November 24, 2014

Pin the Terminal Punctuation Mark on the Sentence

Let’s play pin the terminal punctuation on the sentence. In each of the examples below, decide where you’d put the period or question mark. 

1. He said, “I like the word ‘clandestine’”

2. Did he say, “I like the word ‘clandestine’”

3. He asked, “Is that an activity to which you would apply the label ‘clandestine’”

4. He said, “Now that’s what I call dancin’”

5. He asked, “You call that dancin’”

6. Did he say, “That’s what I call dancin’”

Hard, isn’t it? It sure is for most writers and editors I see. In fact, in the stories I copy edit, sentences like these trip up even skilled editors I work with (point being: don’t feel bad if you find them tough).

The best way to find the answers is to go very slowly and carefully, applying the basic rules for quotation marks and apostrophes. 

The rules state:

- A period or comma in American English always goes before a closing quotation mark, regardless of whether it applies to the whole sentence/clause or just the quoted portion. 

- A question mark or exclamation point can go before or after a closing quotation mark, depending on whether it applies to the whole sentence or just the quoted portion.

- Single quotation marks are no different: a period or comma always comes before, a question mark or exclamation point can go before or after.

- Apostrophes are different. They're considered part of the word. So they're never separated from the rest of the word by another punctuation mark.

Applying those rules, you should arrive at the following answers.

1. He said, “I like the word ‘clandestine.’” (The period comes before both the single quotation mark and the double quotation mark.)

2. Did he say, “I like the word ‘clandestine’”? (The question mark goes outside both the single and double quotation marks because the whole sentence, and not just the quoted portion, is a question.)

3. He asked, “Is that an activity to which you would apply the label ‘clandestine’?” (Here, only the quoted portion is a question. The word being singled out by the single quote marks is not a question. So the question mark goes after the single quotation mark but before the double. And, yes, that ends the sentence without need for further punctuation.)

4. He said, “Now that’s what I call dancin’.” (The mark after the N in dancin’ is not a single quote mark. It’s an apostrophe. So the quotation mark rule doesn’t apply. Think of that apostrophe as the letter it’s standing in for, G, which you would never separate from the rest of the word with a period.)

5. He asked, “You call that dancin’?” (The question mark applies to just the quote, not the whole sentence. So it comes before the closing quotation mark. But it should not separate the apostrophe.)

6. Did he say, “That’s what I call dancin’”? (The whole sentence, not just the quoted part, is a question.)

Let’s do a really tough bonus question (one that doesn’t come up much in the real world).

7. Perry said, “Joe asked, ‘Will you please stop dancin’’” 

Tough, right? There’s a contraction within a quotation within a quotation within a larger statement. So take it slowly.

Which part is the question? It’s the quote within the quote, right? So we want our question mark after the apostrophe in dancin’ but before the single quotation mark. So it’s:

7. Perry said, “Joe asked, ‘Will you please stop dancin’?’”

You can see why even professional editors stumble over stuff like this.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 17, 2014

Onetime vs. One-time

Here’s a sentence with a potentially comical word choice:

“Bob and I shared a deep connection, and as a one-time partner, he will live in my memory forever.”

I know that’s a bad sentence with plenty to object to, but the issue I’m talking about is “one-time” instead of “onetime.” The one-word form, without question, means “former.” But the hyphenated form could mean someone you hooked up with exactly once.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate, which book publishing uses, allows “one-time” to mean “onetime," but only in a secondary definition. Other dictionaries don’t allow this at all, and according to them you and Bob didn’t have the relationship you think you did.

In editing we always go with the dictionary’s first choice, I would always reserve “one-time” for something that happened just once and use “onetime” for “former.”

You don’t have to do the same. But if you want readers to believe that you and Bob really had something special, you might want to think about it.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 10, 2014

Lay and Lie Refresher Quiz

How’s your “lay” and “lie” savvy these days? These words can get fuzzy in the mind if you don’t exercise your knowledge often enough. So, with that in mind, here’s a little quiz on “lay” and “lie.”

