April 21, 2014

'Comprise' and 'Compose'

It’s been a long time since I learned the difference between “compose” and “comprise.” So long, in fact, that recently I’ve altogether forgotten how I used to do it. In spite of what I once learned, I keep writing stuff like, “These words do not comprise a complete sentence.”

According to style guides, that’s a mistake. Though dictionaries will cut you more slack. Here’s what style guides recommend.

“‘Compose’ means to create or put together,” the AP Stylebook says. “‘Comprise’ means to contain, to include all or embrace.” 

You could say the whole comprises the parts, but the parts compose the whole. So you’d say a pie comprises many ingredients, or many ingredients compose a pie.

I know that second example sounds weird. That’s because we usually use “compose” in the passive: A pie is composed of many ingredients. But that’s just an inverted way of saying the same thing.

According to style guides, comprise “is best used only in the active voice.” This means it’s frowned upon to use the word “of” after any form of “comprise.” That’s an easy guideline. Nine times out of ten, when a writer has “comprised of,” she meant “composed of” anyway.

But it’s also important to remember that, according to the style guides, one thing comprises many and not the other way around.

Dictionary definitions are more flexible.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: “comprise. 1. to be made up of (something): to include or consist of (something). 2. to make up or form (something).”

Webster’s New World College Dictionary:  “comprise. 1. to include; contain; 2. to consist of; be composed of: a nation comprising thirteen states 3. to make up; form; constitute: in this sense still regarded by a few as a loose usage: a nation comprised of thirteen states.”

And here’s what Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage recommends: “Our advice to you is to realize that the disputed sense is established and standard, but nevertheless liable to criticism. If such criticism concerns you, you can probably avoid ‘comprise’ by using ‘compose,’ ‘constitute,’ or ‘make up.’”

Click player above to listen to the podcast

April 14, 2014

Creative Capitals and Symbols in Business Names

If businesses had their way, news media would serve no purpose other than to promote them.

Front-page articles would be dedicated to the rich, satisfying flavor of this or that brand of cigarette. Headlines would tout how a sale at a local retailer blows away the competition and is, in fact, the greatest thing to ever happen to readers of that publication. Company names would be in 30-point type everywhere they appeared and bolded and surrounded with dollar signs, too.

Companies’ interests simply aren’t the same as readers’ interests. So for that reason, editors like to keep them reined in. And editing styles include rules to do so.

For example, E*Trade, the online brokerage firm, uses an asterisk in its name. If I were an exec at that company I would, of course, want it to be written that way in print. Helps grow the brand, and all that.

Other companies have different approaches. Capital letters are a big favorite among ATTENTION-SEEKING COMPANIES. Some make their names all caps (ARIA resort), others go all lowercase (smart fortwo), and still others get funky with their caps (iPad). Caps can cry “look at me, know my brand” in the pages of an article that should be serving the reader, not the people who want to take advantage of the reader’s attention to sell him something. That’s what ads are for.

That’s why in many cases editing styles advocate capitalizing and punctuating company names as though they were garden-variety proper nouns. In my editing work, whenever there's mention of those little two-person golf-cart-like cars, I make sure they're written Smart Fortwo, with the first word of each proper noun capitalized. E-Trade gets a hyphen, not an asterisk, and Macy’s gets an apostrophe. And the self-proclaimed ARIA resort is the Aria in any page I’m editing.

Of course, you can’t always get away from funky tradenames. Both Chicago and AP styles say to uppercase the second letter of iPad and iPod. AP says that, at the beginning of a sentence, IPad and IPod start with a capital I, even though the P remains capped. Chicago lets you keep the first letter lowercase even at the beginning of a sentence.

If you don’t have a stylebook handy, you can just follow this simple principle: Don’t let companies use your publication as a marquee. Whenever possible, treat them like most proper nouns, beginning with a capital, proceeding with lowercase and containing no smiley faces, snowflakes or peace signs. When that looks too weird, you can cave a little.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

April 7, 2014

Apostrophes in Plurals

I’ve always been pretty opposed to using apostrophe to form plurals, except when absolutely necessary.

Learn your ABCs, not ABC’s.

The company bought some Boeing 747s, not 747’s.

Schools used to focus on the three Rs, not R’s.

It happened during the 1850s, not 1850’s.

