Whom do you think you are?

Yesterday's challenge:
"Although this deal is just between he and I, I'll discuss it with whomever is higher than he to see what they think before preceding."

This puzzle has five pronoun errors and one wrong word. Here's how it should read, with corrections in all caps:

"Athough this deal is just between HIM and ME, I'll discuss it with WHOEVER is higher than HIM to see what HE thinks before PROCEEDING."

"Proceeding" means moving foward. "Preceding" means before. "Before preceding" means "before before."

"Him," "me" and the second "him" are objects of the verbs, not subjects.

"They" is plural. For publication we try to write around singular pronouns when the sex of the antecedent (subject) is not known to avoid the once universal masculine because it is now considered sexist.

"Whoever" is the trickiest error in the challenge sentence. One might argue that "whomever" is correct because it is the object of "I'll discuss it with whomever." But it is the subject of "whoever is higher." In such cases, writes Paula LaRoque, the subjective wins.

Personally, I think "whom" and "whomever" should be discarded on the heap of archaic words like "thee."

The way I remembered it as a kid is that "whom" is at the beginning of an interrogative sentence (question) but deeper into a declarative.

"Whom are you seeking?" "You" is the subject, "whom" is the object.

"Never send to know for whom the bell tells; it tolls for thee." John Donne (note the "thee")

Obviously this test doesn't always work.
If in doubt, use "who" and only English teachers will notice or care if you're wrong.

I have some people taking a shot at these challenges by e-mailing me directly with their answers rather than posting them for all to see. That's fine with me.

Remember: Spot the error in print or broadcast. Name your pet peeves.

And finally: What's your favorite line from a book (or movie)?

Error prone

Yesterday's challenge:

"The search that lead the state's Council on Postsecondary Education to hire interim President Brad Cowgill for the full time post was not proper, Conway said as part of a nonbinding legl opinion released Thursday."

Kelly spotted the misspelling that appeared in the story (lead for led) as well as the one I inadvertently added (legl). Oops. (he-he-he)
Using lead for led is a common error because the soft-metal "lead" is a homonym for "led" and perhaps because both the present tense and past tense of "read" are spelled the same. "Read me a story." "I already read you a story." "Lead me home." "I already led you home."
Kelly also spotted the style error, the missing hyphen in the two-word adjective "full-time." Two-word adjectives preceding a noun should be hyphenated (exception: if the first word is "very" or ends in "ly").

E rewrote the sentence, correcting the style error and eliminating the misspelling.

The wrong word choice is debatable. Rather than use "said" in reference to a written opinion or press release, the word "wrote" is more precise and less likely to confuse the reader. "... Conway wrote in a nonbinding legal opinion ..."

Today's challenge (six errors — maybe more if my typing hasn't improved since yesterday):
Although this deal is just between he and I, I'll discuss it with whomever is higher than he to see what they think before preceding.

Cliche corner:
"Let's think outside the box and create a new paradigm by reinventing ourselves. Or would such cutting edge thinking provoke a firestorm of criticism?"
Have you heard any of these in your workplace? What other cliches annoy you?

Intimidation

In case you missed it, Anya wrote the following comment to Friday's post:
"I have to confess I'm too intimidated to attempt an improved version of the challenge sentences. What if I'm wrong? I can dish it out, but I surely don't like having it handed right back to me. I'll admit it, I'm thin-skinned.
after all, I'm a writer--it's one of our defining characteristics."

A couple of others have written that they are intimidated by the blog. Help me retool the blog so it becomes a helpful resource rather than one that frightens readers away. My intent was to facilitate some lively give-and-take. How do we get there?

Trivia answer: The Winston slogan should have been "Winston tastes good AS a cigarette should." The new slogan, which was used in both print and broadcast advertising along with the unchanged original slogan was "What do you want, good grammar or good taste?"

Friday's challenge: After the suspect turned up missing, her guilt or innocence became a moot point for the prosecution.

Answers:
1) If the suspect turned up, how could she be missing?
2) Her guilt was at issue. If she were not guilty, then she would be innocent. Adding "or innocence" is redundant.
3) The correct definition of "moot" is "debatable," not "irrelevant" or "a dead issue" as it is now commonly used. Paula LaRocque (Championship Writing) recommends avoiding the word to avoid confusion.
4) The suspect's guilt would not become either debatable or irrelevant to the prosecution just because her whereabouts were unknown. Prosecutors would remain convinced of her guilt.

From an AP story we published Friday:
"The search that lead the state's Council on Postsecondary Education to hire interim President Brad Cowgill for the full time post was not proper, Conway said as part of a nonbinding legl opinion released Thursday."

Anyone want to take a stab at editing the piece? I find one spelling error, one style error and one wrong word choice.

Grammar trivia

Yesterday's challenge:
How could you write the following better?
She was awarded the first-place trophy after defeating all the other contestants.

Here's one way to improve it:
She won.

A new challenge — correct or improve this:
After the suspect turned up missing, her guilt or innocence became a moot point for the prosecution.