1. If you don’t feel well, you should lie/lay down.

2. Yesterday, I didn’t feel well, so I laid/lay down.

3. Sometimes when I’ve felt sick, I’ve lain/laid/lay in bed for hours.

4. Lie/lay the book on the table.

5. Yesterday, I lay/laid the book on the table.

6. There have been many times over the years when I have lain/laid the book on the table. 

Here are the answers.

1. If you don’t feel well, you should lie down.

2. Yesterday, I didn’t feel well, so I lay down.

3. Sometimes when I’ve felt sick, I’ve lain in bed for hours.

4. Lay the book on the table.

5. Yesterday, I laid the book on the table.

6. There have been many times over the years when I have laid the book on the table.

There are two elements to getting “lie” and “lay” right. The first is understanding the basic difference between the two words. The second is knowing where to find the past tense forms.  

That last part is easy, so I’ll get that out of the way first: For the past tense forms, just look in a dictionary. Next to the main entry for any irregular verb, dictionaries always list the simple past tense form, followed by the past participle – but only if that past participle is different from the simple past tense.

So look up “lie” and you’ll see next to it “lay, lain.” Therefore, the simple past tense of “lie” is “lay.” (Confusing, I know. But if you can wrap your head around that fact, you’ve already mastered the hardest part of this.) The past participle, the one that goes with “have,” is lain.

Today I lie on the bed.

Yesterday I lay on the bed.

In the past I have lain on the bed.

For that other word, "lay," the past tense and past participle just happen to be identical: "laid."

Today I lay the book on the table.

Yesterday I laid the book on the table.

In the past I have laid the book on the table.

Notice how I keep mentioning a book with "lay" examples but not with "lie"? That brings us to the main difference between these two words. “Lay” is a transitive verb, which means it takes an object (a noun or pronoun).  “Lie” is intransitive, which means it does not.  

So whenever you’re laying *something* down, that’s transitive “lay.” If you’re just reclining, that’s intransitive “lie.” And if you can’t remember their past tense forms, just do what I did every time for about 10 years and consult a dictionary.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

November 3, 2014

'Grandaunt' and 'Got'

Just when I think I’ve heard every dinky language complaint imaginable, something lands in my e-mail inbox to prove me wrong.

Not long ago, it was an an e-mail from a reader who had used the term “great aunt” and – get this – was corrected by a family member who said the correct term was “grandaunt.”

That would have been rude enough had she bothered to look it up first to confirm she was right. But she didn’t. Because if she had checked Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary, she would have seen that grandaunt and great aunt are synonyms.

Also recently, I got an e-mail about the word “got”:

There are certain words or phrases that drive me crazy. As an example, when someone uses the word "got"; as in "you got money". This instead of you have money. ... I learned from my son that you almost never need the word "got". 

I could have brought up a couple of my own peeves, including using “or” in place of “and,” double spacing between sentences, and periods placed after closing quotation marks.

Instead I pointed out that “got” is indispensable as the past tense of “get” (“Yes, I got your e-mail”) and that it’s also acceptable both as a past participle instead of “gotten” (“I have got into trouble before with this one”) and as an idiomatic though wordy addition to “have” (“I have a lot of pennies,” “I have got a lot of pennies”).

Click player above to listen to the podcast

October 27, 2014

My Favorite Line from Strunk and White

I’m on record as saying some not-nice things about Strunk & White’s “The Elements of Style.”

All my criticisms boil down to the same problem: This book is not what people think it is. It’s not what marketers and publishers present it as. This book, which is marketed as timeless wisdom for the masses, is really just a list of rules for students of one English professor about a century ago, offering instructions on how to turn in papers in that particular class.

Imagine a teacher put together a list of rules on, say, classroom conduct that included the imperative “Don’t chew gum,” then 100 years later people were running around thinking no one should ever chew gum because doing so is “wrong.”

That’s the problem with “The Elements of Style.” Half its advice is great, half is either obsolete or impertinent or too broadly worded. Yet millions of people think it’s authoritative.

But it can be a great source to quote. Traditionalists love it, so when the book disagrees with the traditionalist view, it carries that much more weight. And of all the Strunk and White quotes that buck the traditionalist view, this is my favorite.