In my world, the only time you use an apostrophe to form a plural is when it’s absolutely necessary for clarity. The most common example is in business signs in all capital letters: RETIRMENT PLANS AND IRA’S EVALUATED, DVR’S REPAIRED – stuff like that.

Also when you’re writing a passage that mentions individual letters, like Mind your p’s and q’s and Her name sure has a lot of i’s in it, apostrophes are the only way to show that the s is doing a different job than that of p, q and i.

Otherwise, in the editing rules I follow, apostrophes in plurals are a big no-no.

But, as I’ve learned the hard way, you should never be too quick to judge someone else’s punctuation and grammar, because in their world it just might be right.

This came to mind recently when I opened an old copy of “Words Into Type,” which was once one of the most definitive guides in publishing. Here’s what I read in the section on plurals:

The plural of a letter, figure, character, or sign is expressed by adding to it an apostrophe and s.

ABC’s

Three R’s

During the 1850’s

Boeing 747’s

Anyone who subscribes to my view that apostrophes don’t form plurals and who saw these forms in written text might assume the apostrophes were errors made of ignorance. But in fact, they could be well-informed choices.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

March 31, 2014

*The Word 'Girl' Sure Has Changed A Lot

Next time you hear someone ranting about how the language is going to hell in a handbasket or complaining about people misusing this or that word, ask him to define the word "girl."

In my experience, "girl" is the best example of why the language Chicken Littles don't have a leg to stand on.

You see, we actually use the word "girl" wrong, according to an older standard, that is. In the 1300s, "girl" meant a child of either sex. Yet today it means only a female child, and we use it to deliberately exclude males.

Think for a moment what it was like getting from that linguistic Point A to our Point B. There must have been a lot of confusion along the way, right? No doubt it gave language doomsayers plenty of fodder. Could you blame any witness to this transition for thinking it was a problem Could you blame him for decrying the ignorance that fueled this change or the chaos that would ensue?

With 700 years' perspective, we know that such doomsayers would have been wrong. The word "girl" as we use it today is perfectly peachy. People aren't confused by it. No one sounds ignorant for using it. Communication hasn't broken down.

In other words, what was once a wrong usage of "girl" is now right. And clearly that's not a bad thing.

When sticklers fuss over "misuse" of words like "literally" and "healthy" and "aggravate," it's because they just don't understand how words change. They don't understand that this evolution is not a bad thing. It just appears bad to anyone who lacks historical perspective.

And nothing proves this as well as a brief history of the word "girl."

Click player above to listen to the podcast

March 23, 2014

'Notoriously Known'

Private schools are notoriously known for their small class sizes.

It's been years since I saw this sentence in an article I was editing. But it stands as one of my favorite cautionary examples about adverbs.

The adverb "notoriously" shouldn't be in that sentence. Period. It's redundant with the word "known" -- kind of like saying "famously famous." Except it's worse because "notoriously" has a negative connotation -- it means something is bad -- though everyone agrees smaller class sizes are good. So instead of underscoring the writer's point, the "notoriously" undermines it.

How did this adverb end up here? Did the writer really think that "known" failed to tell the full story? Probably not. More likely, the writer was aiming for a certain oomph and was more focused on things like rhythm and drama than on the substance of her words.

That's fine in a first draft. My own writing tends to produce an alarming number of adverbs like "very" and "really" and "actually." But when I reread what I've written, I try taking them out. Here's what I've learned in the process: Some adverbs help your sentence, others hurt it. Often, the difference is as simple as this: The adverbs that add information help, the ones that add only emphasis hurt.

Mary quickly left the room.

Here the adverb "quickly" tells us more about what's going on than we could glean from just Mary left the room. There's real information in that adverb.

Joe quickly ran away.

In this sentence, "quickly" isn't pulling its weight. The verb "ran" already conveys quickness. So here the adverb adds nothing.

Unnecessary adverbs can be a cue to the reader that the writer isn't a pro. Compare, "The senator was totally, absolutely, unbelievably contrite" with "The senator was contrite." See how the stripped-down facts have a certain power butthe adverbs come off almost like pleading -- a weak attempt to convince the reader of something, as if the facts alone weren't enough. Pros don't do that. Which is why the adverbless alternative sounds more professional. Which is why the only adverbs that appear in your writing are ones that survived the survival test.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

March 17, 2014

Proofreading? Wait a Bit.

