December 14, 2020

Avoid too many Ss for appearance’ sake

I don’t hear many people saying “for goodness’ sake” these days. “For conscience’ sake” and “for appearance’ sake” are pretty much nonexistent in my world, too. In fact, the only “for … sake” expression I hear lately includes a word I wouldn’t use in this space even if I could.

So you might think, as I did, that these terms are on the outs. Therefore, you might figure, there’s no use worrying about whether they’re written with an apostrophe, as in “goodness’ sake,” with an apostrophe plus an S, as in “goodness’s sake,” or with neither, as in “goodness sake.”

But that assumption would be wrong. Between 1950 and 2008, “goodness sake” doubled in popularity in books published in the United States., according to Google Books’ Ngram Viewer. So it’s still worthwhile to know how it and similar expressions are written.

The problem is, there isn’t much agreement among style guides about how to write “for … sake” terms. They can’t even agree how to categorize the issue.

To find recommendations in the Chicago Manual of Style, for example, you have to look under “possessives.” In the Associated Press Stylebook, the discussion is filed under apostrophes. In usage guides such as Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage and Fowler’s Modern English Usage, you have to flip through alphabetized listings to the letter S, for “sake.”

Their advice, once you find it, is equally confusing. Here's the full explanation in my recent column.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

December 8, 2020

How to avoid misplaced apostrophes during the holidays

Christmas cards, holiday video greetings, mailed gifts and business correspondence prove the holidays are a rife with opportunities to show the world you don’t know how to form plurals and possessives of proper names.

To avoid embarrassing mistakes on holiday greeting cards and other correspondence, memorize this rule: Never use an apostrophe to form a plural. One Wilson, two Wilsons. One Smith, two Smiths. This doesn’t change simply because a name ends in a vowel or vowel sound. One Macini, two Mancinis. One Wu, two Wus. One Zooey. Two Zooeys.

The impulse to add an apostrophe is strong when the name ends with a vowel, as in Wu or Eli. Without an apostrophe, the letter S seems to change the pronunciation of the vowel, giving you words that sound like “wuss” or “Ellis.” Ignore that impulse. The rule stays the same. Two Wus. Two Elis.

To make a plural of a proper name, in most cases, just add S. If the name ends in an S or Z sound, like Williams or Chavez, add ES. The Williamses. The Chavezes. So if you’re writing that you spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Chavez, do not write “the Chavez’s.” They’re the Chavezes. No apostrophe.

Here, in my recent column, are some other apostrophe issues you'll want to get right this holiday season.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 30, 2020

'Whom' is hard, 'whomever' is harder

If you’re looking for a reason to avoid using “whom,” the best one I know is illustrated in this sentence from an ESPN blog:

“The game will be determined by whomever can pass better.”

That was penned by a professional wordsmith who recognized that the sentence structure called for an object. That’s why he used “whomever,” which is an object pronoun, instead of “whoever,” which is a subject pronoun. But it was the wrong call.

I see this error a lot. It’s one of those rare mistakes that may actually be more common among professional writers than among amateurs. I suppose that’s because professional writers feel more obligated to use “whom” and “whomever,” whereas amateurs don’t feel the need to sound so formal.

“Whom” and “whomever,” experts say, are for formal speech and writing. In informal speech and writing, you can just always use “who” and “whoever” and not worry whether they should have had Ms in them.

And professional writers seem to get the basic concept: who and whoever are subjects, whom and whomever are objects.

An object is either the object of a transitive verb, like “cake” in “We ate cake,” or the object of a preposition, like “Pete” in “The book was written by Pete.”

Our ESPN writer knew that “by” is a preposition. So whatever followed “The game will be determined by” was an object. But, in this case, the object is not a single pronoun like “whomever.” It’s a whole clause like, “whoever can pass better.”

Clauses need subjects, and subjects must be in subject form. Compare “he can pass better” to “him can pass better.” The first one, which uses a subject pronoun, is clearly right while the second, which uses an object pronoun, is clearly wrong.

But here's the clincher: A subject needs a clause even if that whole clause is itself functioning as an object. So the subject form, “whoever,” is needed to make the true object, the clause, make sense: The game will be determined by whoever can pass better.

When in doubt just remember that whenever a word seems to be filling the job of both an object and a subject, the subject form wins. Or try plugging in "he" and "him." If the subject pronoun -- "he can pass better" -- works and the object pronoun "him" -- "him can pass better -- doesn't, then you know you want the subject "whoever."