And would you write “The worst tennis player around here is I” or “The worst tennis player around here is me”? The first is good grammar, the second is good judgment

Not only is the guide telling writers to break a grammar rule, but it does so in a sentence that starts with “and.” After this pithy entry, the authors add that “‘me’ might not do in all contexts.” So they’re not saying "me" is fine all the time. They're saying that sometimes  you just have to get real.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

October 20, 2014

'Data' With a Singular Verb?

Here's an e-mail I got a while back:

People are now using words which are considered to be all inclusive, such as data, with the plural form of the verb. When I went to school, the word data was considered to be singular because it is a set of information, all inclusive. Each of the pieces of data (aka information) are considered to be a set within that data.

There are several other words that imply the plural, but like data, are considered to be singular. For the life of me, I can't think of other examples at the moment. This error is rampant. I can't stand it! Both my husband and I want to turn off the TV or the radio when that happens. It is happening more frequently. I thought people who major in journalism and communications studies (what a misnomer!!) were supposed to have writing skills, which should include grammar.

And here's my reply:

Thanks so much for the note! I've gotten a number of e-mails over the years from people about verb agreement with "data" -- but it's always been the opposite of your position. They complain that data is used with a singular verb (the data is compelling) when in fact it should be used with a plural verb (the data are compelling).

Data is actually the plural of datum. So traditionally it would take a plural verb. (That's from the
Latin, but American dictionaries still treat data as a plural first and foremost.

But in fact, both forms are acceptable depending on the writer's/speaker's intent.

Hope that helps!

Click player above to listen to the podcast

October 13, 2014

As, Though, Although and While

“As,” “while,” “though” and “although” are contenders to be my least-favorite word in the English language. True, they’re not as offensive a lot of other words you and I can think of. But they cause more than their share of problems for the writers I edit.

Their weakness is also their biggest strength: They let you squeeze more information into a sentence – perhaps more than should be there.

Zander fell screaming to the ground, clutching at his gushing wound, as Kerry’s gun blasted a bullet through Zander’s throat.

I really dislike the organization of that sentence. The “as” clause feels like a cheat. The big event in this sentence was suppose to be that Kerry shot Zander. Yet through the dubious power of “as,” the writer was able to tack it on like an afterthought. Sometimes when I see “as” used this way, it almost comes off like the writer had forgotten to mention the actual events, so in a backpedaling motion he tacks it onto the end of a less-interesting action.

"While," "though," "although" and "as" do the most damage at the head of a sentence.

While not as fuel efficient as a lot of other cars Chevy is rolling out this year, the 2015 Fussy GT offers impressive torque and a zero-to-60 time of about eight seconds.

This is, of course, a legitimate way to structure a sentence. But it leads to abuse. But the way the comma coincides with the reader's need to take a huge gulp of air may not be ideal. In other words, the “while” clause can create a big, long delay before you get to the real point of the sentence.

Plus, “while,” “though” and “although” create contrasts that tend to undermine the main clause:

Though she can’t hit high notes or hit any notes for very long, Baybay is a good singer.

The writer of a sentence like this hasn’t exactly convinced me of Baybay’s talents.

Don’t let this wank stop you from using “though,” “although,” “while” and “as.” Just when you do, stop and consider whether these words are setting you up to write a sentence that is itself wank-worthy.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

October 6, 2014

'Whomever' or 'Whoever' Positioned Between Two Clauses

Here’s an e-mail I got recently:

Normally I have no difficulty with who/whom. I do when it  comes to a sentence like "Give it to who(m)ever wants it." If the rephrasing would be he wants it, it would be "whoever." If the rephrasing would be give it to him, it would be "whomever." Which would you use?

This is exactly why I caution people against using “whom.” It’s simple in a lot of cases. But once you start using “whom” you’ve pretty much committed to using it for the entire document. And if you come across a sentence like this, you could find yourself in over your head.

Here’s what I wrote back:

In your example, the object of the preposition "with" is not the pronoun that follows. It's the whole clause that follows. And that clause needs a subject. 

"Give it to whoever wants it."

