August 10, 2020

Why you should resist the urge to uppercase titles, products and more

If you’re writing about the president of a company, do you write his title with a capital P? What if he’s the president and founder?

What if he’s the chief executive officer, which everyone knows stands for CEO and not ceo? Do you capitalize the name of a local restaurant’s signature chili-spice fried chicken or their beef Wellington? And what’s up (literally) with bloody marys?

In a written work, too many capital letters can be the hallmark of an amateur — or a sales pitch. Companies like to treat their products, properties and people as if they’re all proper names even when they’re not. Timid writers seek to oblige, uppercasing words out fear of dishonoring someone’s title or trademark.

But if you want your writing to look more like professionally edited work, you should do the opposite. Newswriting shuns the idea that news articles should be deferential to business. If a nationwide restaurant chain wants everyone to refer to their spicy shrimp tacos as Spicy Shrimp Tacos, too bad.

If the same three words in a generic sense can describe the tacos, that’s how news most news publications lean. Obviously, that doesn’t work with a dish like Hula Pie because hula pie in the generic sense doesn’t mean anything. So the only times you’ll see a traditional news outlet treat a product as a proper name is when the name can’t be interpreted as generic description.

But those aren't the only cases when you should resist the urge to capitalize. Here's my recent column outlining even more.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

August 3, 2020

Can you evacuate a person?

In a long-ago episode of "The Wire," a reporter had written in an article that people were “evacuated” from a burning building. Wrong, her editors tell her. You don’t “evacuate” a person from a building. To evacuate a person, she's told, means “to give them an enema.”

The reporter picks up a copy of Webster’s New World College Dictionary — the Associated Press Stylebook’s designated dictionary and therefore the very one that newsroom would use — and affirming that, yes, the editors were right. “Evacuate” cannot be used to describe removing people from a building.

I wasn’t buying it. The fact that the show knew which dictionary to use had impressed me so much that I almost believed they were telling viewers the truth about its contents. But not quite.

So I picked up my own copy of Webster’s New World.

The first two definitions show that to “evacuate” a person can indeed mean to give him an enema. They are: 1. to make empty; remove the contents of; specif., to remove air from so as to make a vacuum; and 2. to discharge (bodily waste, esp. feces).

But the third definition was different:

3. to remove (inhabitants, etc.) from (a place or area), as for protective purposes

That means that you can evacuate a person by removing him or her from a place. And it contains another lesson, too. Never get your facts from people whose primary job is to entertain.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

July 27, 2020

5 ways good sentences go bad — and how to fix them

Have you ever read a sentence that just didn’t work but you couldn’t put your finger on what was wrong? Have you ever written one?

Reader-unfriendly sentences are everywhere. Many you can fix just by making sure the main clause contains a tangible subject and an action-oriented verb, like changing “It was the act of shooting the bandit that got the deputy a promotion to sheriff” to “The deputy shot the bandit. The mayor promoted him to sheriff.”

Other bad sentences are more complicated. Dangling participles, misplaced prepositional phrases, passive voice, nominalizations and vague words are common culprits. Here's my recent column on how to spot them and how to fix them.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

July 20, 2020

Bad Advice

Don’t split an infinitive. Don’t end a sentence with a preposition. Don’t begin a sentence with “and.” Don’t use passive voice.

If these rigid proscriptions have been rattling around your head since your school days, veteran Baltimore Sun copy editor and Loyola University Maryland editing instructor John McIntyre would like a word. Well, two words, actually: “Bad Advice.”

That’s the title of McIntyre’s new book, whose subtitle tells you everything else you need to know about what’s inside: “The Most Unreliable Counsel Available on Grammar, Usage, and Writing.”

It’s a tiny tome. Just 51 pages. But it contains pretty much everything you ever wanted to un-know about grammar but didn’t know you needed to un-know it.

McIntyre explains: “Many of the things you are getting wrong in writing are not your fault: you have been badly advised. You have been taught superstitions about English that have no foundation in the language. You have been hobbled with oversimplifications. You have been subjected to bizarre diktats from supposed authorities.”

From there, McIntyre handily obliterates practically every piece of bad advice you ever got, starting with “one of the oldest zombie rules”: Never end a sentence with a preposition. Here's my recent column rounding up some of the book's best tips.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

July 13, 2020

The best reason to avoid 'whom'? The word 'whomever'

If you’re looking for a reason to avoid using “whom,” the best one I know is illustrated in sentences like this, which appeared on 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

July 6, 2020

The incredibly treacherous single quotation mark

Single quotation marks are hard. Lately, it seems they’re practically impossible. More and more I see professional editors and professionally published writing use them wrong.

To get an idea of how these little marks are confounding even professional users of punctuation, look at the following two sentences.

“Jessie just looked at me and said, ‘Goodbye,'” Ben said.

“That house is the Smiths’,” Stephanie said.

Note the punctuation at the end of each quotation. Care to guess which is correct? Is it the example where both punctuation marks come after the comma? Or is it the example in which the comma sits between the two other punctuation marks?

Answer: It was a trick question. Both are punctuated correctly. My recent column explains why.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

June 29, 2020

Sometimes apostrophes are hard

Admit it. You’ve been stumped by apostrophes before. There’s no shame in it — even for word-savvy types who know all too well the difference between “lets” and “let’s” and who can spot a misplaced apostrophe in “Welcome to the Smith’s house” from a mile away.