Here’s one of the best tips I can give for creating clean, well-polished writing: Take whatever you’ve written, set it aside, and reread it later -- preferably the next day.

This puts some distance between you and the material, which can make a huge difference in how many errors you catch. I had to learn this the hard way.

My deadline for my newspaper column is 10 a.m. on Friday. For years I would start writing it at about 8 a.m. on Friday then give it a careful proofread before sending it in. Then, in the following days, I would blame the editors for the myriad typos. Sure, I typed ’em, but someone should’ve caught ’em, right?

It was a moot point because I already knew no one would. The paper where the column ran was understaffed and underfunded, and if I thought editors were going to magically improve their typo-catching stats, I was out of my mind.

So after the millionth time I caught superfluous words in my published grammar column (unnecessary little words like “of as,” “the in,” and “at from” are my most common typos – the detritus of rewritten sentences), I realized that spotting the typos after they came out in print was easier than it had been to catch them before. The reason: time. The few days between when I wrote the column and when I saw it in print gave me the fresh eyes I needed to see it clearly. And I didn't like what I was seeing. 

So I started writing my column on Thursday night, then rereading it Friday morning before sending it. This new procedure didn’t cure my sloppiness. In that arena, I’m hopeless. But it helped me see much of my sloppiness before the rest of the world could. And two or three published typos a year is a lot better than two or three a month.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

March 10, 2014

Grammar on Blogs: Does It Affect Rankings?

Ever wonder how spelling and grammar affect a web page’s online rankings? For example, when Google ranks WordPress blogs, do their computer algorithms take grammar and spelling into account?

That question was posed to Google’s Matt Cutts, who posted the reply on his YouTube Channel. The answer was interesting because, though Google doesn’t assess the grammar and spelling, the company points out there’s a clear correlation between a page’s success and its grammar and spelling.

“The more reputable pages do tend to have better spelling and better grammar,” Cutts said. “So if you can put in the time to make sure that a page is edited well, you’ll find it’s probably not just a good overall piece of content that’s more likely to stand the test of time, but probably users will appreciate it. People can understand when they land on the page whether something is a little bit, you know, knocked out quickly versus someone put a lot of work into it -- whether there was a copy editor or someone did fact checking or they’re an expert on the subject. ... I would encourage people pay attention to these things maybe not for the search rankings directly but just because it’s a good experience for users and users appreciate that and will be a little more likely to bookmark you and come back.”

Another user asked Cutts whether bad grammar in comments matters. Specifically, a user wanted to know whether he should correct the grammar in the comments on his own blog. According to Cutts, there’s no reason to. Grammar and spelling in the comments section doesn’t affect rankings. “I wouldn’t worry about the grammar in your comments, as long as the grammar in your own page is fine.”

"Just make sure that your own content is high-quality," Cutts said. 

Click player above to listen to the podcast

March 3, 2014

A Reminder About 'That' and 'Which'

Here’s a little reminder about “that” and “which”: Editing styles have some strict rules on their usage, but they’re not universal grammar rules, just a style thing.

Here’s the rule, according to the Associated Press Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style: “which” can’t be used for restrictive clauses. Only “that” can introduce restrictive clauses.

Restrictive clauses narrow down the things they refer to. Compare:

The hats that have feathers sell the best

with

The hats, which have feathers, sell the best.

In the first example, the clause beginning with “that” actually narrows down which hats we’re talking about. Only the ones that have feathers are being discussed. In the second example, all the hats are being referred to. The “which” clause lets us know that they all have feathers.

So a restrictive clause restricts -- narrows down or specifies -- its subject. A nonrestrictive clause does not: It can be lifted right out of the sentence without losing specificity of your subject.

And AP and Chicago agree that you can’t use “which” for a restrictive clause. 

“The hats which have feathers sell the best.” That, according to the style guides, is wrong because the clause is supposed to be restrictive. How do we know that the writer meant this clause to be restrictive? The lack of commas. Commas set off nonrestrictive information. To the lack of commas around the clause makes it restrictive.