That is, the verb "wants" needs a subject. And when combined with its subject ("whoever") the whole clause becomes the object of the first part. That's why "whomever" is wrong in your sentence and "whoever" is correct.

When in doubt, remember this: If a pronoun is in position to be the object of one thing and the subject of another, the subject form wins.

Hire whomever you want.

BUT

Hire whoever wants the job.

The man whom I marry.

BUT

The man who marries me.

They recruited an engineering major who they believed would do the job better.

BUT

They recruited an engineering major whom they trusted.

See what I mean? In "Hire whomever you want," the pronoun is the object of the verb "want." What's the object of the verb "hire"? The whole clause that follows.

In "Hire whoever wants the job," the pronoun is the subject of the verb. "Wants" needs a subject.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

September 29, 2014

A Dangler to Leave Dangling?

I’ve talked before about danglers. A dangler occurs whenever modifying phrase or clause isn’t immediately next to the noun it modifies.  So in “Skipping through the streets, the thought occurred to me that skipping is dangerous,” you have a dangler because the participial phrase “skipping through the streets” isn’t supposed to describe the “the thought.” It’s supposed to describe “me.” Yet it’s not as close to “me” as it could be.

These types of danglers are often -- very often -- worth fixing. But there’s one particular flavor of dangler that I’m not so sure about.

“Open Tuesday through Sunday, the restaurant’s menu features small plates and gourmet bites.”

Now, technically, this is a dangler because the noun modified by the introductory phrase is not the one that phrase aims to modify, though at first glance it seems to be.

“Open Tuesday through Sunday.” obviously refers to the restaurant. And because mention of that restaurant is the first word to follow that phrase, it’s easy to think that this is not a dangler.

But it is. Why? Because in this sentence, the word “restaurant” is not working as a noun. It’s working as a modifier. The real head of the noun phrase “the restaurant’s menu” is in fact the menu. “Restaurant's,” because it’s a possessive, is functioning adjectivally as what’s called a possessive determiner. Grammatically speaking, it’s an adjective. The true noun is “menu.”

So technically we’re saying that the menu itself is open Tuesday through Sunday.

But is this really a problem? Is this really worth fixing? Or is it so crystal clear that there’s no need to recast the sentence?

I’m not sure. I’m never sure in these cases. Usually, I try to fix them: “Open Tuesday through Sunday, the restaurant offers a menu of small plates and gourmet bites.” But as often as not, there’s a price to pay for the rejiggering -- awkwardness or perhaps a slight straying from what the writer really meant. 

So whether to fix this type of dangler is anybody’s guess.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

September 22, 2014

More From the Author of My Favorite Attack E-mail

After the e-mail exchange with Paul in Venice, which I wrote about here last week, I did a column about it. Paul saw the column. Here’s the exchange that ensued:

Dear June:

The vehemence of my reaction was due to the number of errors I found in your piece. I'm sure that if I met you in person, I would have responded differently, but as a pontificating, online grammarian you did rub me the wrong way. I was taken aback by the mistakes I would have edited out if your column had passed over my desk. These include not only conjunctions beginning sentences, which is something I was taught to shun, but is evidently allowed in informal writing as you pointed out; but also numerous fragments as well the subject verb agreement I mentioned, and “Yes, I know it looks like the Internet age is dragging our language down the tubes” when the proper usage should have been "as if." Also, can you really stand by this statement? “English grammar itself doing is just fine.”

I initially didn’t respond because of two reasons: First you didn’t deal with my reaction to sentence fragments. Instead you said I was wrong on every count. When you said I had a “superstition” about beginning a sentence with a conjunction, after that word misuse I dismissed your opinion as not mattering at all. Still, you did write a column about me so, FYI, here’s what superstition means according to my dictionary: su·per·sti·tion noun \ˌsü-pər-ˈsti-shən\

: a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck : a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck.

I will continue to write, edit and teach. You will continue to write and edit, although you do adhere to lower standards. I wish you no ill will. Still, I did give your column to my Saturday high school English students for them to correct. It makes for a good lesson in moving from informal to formal English.

Sincerely,

Paul

Here's how I responded.

Hi, Paul.

