Quick, tell me how many of you have struggled to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition? And by the same token how many have struggled to avoid using a conjunction to start a sentence.
Well, I am afraid, dear reader, you were dupped. Neither of these rules are really rules at all. In fact, they both stem from the Latin language. However, English derives more from Germanic languages than it does Romantic languges, so that's where we run into a problem. Let me guide you through why both are perfectly acceptable.
Ending sentences with prepositions
I once heard a joke about how two parties got along that goes something like this:
A couple from Georgia and a couple from the Northeast were seated side by side on an airplane.
The girl from Georgia, being friendly and all, said, “So, where y’all from?”
The Northeast girl said, “From a place where they know better than to use a preposition at the end of a sentence.”
The girl from Georgia sat quietly for a few moments and then replied: “So, where y’all from, bitch?” The original joke can be found here.
The idea is that ending a sentence with a preposition is somehow below the intellectual class, but I would argue it's only below people who fancy themselves to be the intellectual class.
See, in this case, the "where you all from?" isn't really a preposition. The "from" isn't actually a preposition, but a modifier to the verb "where".
Technically, such constructions are called adverbial particles, and the English language is on speaking terms with the construction. The Latin language called for all prepositions to fall before the noun, but like I said English plays more nicely with the German language than it ever did with Latin.
So next time someone tries to critique your use of a preposition at the end of the sentence, just ask them if they know what an adverbial particle is, and watch as that smug look falls from their face.
Starting sentences with a conjunction
We all know what conjunctions are thanks to time spent watching School House Rock (and if you haven't, you can just leave right now), but too many of us fear using one to start a sentence thanks to time under overzealous high school English teachers (by the way, if you still haven't left and still haven't seen the School House Rock video here it is).
Anyway, I am here to tell you that starting sentences with conjunctions is okay. No really, it's fine. I am not a high school teacher, so there's that to ease your fear.
I talked with my old high school teachers who forbade such activities, and they said they did so to keep students from creating sentence fragments because conjunctions can introduce independent or dependent clauses. The problem, though, is most younger students don't know the difference between the two, and so allowing a high school student to start a sentence with a conjunction may likely lead to a sentence fragment.
I figure most of use are beyond that point, so, really, there's no need to fear starting a sentence with an "and, but, or or" anymore.(In case you aren't beyond that point, here's a quick rundown of sentence fragments by my favorite English source, Purdue.)
Doing so actually creates extra emphasis that's required for such practices as persuasive speaking or writing.
So, in the hopes of casting off old chains, I suggest you go out and try writing a sentence with a conjunction as the first word. You'll feel better for doing so.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Minor differences: Use vs. Utilize
In the course of the past few weeks, I have considered changing the tone of this blog a very little bit. I understand I seem more than a little bit snobby, so in an effort to avoid alienating you dear readers, I am going to attempt to ease up on the elitism.
However, still expect engaging discussions about grammar and its nuances. Without further ado, let’s tackle a question that’s been on my mind for a while: use vs. utilize.
Definitions (According to Merriam-Webster)
Utilize: to make use: turn to practical use or account
Use: the act or practice of employing something
Of course, most writing guides advise people to avoid the use of “utilize.” A three-syllable word vs. a one-syllable word doesn’t seem to require a lot consideration. Shorter is generally better, but “use” doesn’t sound better, or at least to the untrained ear that is.
The reception of the trained ear
When I hear the word "utilize" I think someone is trying to say “use,” but that person may be unaware of the connotations of the word.
See professionals in the writing field find “utilize” pretentious in all the wrong ways. It commonly functions in the same way as “use” but it requires more letters and sounds to make.
”Utilize”, and the people who use it without cause, tries hard to sound smarter than it actually it is. It seems like a normal man donning glass he doesn’t need to appear smarter than he actually is.
The question then is, why use glasses if you don’t need them? Why use “utilize” when you can use “use”?
The problem with deception
I enjoy a good deception as much as the next person. I mean if such a deception wins a person the affection of other people, why not use a crafty deception? If that cute girl in the coffee shop loves men with glasses, why not wear the unneeded glasses?
And if a job asks for an established writer, why not use a word that seems to be in the vocabulary of a professional writer?