Sadly, a lot of people who know the basic difference between who and whom don’t know how to handle this specific dilemma. The “whoever” vs. “whomever” issue gives them away. That’s why, if you don’t know how to use all these pronouns in all these situations, you may be safer ignoring “whom” and “whomever” altogether.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 23, 2020

How to punctuate 'Hi, John' as an email greeting

Hi John,

How many emails and other correspondence are punctuated exactly that way, with no comma after “hi” but a comma after “John”? Most, it seems. This form is so common that it’s become acceptable. Use it if you like.

But if you want to get really technical, there’s a better way.

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, a “direct address” should be set off by commas. A direct address occurs when you call someone by a name or other term used like a name.

Goodbye, Norma Jean

Hey, dude

Listen, punk

Excuse me, ma’am

I swear it, officer

Chief, you gotta believe me 

Norma Jean, dude, punk, ma’am, officer and Chief – those are all direct addresses because they’re all things people are being called directly. When we say they’re supposed to be “set off” with commas, that means that when one appears in the middle of a sentence it should have a comma on either side.

Goodbye, Norma Jean, and good luck.

Hey, dude, that’s awesome.

If a direct address is at the end of a sentence, of course, the period at the end of the sentence precludes the need for a second comma.

Goodbye, Norma Jean.

But almost every time I see a direct address in my e-mail in-box, it has no comma before the name.

Hi John,

Usually, however, there is a comma after the name. But that doesn’t quite make sense, either, because it’s not in the middle of a sentence.

I think I know why people punctuate email greetings this way. It has to do with the common “Dear John,” greeting.

“Dear” isn’t the same as “hi.” "Dear" is a modifier, and you don’t use a comma to separate modifiers from the things they modify “lazy, cat.” They work as a unit: “lazy cat.”

A comma after "Dear John" makes more sense than a comma after "Hi, June." "Dear John," begins a thought — it’s just part of a sentence. "Hi, John." is a complete thought and a complete sentence.

So when I start an email with “hi” or “hey” or “hello” followed by a name, I set the name off with a comma and end the line with a period or colon.

Hey, John.

But if you want to keep using

Hey John,

no one is likely to have a problem with it.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 16, 2020

Can You Use 'That' and 'Which' Interchangeably?

Anyone who’s followed the Associated Press Stylebook or the Chicago Manual of Style has been told there’s an important difference between “that” and “which.”  The relative pronoun “that” is for what are called restrictive clauses while “which” is for nonrestrictive clauses. For example, “Hand me the pen which I like” should be “Hand me the pen that I like.”

But style guides aren't grammar books and the rules within aren't necessarily universal grammar rules. This is one of those rules.

If you’re writing or editing according to AP or Chicago style, you should observe their distinction between “that” and “which.” But if you’re not, well, then you don’t have to worry about it. Here is the difference.

A restrictive clause, also called an “essential” or “defining” clause, narrows down the thing it refers to. Compare:
The cars that have flat tires will be towed.

with

The cars, which have flat tires, will be towed.
In the first example, the “that” clause actually narrows down which cars we’re talking about. Only the ones that have flat tires will be towed. In the second example, all the cars will be towed. The “which” clause lets us know that they all have flat tires. But that in no way separates the ones to be towed from others. “The cars” will be towed. All of them. Period.

In other words, a restrictive clause restricts its subject. A nonrestrictive clause does not: It can be lifted right out of the sentence without losing specificity of your subject.
That’s the basic difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. But, despite what some style guides say, there’s no rule that says you can’t use “which” for a restrictive clause. British speakers especially do it all the time. “The teeth which are causing him the most pain will be extracted.”

If I were editing an article with that sentence in it, I would change the “which” to “that,” only because I work in AP style. But I certainly wouldn’t call it wrong.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 9, 2020

Season's, not seasons, greetings: Holiday terms to write right

Here come the holidays. Or as some might put it, the Holidays. Or, less commonly, the holiday’s. Either way, it’s a great time to make embarrassing errors in social media posts, emails, cards, business correspondence and marketing copy. Happy holidays. Season's greetings. New year, New Year's.