I didn’t realize you were in a position to influence impressionable high school kids. So let me ask you a question: Do you believe that a teacher should be prepared to swallow his pride if necessary to do right by his students? If your answer is yes, please heed what I’m about to say.

You’re passing along bad information to kids, Paul. You owe it to them to educate yourself.

The one thing I suspect you know already: Sentence fragments are fine. The most respected publications in the English-speaking world use them on purpose. If you paid attention in your reading you’d see that. So if you have a problem with fragments, you have a problem not with me but with the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Penguin Publishing, Random House publishing, and on and on. But because you’ve already failed to see that, I’ll cite a source. “The Copyeditor’s Handbook,” fourth edition, which is the main text of UC San Diego Extension’s copy editing program (for which I sometimes teach), notes on page 25 that fragments are “fine in the right circumstances.” We caution kids against fragments because kids often mistake them for grammatically complete sentences. But that elementary lesson in no way reflects on whether fragments are appropriate in a newspaper column. They are.

You note that “conjunctions beginning sentences ... is something I was taught to shun.” You were taught wrong. “Garner’s Modern American Usage,” under the entry “Superstitions,” cites the following sources, which for your students’ sake I’ll take the time to retype.

“Next to the groundless notion that it is incorrect to end an English sentence with a preposition, perhaps the most widespread of many false beliefs about the use of our language is the equally groundless notion that it is incorrect to begin one with ‘but’ or ‘and.’ As is the case of the superstition about the prepositional ending, no textbook supports it, but about half of our teachers of English go out of their way to handicap their pupils by inculcating it. One cannot help but wondering whether those who teach such a monstrous doctrine ever read any English themselves.” Charles Allen Lloyd, “We Who Speak English” (1938).

“There is no reason why sentences should not begin with ‘and.’” Roy H. Copperud, “American Usage” (1970).

“Many of us were taught that no sentence should begin with ‘but.’ If that’s what you learned, unlearn it.” William Zissner, “On Writing Well” (1988).

I don’t have time to retype similar entries from the Chicago Manual of Style, Fowler’s Modern English Usage and the many other books in my reference library, but I urge you to research this matter. You’re doing your students a disservice if you don’t.

Re “like” for “as if.” Please look that up, Paul. “Like” can mean “as if.” It can also mean “such as” (which I mention in case you’re a victim of that myth, too).

Can I stand by the statement “English grammar itself is doing just fine”? Well, it’s Noam Chomsky’s assertion. So if he can, I can. Here’s a link to a column I wrote in 2008 citing him saying as much: http://articles.glendalenewspress.com/2008-08-13/news/gnp-aword13_1_texting-grammar-noam-chomsky

Re “superstition”: Your grasping at straws to find a way to dismiss my last e-mail gives me hope I might be getting through to you. But if you stand by your “gotcha,” please note the use of “superstition” in the citations above.

What’s more, it looks like you got your definition from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate. If so, you need to know this: You can’t prohibit a usage based on a dictionary entry unless you read the whole entry. That dictionary defines “superstition” as “a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary” (here’s the link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition).

Do you still think my use of “superstition” was a valid basis on which to dismiss my opinion as “not mattering at all”? Or does it sound more like you were looking for ways to protect your pride?

I can imagine how unpleasant it must be to learn you’ve been operating from a place of ignorance for so long. But you owe it to your kids to swallow your pride and educate yourself.

I urge you to get a copy of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (not a dictionary, a usage guide), Garner’s Modern American Usage and The Oxford English Grammar (out of print but still available). Get as many other grammar and usage guides as you can get your hands on. Read the Chicago Manual of Style. Read LanguageLog.com. Spend a fun afternoon with Barbara Wallraff’s “Word Court.” Don’t operate on what you were taught by a misinformed person half a century ago. Do your own research.

If you read just one thing, read the aptly titled article “Most of What You Think You Know About Grammar Is Wrong,” published last year in Smithsonian magazine. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/most-of-what-you-think-you-know-about-grammar-is-wrong-4047445/?no-ist

It will help you realize that you were taught wrong, and you’re not alone.

Best,

June

Click player above to listen to the podcast