The problem, as I described earlier, is that the deception is severely limited in its deception as most trained writers scoff at the use of the word.
The correct use of "Utilize"
One, at this point, might question the need of “utilize” at all then. It’s more cumbersome than “use” and it means the same thing, so why bother? Actually, “utilize” has an established meaning.
According to the Oxford dictionary, Scientists use it to mean to “make practical and effective use of something”, so your body utilizes Vitamin C to take advantage of iron in your system (Thanks to the Oxford dictionary for the sample too).
So there’s a time and place for everything.
Solutions to avoid overuse
If you’re a scientist, use it: Do you have a degree in some form of science? Are you writing a scientific paper? Go ahead and use “utilize.” Otherwise, chop it out of your language.
Say it out loud every time you write “utilize”: Your annoyance at saying the word out loud will drive you to drop the word from your vocabulary eventually. In doing so, you put yourself in the position of the reader, and that’s something all writers need to do.
Again, that’s it. Hang with me as I struggle with perfecting this new format. I may go back to the old elitist format next week depending on this one’s reception.
However, still expect engaging discussions about grammar and its nuances. Without further ado, let’s tackle a question that’s been on my mind for a while: use vs. utilize.
Definitions (According to Merriam-Webster)
Utilize: to make use: turn to practical use or account
Use: the act or practice of employing something
Of course, most writing guides advise people to avoid the use of “utilize.” A three-syllable word vs. a one-syllable word doesn’t seem to require a lot consideration. Shorter is generally better, but “use” doesn’t sound better, or at least to the untrained ear that is.
The reception of the trained ear
When I hear the word "utilize" I think someone is trying to say “use,” but that person may be unaware of the connotations of the word.
See professionals in the writing field find “utilize” pretentious in all the wrong ways. It commonly functions in the same way as “use” but it requires more letters and sounds to make.
”Utilize”, and the people who use it without cause, tries hard to sound smarter than it actually it is. It seems like a normal man donning glass he doesn’t need to appear smarter than he actually is.
The question then is, why use glasses if you don’t need them? Why use “utilize” when you can use “use”?
The problem with deception
I enjoy a good deception as much as the next person. I mean if such a deception wins a person the affection of other people, why not use a crafty deception? If that cute girl in the coffee shop loves men with glasses, why not wear the unneeded glasses?
And if a job asks for an established writer, why not use a word that seems to be in the vocabulary of a professional writer?
The problem, as I described earlier, is that the deception is severely limited in its deception as most trained writers scoff at the use of the word.
The correct use of "Utilize"
One, at this point, might question the need of “utilize” at all then. It’s more cumbersome than “use” and it means the same thing, so why bother? Actually, “utilize” has an established meaning.
According to the Oxford dictionary, Scientists use it to mean to “make practical and effective use of something”, so your body utilizes Vitamin C to take advantage of iron in your system (Thanks to the Oxford dictionary for the sample too).
So there’s a time and place for everything.
Solutions to avoid overuse
If you’re a scientist, use it: Do you have a degree in some form of science? Are you writing a scientific paper? Go ahead and use “utilize.” Otherwise, chop it out of your language.
Say it out loud every time you write “utilize”: Your annoyance at saying the word out loud will drive you to drop the word from your vocabulary eventually. In doing so, you put yourself in the position of the reader, and that’s something all writers need to do.
Again, that’s it. Hang with me as I struggle with perfecting this new format. I may go back to the old elitist format next week depending on this one’s reception.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Why I hate, forbid and avoid use of the oxford comma
I am about to take a very unpopular stance today, namely, the fact that I don’t believe in the oxford comma.
But how? I thought you were one of the good people.
I used to be like most of you. I though the comma was need to keep list items from comingling with one another.
For example, the sentence “highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector,” could use a serial comma after 800-year-old demigod to make it clear Nelson Mandela isn’t a dildo collector.
See, it works! You’re crazy not to use it.
You’re right. I think based on the current structure of the sentence; a comma is needed, but therein lies the problem of the oxford comma. Too often it’s used as a crutch for writers incapable of clarifying context without the use of the comma.
