury.

You might choose to rewrite those sentences differently But the point is, participial and appositive phrases both follow the very first thing they see when they turn the corner of the comma. So make sure it is what you want them to follow, the subject you intended them to describe. /sermon

April 24, 2015

Usage Find of the Day

NEW YORK (PIX11) – Four Swedish police officers heading to a Broadway show found themselves in the middle of a New York City subway brawl, and decided to take a break from their vacation — stopping the fight and subduing both opponents.

While on their way to watch “Les Miserables,” two homeless men started fighting on an uptown 6 train in the middle of rush hour . . .

How appropriate that those homeless men were going to see “Les Miz”! They must have had to panhandle for months to buy the tickets, though.

April 14, 2015

Usage Find of the Day

Filed under: grammar,language degenerating,Usage Find of the Day — amba12 @ 7:59 pm

This is an almost endearing instance of millennial pathos:

You’re at the airport waiting to pass through security and board your flight. The security agent stops the person in line ahead of you: there was a full water bottle in his carry-on bag. He throws out the bottle and proceeds through the airport. Later that evening, you see that person’s face on the news, for having pulled out dynamite on their flight. Why did the TSA agent overlook the dynamite?

The writer has already made a choice to identify the gender of the offender: “he” threw out the water bottle in “his” carry-on bag. Yet the writer still feels obligated to go on and describe something this male person did on “their” flight.

Why??

What was it about this particular “his” that suddenly triggered the writer’s sexism-avoidance reflex when the earlier “he” and “his” did not? Or was it nothing so ideological, simply a belief that the correct third-person possessive is always “their”? But in either case, why didn’t “they” go back and change the other two instances? Whither consistency? Is this profound amnesia for the preceding sentence? Or just a visual culture’s assumption that language is some approximate wet sloppy stuff you throw handfuls of at content? Some generic substance you sell by weight?

March 30, 2015

You and Me Against the World

Filed under: grammar,language degenerating — amba12 @ 10:53 am

Great song, especially as sung by Freddy Cole.* Lousy grammar. But so is this, from a new science article:

Germline alterations are therefore permanent, as opposed to changes made to “somatic” cells—the cells in you and I that are generated after conception and are not passed on to our children.

And this, from a wedding invitation:

It’s so heartening to think that you could be joining George and I for our wedding on the 4th of July.

I don’t know what has caused the plague of this — a dislike of the word “me” perhaps (me, me, me! it’s all about me!) — but a plague it is. The rule to know when to say “you and I” and when to say “George and me” is simple. A pair of pronouns are both operated on identically by the verb preceding them. So the science writer above is saying “the cells in I,” and the blushing bride-to-be is saying (if we can bear to separate her from her intended for a moment), “you could be joining I for [my] wedding.” None of us would ever intentionally say that. Don’t tell me that “you and I” is becoming a fused grammatical unit that overrides the fact that the dative and accusative of “I” (that is, when it is an indirect object — “give I a call tomorrow” — or a direct object — “call I tomorrow”) is … you got it …

ME!

ME, ME, ME!

*click the > sample arrow for a taste. You may want to buy the song! I was driving around Chapel Hill a few years after J’s death when I heard it on the radio. It stopped me in my tracks.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.