Apostrophes are used in many situations — too many, really — ranging from the super-easy “the dog’s tail” to the super-arcane “attorneys general’s.”

In my recent column, I looked at at the far end of the difficulty spectrum: The apostrophe uses that can stump even the very best of punctuators. Here are some of the toughest situations for knowing when to pull out an apostrophe.

Do’s and don’ts
Attorneys general’s
Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Presidents Day, Veterans Day
Single quotation mark instead of apostrophe in ’80s
Goodness’ sake, conscience’ sake, appearance’ sake
Kids’ and children’s
A’s and Bs and c’s and d’s

All those are correct. Here’s why.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

June 22, 2020

'Slinked' or 'slunk'? 'Swam' or 'swum'? Getting the answers is easier than you think

Award-winning Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown tweeted recently about a former politician who “slinked off and went home.”

A follower was not pleased: “I love you Julie, and your work,” a reader named Bill replied. But I can’t let ‘slinked’ go. ‘Slunk,’ please.”

Brown was contrite: “It’s not a word I use very often. Hopefully the Twitter word police will forgive me.”

Somewhat coincidentally, I saw these Tweets not long after starting to write a column on past tense verbs. The example I had in mind was “swum.” After all, when’s the last time you heard the word “swum”? When’s the last time you used it?

But the slinked/slunk debate illustrates the same problem as does swam/swum: People don’t know where to turn for help choosing past tense forms (though that doesn’t stop some of them from telling others which to choose).

Good news: You never have to guess. The answer's as close by as the nearest dictionary. I explain how to find it in this recent column.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

June 15, 2020

Tips for Writing Better Sentences

There’s no formula for writing a good sentence. There’s not even a formula for knowing what a good sentence is. The very idea is subjective. But sometimes bad is universal. Here are some tips I came up with by analyzing some truly awful sentences and considering what could make them better. These tips won’t apply in every situation. But they’re worth considering when you find your sentence is in trouble.

TIPS FOR IMPROVING SENTENCES

1. Identify all the clauses in the sentence.
The mayor went to Washington because he had a meeting with the senator.

2. For each clause ask: Could the subject or verb be more vivid or substantive?
Bob’s desire was that he would come to occupy the Lou Larson’s job.  --->
Bob wanted Lou Larson’s job.
Ask: Does the main clause convey the most important information?
Paris is a place that gets a lot of tourists.  --->
Paris gets a lot of tourists.

3. Look for “upside-down subordination,” where the most notable information is trapped in a subordinate clause by until, after, before, if, when, because, etc.
When suddenly Officer Miller shot the robber, he knew it was a good decision.  --->
Suddenly, Officer Miller shot the robber. He knew it was a good decision.

4. Consider whether each clause/action should be made into its own sentence.

Karen knew that removing her coat would send bill the wrong signal and didn’t want to give him any ideas because that could lead to trouble.  --->
Karen knew that removing her coat would send Bill the wrong signal. She didn’t want to give him any ideas. That could lead to trouble.

5. Look for other sentence elements, like participial phrases, that could be made into separates sentences.
Having been in a lupus survivor for 15 years, John knew what to do.  --->
John had survived lupus for 15 years. He knew what to do.

6. Look for passive voice and try converting to active voice. Compare:
The coffee was served.  --->
The waiter served the coffee.

7. Look for actions and descriptions converted into abstract objects (nominalizations) and consider changing.
It’s clear she has happiness. --->
It’s clear she is happy.

8. Look for modifiers that can be deleted without loss of meaning, especially adjectives and manner adverbs.

9. Root out verbose expressions and linking terms: therefore, furthermore, thus, for his part, due to the fact that, it is his opinion that and some instances of in addition to and from blank to blank.

10. Look for poorly placed modifying phrases and look for ways to rework the sentence.
Steve photographed an elephant in his pajamas.
The elephant appeared just after Steve had leapt out of bed wearing his pajamas.
Wearing his pajamas, Steve leapt out of bed and photographed the elephant.
Steve was still in his pajamas when he photographed the elephant.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

June 8, 2020

'Do': The dummy operator

Have you ever thought about the word “do”? My advice is don’t.

The word “do” is one of the bugbears of English that make our language incredibly difficult to master — for nonnative speakers and even for people born into the English-speaking world. Almost no one fully understands “do.” The people who use it correctly do so through osmosis, not understanding.

To see what I mean, consider the formula for making questions in Latin-based languages like French. In other languages, to make a question, you often just take a statement and swap the places of the subject and verb. “Vous voulez fromage” (You want cheese) becomes a question when you switch the positions of the pronoun and the verb: “Voulez-vous fromage?” Simple.

There are exceptions, of course — situations trickier than this. But this is the basic formula. It’s called inversion, because you invert the position of the subject and verb.

Try that in English. “You want cheese.” “Want you cheese?” “He saw a great movie last weekend.” “Saw he a great movie last weekend?” As we’ll see in a minute, sometimes this process actually works in English.

But not in these examples. Examine all these questions and you can see that something is missing — a little-understood word known as a dummy operator. It’s the word “do,” and it’s how we form questions like “Do you want cheese?” and “Did he see a great movie last weekend?”

“Do” has two main jobs. First, it’s a regular old verb. “Do the dishes.” “I don’t do windows.” “I do.” In that job, it works the same as any other garden variety verb. But on top of that, it has a special job — that of dummy operator. Here's a column on what dummy operators are and how you use them every day without thinking about it.

Click player above to listen to the podcast