For example, the above sentence could also be rewritten as such,
“The global tour includes highlights such a lengthy conversation with Nelson Mandela in Africa, an encounter with an 800-year-old demigod in Europe and a not-all awkward conversation with a dildo collector in America.”
Wait, I wasn’t confused at all this time. What changed?
Now that’s a pretty sentence that not only provides more information about the subject at hand, but also doesn’t require an oxford comma.
Why you ask?
Because each of the subjects are distinct enough to stand on their own, which means one less comma, and one less comma is always a good thing.
But distinct subjects should be made distinct, shouldn’t they?
Let me be clear. I have no problem with the oxford comma in its original context. I understand the need to differentiate list items from one another.
However, I feel if the list items can be confused with one another the writer should either reorganize the list or clarify it instead of asking the reader to recognize yet another verbal cue on the page. As usual, I have prepared what I hope are good solutions to the problem.
Force everyone to spend time working as journalists: Editors should know AP style, and AP style bans the use of the oxford comma. The continual hate, degradation and humiliation that comes from screwing up grammar for a newspaper editor would quickly remedy the use of the oxford comma.
Charge for comma use: In this manner, important commas would be kept out of necessity, but superfluous ones, such as the oxford comma, would be struck from the writing tool box of most writers. This idea comes from the day of the printing press. Any extra element required more ink, so naturally the oxford comma fell out of use, or it did for the poorer folks.
Get rid of lists all together: This concept would force people to change the manner in which they think. Concepts could only ever be thought of one at time. The idea that some concept would have multiple components would be impossible. Also the world of lists might explode, which may or may not affect the physical world.
Ignore the use of the oxford comma, move on: I think this time, this option of just giving up would probably be the easiest and simplest to implement. And of course, I never said anything about no longer being self-righteous toward users of the oxford comma.
So that’s it
Yup. Again, I have no definite answers, just hopes for a brighter, clearer and better future for grammar. And always, here's a quick look at what someone funnier than I has to say on the subject of oxford commas. Travel on.
But how? I thought you were one of the good people.
I used to be like most of you. I though the comma was need to keep list items from comingling with one another.
For example, the sentence “highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector,” could use a serial comma after 800-year-old demigod to make it clear Nelson Mandela isn’t a dildo collector.
See, it works! You’re crazy not to use it.
You’re right. I think based on the current structure of the sentence; a comma is needed, but therein lies the problem of the oxford comma. Too often it’s used as a crutch for writers incapable of clarifying context without the use of the comma.
For example, the above sentence could also be rewritten as such,
“The global tour includes highlights such a lengthy conversation with Nelson Mandela in Africa, an encounter with an 800-year-old demigod in Europe and a not-all awkward conversation with a dildo collector in America.”
Wait, I wasn’t confused at all this time. What changed?
Now that’s a pretty sentence that not only provides more information about the subject at hand, but also doesn’t require an oxford comma.
Why you ask?
Because each of the subjects are distinct enough to stand on their own, which means one less comma, and one less comma is always a good thing.
But distinct subjects should be made distinct, shouldn’t they?
Let me be clear. I have no problem with the oxford comma in its original context. I understand the need to differentiate list items from one another.
However, I feel if the list items can be confused with one another the writer should either reorganize the list or clarify it instead of asking the reader to recognize yet another verbal cue on the page. As usual, I have prepared what I hope are good solutions to the problem.
Force everyone to spend time working as journalists: Editors should know AP style, and AP style bans the use of the oxford comma. The continual hate, degradation and humiliation that comes from screwing up grammar for a newspaper editor would quickly remedy the use of the oxford comma.
Charge for comma use: In this manner, important commas would be kept out of necessity, but superfluous ones, such as the oxford comma, would be struck from the writing tool box of most writers. This idea comes from the day of the printing press. Any extra element required more ink, so naturally the oxford comma fell out of use, or it did for the poorer folks.
Get rid of lists all together: This concept would force people to change the manner in which they think. Concepts could only ever be thought of one at time. The idea that some concept would have multiple components would be impossible. Also the world of lists might explode, which may or may not affect the physical world.
Ignore the use of the oxford comma, move on: I think this time, this option of just giving up would probably be the easiest and simplest to implement. And of course, I never said anything about no longer being self-righteous toward users of the oxford comma.