Trivia: Winston cigarettes once used the slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" in its TV ads (back when cigarette advertising had not yet been banned). Complaints about the grammatical error from English teachers and editors and bibliophiles across the country inspired a new slogan. Questions: What was the error, and what was the new slogan?"

A number of items

The puzzles were:

1) Kentucky is demographically favorable for Clinton although the state's major cities, Louisville and Lexington, are home to a number of black voters.

Answer: One is a number. So is a googal and three-fifths and even zero. Which one fits the count of black voters in Louisville and Lexington?

2) Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle backs the Illinois senator, as does current Sen. Tim Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, the state's lone member of Congress.

Answer: If South Dakota has only one member of Congress, why did the writer list two? Actually South Dakota has three, two senators and one representative. Herseth-Sandlin is the state's lone member of the House. But she has as many last names as South Dakota's entire Senate delegation.

Today's challenge:
How could you write the following better?
She was awarded the first-place trophy after defeating all the other contestants.

AP oopses

An AP story we published April 20 contained the following sentences:

Kentucky is demographically favorable for Clinton although the state's major cities, Louisville and Lexington, are home to a number of black voters.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle backs the Illinois senator, as does current Sen. Tim Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, the state's lone member of Congress.

Spot the errors?

Apostropheses'

Kelly is right. As annoying as it is to see apostrophes used to show plurals instead of possessives, it is correct in some cases. The Associated Press Stylebook puts apostrophes on single letters (example: mind your p's and q's) to avoid confusion (mind your ps and qs?). And, as Kelly pointed out, "A" students don't get all As, they get all A's.

Merriam-Webster OKs apostrophes to show the plural of both letters and figures (her routine earned two 8's and two 9's).

American Heritage includes single letters and numbers and adds abbreviations.

People frequently use an apostrophe and s with their last names to show plural. You see it on mailboxes, welcome mats and such (Jones's, Smith's). They should add just an s for most names (Smiths, Andersons), and es for names that end in s, x or z (Joneses, Coxes). If they mean both plural and possessive, they should add an apostrophe after the final s (Joneses' House).

Many writers, this one included, frequently and accidentally use an apostrophe for plural when engrossed in writing. That's why it's important to proof your work.

Editor's trick: Edit for content from top to bottom; edit for spelling and punctuation from bottom to top.

Apostrophe's and plural's

Is it ever correct to use an apostrophe to show plural?

Anxious for eager

Yesterday's puzzle: Anxious to begin building, the terms of the loan were excepted by Randall.
1) The loan terms were not anxious to build. Randall was.
2) Randall was not actually anxious, he was eager. Anxious means "with anxiety or worry."
3) Randall accepted the terms. He didn't except the terms.
4) Randall accepted the terms, not the terms were accepted by Randall. Use active verbs; "were accepted by" is passive.

A political cartoon in The Toledo Blade has Jimmy Carter, wearing a vest draped in explosives, saying, "After laying a wreath at Arafat's grave, Hamas gave me this cool sweater vest." But it was Carter, not Hamas, who laid the wreath.

Another pet peeve:
During parent orientation, deans and administrators and admissions counselors refer to "your styoodent."
First, the first pronunciation of "student" is "STUDE-nt." There is no "Y,"
and the "e" is silent. Second, it is my child (or son or daughter), not my student. My child is the school's student.
Nearly as painful to the ear is "TYOOS-dee" for the third day of the week. Where does that "y" come from?

Keep spotting errors in broadcast or print, and let us know your English pet peeves.

Enjoy the weekend.

An answer, a puzzle and a tip

Answer to yesterday's puzzle:
Mumbling Mary nailed it. "Whelps" means "pups," but in the South one often hears it in place of "welts," or bumps on the skin.

I hoped to distract readers with the awkward but correct use of "waked," the past-participial of "wake." The Brits prefer "woken," according to the Oxford Dictionary of Usage and Style, which sounds only slightly less awkward.

American Heritage College Dictionary: "The pairs 'wake, waken' and 'awake, awaken' have formed a bewildering array since the Middle English period. All four words have similar meanings, though there are some differences in use."
Here are 15 forms of the word: Wake, woke, had (or has, have, were) waked, had woken, awake, awoke, had awaked, had awoken, awaken, awakened, had awakened, wake up, woke up, had waked up, had woken up.

Today's puzzle (spot the error):
Anxious to begin building, the terms of the loan were excepted by Randall.

Today's tip:
Don't be too quick to insert commas between adjectives in a series preceding a noun.
Wrong: The shiny, red, sports car caught her eye.
Right: The shiny red sports car caught her eye.
How do you know? Insert "and" where the commas are. "The shiny and red and sports car caught her eye." If it sounds strange the commas are not needed.

A puzzle and a tip

Today's spot-the-error puzzle:
Erma had waked to discover painful whelps covering her limbs.

Today's tip: Avoid vague enhancers like "very."
I kept a list entitled "Evil Words" for reporters and editors at my previous position. At the top of the list: very.
The word rarely adds meaning and frequently detracts. Calling it a "weasel word," The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style says: This intensifier, which functions as both an adjective and an adveb, surfaces repeatedly in flabby writing. In almost every context in which it appears, its omission would result in at most a negligible loss. And in many contexts the idea would be more powerfully expressed without it.