There’s some logic at the heart of the style rule: Most American English speakers usually use “which” only for nonrestrictive clauses, leaving the other job to “that.” You can also see that keeping these two separate can clear up the potential ambiguity of sentences like “The hats which have feathers will sell best.” (That is, if you doubt the writer’s punctuation skills, you couldn’t be sure whether she meant only the hats that have feathers sell best or whether she meant all the hats sell better than other merchandise and oh, by the way, they all have feathers.)

But unless you’re editing in one of those two styles, you don’t have to worry about this. In my experience, most people manage “that” and “which” clauses well, leaving no question as to what they meant.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

February 24, 2014

The Best Thing I Ever Read About Writing

The greatest thing about the writing craft that I ever read was in “I Feel Bad About My Neck,” by the late Nora Eprhon.

In that book, Ephron recalls a lesson from her high school journalism teacher, Charles O. Simms, on how to write a story lead – the first sentence or paragraph of a newspaper story.

“He writes the words ‘Who What Where When Why and How” on the blackboard,” Ephron recalled. “Then he dictates a set of facts to use that goes something like this: ‘Kenneth L. Peters, the principal of Beverly Hills High School, announced today that the faculty of the high school will travel to Sacramento on Thursday for a colloquium in new teaching methods. Speaking there will be anthropologist Margaret Mead and Robert Maynard Hutchins, the president of the Univesrity of Chicago.’

“We all sit at our typewriters and write a lead, most of us inverting the set of facts so that they read something like this, ‘Anthropologist Margaret Meand and University of Chicago President Robert Maynard Hutchins will address the faculty Thursday in Sacramento at a colloquium on new teaching methods, the principal of the high school Kenneth L. Peters announced today.’

“We turn in our leads. We’re very proud. Mr. Simms looks at what we’ve done and then tosses everything into the garbage. He says: ‘The lead of the story is “There will be no school Thursday.”’”

I wish I’d thought of that. I wish I could say that, as I was reading the assignment, I figured out the right answer before it was revealed. I did not.

If there’s ever been a better lesson about reader-serving writing, I’ve never found it.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

February 17, 2014

Do Automated Grammar Checkers Spell Doom for Copy Editors?

Not long ago, I turned the car radio to a local NPR station and caught the second half of a story about computers writing poetry. The expert they quoted, whose name I didn’t catch, said he believed that he will live to see a computer become a top poet.

I had just seen the movie “Her,” in which a man falls in love with a highly sophisticated operating system. Its premise didn’t seem so implausible to me. With that movie fresh in my mind, neither did the idea of a computer that crafts words into art expressing the human experience.

And that’s when it hit me: My skill set will expire. If computers can write poetry, surely they’ll be able to do everything a copy editor does, probably better.

I had never worried about this much. Microsoft Word’s grammar checker certainly doesn’t make me feel threatened. The technology is weak and the information it's been fed is even weaker. For example, when I run the grammar checker on a document with the sentence “She is the oldest of the two,” the software flags it with the warning “Comparative use,” presumably because whoever programmed it was victim to the myth that superlatives like “oldest” can’t be used for groups of just two; for comparisons between two, the myth goes, you need the comparative “older.” That’s not true. But don’t tell grammar checker that.

I’ve seen a lot of ads lately for Grammarly, a program that claims to be much better at fixing your grammar. Because that company is trying to sell itself as, well, worth buying, it seems better positioned to someday put copy editors like me in the unemployment line.

But has that someday arrived? To find out, I entered some text in the Try Grammarly Now box on its website, which was supposed to show how well the program can fix whatever writing you paste into the box. I wanted to know how good Grammarly was at assessing not grammar errors per se, but poor writing choices. So I entered the sentence:

“While Joe attended Harvard, he never went on to a successful career.”

The word “while” is a good example of why copy editors have value. It can mean either “during the time that” or “although.” But it creates problems because people often use it in the “although” sense not realizing it could be misread to mean “during the time that.”

So in this sentence, “While Joe attended Harvard” momentarily sounds like we’re going to talk about something that happened when Joe was a student. But the second of half of the sentence describes what happened after he graduated. So that “while” could lead some writers down the wrong path and is exactly the type of thing I would fix.

Would Grammarly catch it? I pasted the whole sentence into the box and hit “Check your text.”

Here’s Grammarly’s analysis: “This text is too short. Grammarly needs more context to accurately detect mistakes.”

Looks like I won’t be applying for that greeter job at Walmart just yet.

Click player above to listen to the podcast