So that’s it
Yup. Again, I have no definite answers, just hopes for a brighter, clearer and better future for grammar. And always, here's a quick look at what someone funnier than I has to say on the subject of oxford commas. Travel on.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The very essence of very
Very. It’s a word favored by all to add spiciness to otherwise boring statements. For example, consider the following:
The rhino was angry.
Why do I care if a rhino is angry? By their nature, such animals are angry, so why would I care if he was angry. However, add “very,” and I have a reason to care.
“The rhino is very angry.”
I know now that the rhino is abnormally angry. And I am also worried what might have been done to incite the rage of the one horned killer. So, “very” is a good word, but it was used until overuse drove the meaning of the word insane.
But before we go further, we should probably know what the word means. “Very” has the distinction of being one of those words that no one ever really defines because its meaning is so universal. It’s commonly used to mean “more.”
Etymology of the word suggests the word began as verray which roughly meant “true, genuine,” and later came to mean “actual, shear,” which would suggest the “more” definition. A full background of the word can be found at the online etymology dictionary.
Nowadays, Merriam Webster states "very" is “actual” or “real.” The fourth definition allows the word to be used as an intensive as it’s more commonly used today. However, this shift worked “very” into an identity crisis.
Every Jack, Jill, and other J-named folks used the word for everything. Suddenly, finding a penny on the ground was no longer just cool, but it had to be “very cool.” Paper cuts went from horrible to “very horrible.”
Of course, this pattern meant the concepts once described as “very X” required “very very X” to convey the same meaning. Suddenly, a very angry rhino was considered just a normal angry rhino, but a very very angry rhino was just very angry, which proved difficult for those zoo keepers dealing with angry rhinos.
When one person said “very angry” did they mean “angry” or actually “very angry?”
Many people died. If it weren’t so sad, it might be funny, but it’s not. This is serious. Very serious one might say.
The question remains though how do we correct the overuse of the word without destroying the very meaning of the word altogether? As always, I have prepared some solutions.
Make the word cost money: I understand the word is needed sometimes, so every can get one “very” a day, more than it costs 25 cents, then 50 cents, 1 dollar, and so. It’s called exponential growth. Google it. Anyway, the idea is the cost would force people to conserve “very” and would only use it when absolutely necessary. Of course, they might get away with other modifiers just like I did in that last sentence, so more extreme measures may be required.
One-up anyone who uses the word: If someone says something is very cool, do better. Say it’s very, very cool. The sheer repetition of the word is sure to drive some folks mad, and if you’re especially vindictive you can two-up people. That paper cut isn’t very horrible, it’s very very very horrible. People will either get tired of your ceaseless one-up manship and stopping using the word, or they might think you’re stupid, your call.
Disown friends, family, anyone who uses the word: The idea is simple in its application, but extreme in its measures. I suggest you first warn your loved ones you may disown them for using the modifier, but hey that’s your call.
Ignore the word when it’s misused and simply avoid misusing it yourself: Right, like you, hypothetical person reading a blog about grammar is really capable of doing such thing.
Again, I have no answers or solutions. Just be careful with “very.” Extra careful, you might even say… No, don’t make me say it again.
The rhino was angry.
Why do I care if a rhino is angry? By their nature, such animals are angry, so why would I care if he was angry. However, add “very,” and I have a reason to care.
“The rhino is very angry.”
I know now that the rhino is abnormally angry. And I am also worried what might have been done to incite the rage of the one horned killer. So, “very” is a good word, but it was used until overuse drove the meaning of the word insane.
But before we go further, we should probably know what the word means. “Very” has the distinction of being one of those words that no one ever really defines because its meaning is so universal. It’s commonly used to mean “more.”
Etymology of the word suggests the word began as verray which roughly meant “true, genuine,” and later came to mean “actual, shear,” which would suggest the “more” definition. A full background of the word can be found at the online etymology dictionary.
Nowadays, Merriam Webster states "very" is “actual” or “real.” The fourth definition allows the word to be used as an intensive as it’s more commonly used today. However, this shift worked “very” into an identity crisis.