Other vague enhancers that generally weaken one's writing: Extremely, greatly, completely, totally, much, really

Completely eliminating these very useless words from your vocabulary will greatly improve your writing. I'm totally convinced it will make a really big difference.

Answers

1. "Unique" means "one of a kind." It uses no modifier. Something is either unique or it isn't, but it can't be partially unique. It can't be "very" unique, and certainly not "somewhat" unique, although it might be "nearly" unique, but using that form would require the writer to explain what prevents it from being all-the-way unique.
In spoken English and in advertising, "unique" is frequently used to mean "unusual" or "distinctive." Merriam-Webster, the permissive aunt of reference books, lists it as a third definition.
Oddly, we understand "unique" in the negative: "Her paintings were not unique." "The candidate offered nothing unique."

2. "Reticent" is not a synonym for "reluctant." It means "reluctant to speak" or "silent." To be "reticent to speak" would mean "reluctant to speak to speak" or, even worse, "silent to speak." The permissive aunt again muddies the water, listing it as a third definition.

3. Paula LaRocque, "America's Writing Coach" and columnist for Quill magazine, says this: "Have one's cake and eat it, too" (is) an illogical expression that should be wanting to "EAT one's cake and HAVE it, too." That's the only way the expression makes sense. We must always have our cake before we eat it. The expression is meaningful only in wanting to eat our cake and then still to have it — in that order.

Anyone get all three?

Spot the error

What are the errors in the following sentences?
He knew this was a very unique opportunity.
She was reticent to join the women's club.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Answers tomorrow.

An assignment

Fellow English OCD freaks, here's your assignment. Find an error, or what you think is an error, in print and post it. Don't bother to look for it in The Paducah Sun, which is error-free.
Check catalogs and advertising fliers, billboards and signs, magazines, newspapers and even books.
I don't know if this exercise enables your disorder or provides therapy. Nor do I care. Have fun.

English OCD

Does anyone else suffer from a compulsion to correct English?
I've stopped my car to correct errors on marquees. I've scratched off apostrophes from signs where they were used with plurals. A sign painter in my previous hometown had a big sign out front that read SIGN'S. When I stopped to tell him, he said I wasn't the first (that was a relief), but he considered it just a difference of opinion.
My two professions — teacher and editor — have been enabling.
I come by it naturally. Both parents lamented the poor English of even educated professionals, and my dad even kept a notebook of the more egregious errors he came across in the course of the day.
Obviously, this is not an endearing quality. Has anyone found a way to manage such a compulsion? Are there support groups for this sort of thing?

Irregardless

A previous poster mentioned the word "irregardless" as a particular pet peeve, asserting that it is not a word.
It reminds me of a pastor at one of our previous churches who used the word frequently, sometimes two or three times in a sermon. I was torn between resisting my genetic predilection to correct other people's English and my concern that his messages were weakened by his misuse of the word.

I finally yielded to the temptation to tell him, justifying my decision by asking what I would want me to do if I were him. I would absolutely want to be told. I appreciate it when a reader corrects me on usage, even if I am momentarily embarrassed since what is already in print can't be unpublished.

Anyway, I was stunned by his reaction. He said, "Of course irregardless is a word." He refused to believe otherwise. I suggested he look it up. He said he didn't need to; he was certain it was a word. End of conversation.

So is it a word or isn't it?

The American Heritage calls irregardless "non-standard" for "regardless" and expounds: "The label Non-Standard does only approximate justice to the status of irregardless. More precisely, it is a form that many people mistakenly believe to be a correct usage in formal style but that in fact has no legitimate antecedents in either standard or non-standard varieties.

In other words, it barely rises to the level of substandard.

Merriam-Webster says this:
"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that 'there is no such word.' There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

Conclusion: Irregardless is a word. But it's the wrong word.

Rules that aren't

And what about the rules that aren't?
1. Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
2. Don't end a sentence with a preposition.
3. "None" is always singular.
4. Don't split infinitives (or any other verbs for that matter).
Thoughts:

1. Separating two independent clauses with a comma and lower-case conjunction often has less force than a period and capital.
But don't put a comma AFTER that conjunction.

2. "What are you waiting for?" Should we change it to "For what are you waiting?" Of course not. Winston Churchill famously and cleverly upbraided an editor who rearranged his sentences — putting the prepositions inside — with a terse note: "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."

3. "None" can mean "no one," but it can also mean "no few" or "no several." Does anyone really prefer "None of the union members is happy with the contract"?

4. "To boldly go where no man has gone before." Sure, it could have been "To go boldly where no man has gone before," but it is stronger with "boldly" boldly placed smack dab in the middle of the infinitive "to go." This "rule" is a holdover from the Latin in which the infinitive was one word and couldn't be split. Go ahead and split your verbs if the alternative is awkward.

English pet peeves

Does any usage error particularly grate on you?
One that makes me wince every time I hear it is the mispronunciation of the word "similar" as "simular," usually by a self-conscious speaker in a formal setting trying to enunciate.
To get this conversation started, fellow wordsmiths, please let me know some of your usage pet peeves.