Here are some terms you’ll want to write right this time of year.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 2, 2020

With single quotation marks, ampersands and periods, follow the rules, not your instincts

Often, people assume they can know punctuation rules without looking them up — relying solely on their sheer powers of deduction. They assume wrong.

For instance, the phenomenon I call “quotation marks lite.” Here’s an example: ‘quotation marks lite.’

The single quotation marks in the second example — they’re wrong. Every credible punctuation guide says that, when you want to talk about a word or phrase, you use regular quotation marks.

Then there's the ampersand, which people assume works along with the word "and" to show different types of relationships between words, as in: Guests drank beer, wine and gin & tonics. The cafeteria’s sandwiches include tuna, turkey and ham & cheese.

Then there's the nearly universal assumption that you, the writer, get to decide whether to put a period before or after a quotation mark, as in: He called your story "hogwash".

All these assumptions can lead you to making very real punctuation errors. Here's my recent column explaining how to use these marks the right way.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

October 26, 2020

What's a declarative question?

Simple, declarative questions — that’s the best way to get answers from a Supreme Court nominee, a news commentator insisted recently. Just ask declarative questions.

I scoffed and filed the term in the corner of my mind home to “jumbo shrimp” and “military intelligence.” An oxymoron. A contradiction in terms. Nonsense.

But now, after doing a little research, I know better. “Declarative question” is neither nonsensical nor a contradiction in terms. Instead, it’s a mashup of two basic concepts: declarative and interrogative sentences.

All sentences come in one of four forms: declarative, interrogative, imperative or exclamatory.

A declarative sentence is a simple statement: You eat gluten.

An interrogative sentence is a question: Do you eat gluten?

An imperative sentence is a command: Eat gluten!

An exclamatory sentence is an exclamation: Gluten!

So if a declarative is a statement and an interrogative is a question, what's a declarative question? The answer is in my recent column.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

October 19, 2020

'Every day' vs. 'everyday'

A while back, I saw written on a truck something like, “Delivering the best to you everyday.” I see that use of “everyday” a lot, which is unfortunate. The two-word version, “every day,” would have been a better choice.

According to a number of dictionaries, including Webster’s New World, the one-word “everyday” is an adjective. Adjectives modify nouns. “We offer everyday values.” Here, the one-word version is correct because it’s doing what an adjective should do -- modifying a noun.

But the message on the delivery truck didn’t call for an adjective. Try plugging in a different adjective, for example, “great,” in the example sentences above. You end up with “Delivering the best to you great.” If that were truly a sentence that called for an adjective, “great” would have worked fine, as it does in “We offer great values.”

So you can see that this usage actually calls for an adverb.

Adverbs answer the question when? where? or in what manner? The passage “Delivering the best to you every day” calls for an adverb because it needs something to answer the question “when?”

“Every day” is a noun phrase. It consists of a noun, “day,” and an adjective modifying it. Together, they work as a single unit in our example to function as an adverb: Delivering the best to you every day.

If that's more than you care to take in right now, just remember that the one-word “everyday” is an adjective and you’ll never have to worry about bloggers pointing out mistakes on your delivery truck.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

October 12, 2020

Lead, sneak peak, reign, eek and other words even smart people get wrong

In our tricky language, certain words are out to trick you. Sometimes, they succeed. It doesn’t matter how grammar-savvy you are or how many degrees you have in English lit. Some misused words can and will pop up in your writing. Vigilance won’t save you, but it can help. So watch out for these seven words that even smart people get wrong.

Lead. You may know all about the verb “to lead.” You may know that in the present tense it has an “a” but in the past tense it doesn’t: “He led them astray.” That knowledge is worthless if you let your guard down. The metal, “lead,” is lurking in your subconscious waiting to ambush your sentence. It’s spelled just like the verb’s present tense, but it’s pronounced just like the verb’s past tense. That’s why so many people who know better use the wrong form, as in “He lead me astray.” That should be “led.”

Sneak peak. In any other context, “peak” isn’t a problem. Most people know not to say, “I peaked out the window.” But, true to its name, “sneak” is trying to pull a fast one here. The human brain has a thing for patterns — and shortcuts. So when we see with our eye the spelling s-n-e-a-k and we hear in our mind the “eek,” our brain goes on autopilot and repeats the spelling at served us so well in our last “eek” sound, causing us to write “peak” instead of the correct “peek.”

Five more are here in my recent column.

Click player above to listen to the podcast