Every Jack, Jill, and other J-named folks used the word for everything. Suddenly, finding a penny on the ground was no longer just cool, but it had to be “very cool.” Paper cuts went from horrible to “very horrible.”
Of course, this pattern meant the concepts once described as “very X” required “very very X” to convey the same meaning. Suddenly, a very angry rhino was considered just a normal angry rhino, but a very very angry rhino was just very angry, which proved difficult for those zoo keepers dealing with angry rhinos.
When one person said “very angry” did they mean “angry” or actually “very angry?”
Many people died. If it weren’t so sad, it might be funny, but it’s not. This is serious. Very serious one might say.
The question remains though how do we correct the overuse of the word without destroying the very meaning of the word altogether? As always, I have prepared some solutions.
Make the word cost money: I understand the word is needed sometimes, so every can get one “very” a day, more than it costs 25 cents, then 50 cents, 1 dollar, and so. It’s called exponential growth. Google it. Anyway, the idea is the cost would force people to conserve “very” and would only use it when absolutely necessary. Of course, they might get away with other modifiers just like I did in that last sentence, so more extreme measures may be required.
One-up anyone who uses the word: If someone says something is very cool, do better. Say it’s very, very cool. The sheer repetition of the word is sure to drive some folks mad, and if you’re especially vindictive you can two-up people. That paper cut isn’t very horrible, it’s very very very horrible. People will either get tired of your ceaseless one-up manship and stopping using the word, or they might think you’re stupid, your call.
Disown friends, family, anyone who uses the word: The idea is simple in its application, but extreme in its measures. I suggest you first warn your loved ones you may disown them for using the modifier, but hey that’s your call.
Ignore the word when it’s misused and simply avoid misusing it yourself: Right, like you, hypothetical person reading a blog about grammar is really capable of doing such thing.
Again, I have no answers or solutions. Just be careful with “very.” Extra careful, you might even say… No, don’t make me say it again.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Midweek Review: Still Raining
For the last eight weeks, I have been paying more attention to my grammar than ever before thanks to my new job as a newspaper editor, an editing class, and, of course, this blog.
Of course, being more aware of my grammar also means that I have become more aware of other people’s grammar at the same time, specifically other people’s grammatical errors. Most of the time, this ability is welcome.
I work in a place that reveres grammar above all else. For every mistake I correct, my employees usually thank me for catching their error. I have, over the course of the last weeks, found this pattern to be false with any other than the people I work with. What follows are the excerpts from my attempts to correct the grammar of others.
Random person waiting in line at the Frontier:
“So me and Mack went to the store,” the guy in front of me said. I told him kindly he meant “Mack and I,” and then he asked me how I knew Mack. I told him I didn’t know Mack, but that he used the wrong pronoun. He looked at me blankly, and turned away.
Fellow classmate in design class:
“Over 30,000 fans!” the poster for a rock show said. I asked what the fans were over. And why did they need so many fans. I said I only had one fan in my house and I got along just fine. Did she mean more than 30,000 fans? My classmate also started at me blankly before telling me that we probably shouldn’t talk to each other anymore.
My little brother’s science fair project:
“Which plane flies the furthest?” his board said. In the interest of teaching him good habits early, I told my younger brother, he’s nine, that he meant to use farther. I told him “farther” is especially for distances and “further” is for everything else. He was grateful, but my mother came in shouting at me. “You don’t correct a nine year’s old grammar! What’s wrong with you?”
My girlfriend via text message:
“You think I am a unique dancer?” she asked. I had to say no because I know that unique means. That it means a sole example. It means only one, and my girlfriend isn’t the only dancer in her style. She has defining traits, but she’s not unique according to the traditional sense of the word. Or at least that’s what I told her. She told me she wasn’t talking to me for a while as that was the best way to avoid grammatical mistakes.
So in short, I figure there’s a time for grammatical excellence, namely when someone pays or asks for your expertise. Otherwise, it may be best to keep your mouth shut and allow others to destroy the conventions of language. And if you can’t do that, just prepare for the consequences.
Of course, being more aware of my grammar also means that I have become more aware of other people’s grammar at the same time, specifically other people’s grammatical errors. Most of the time, this ability is welcome.
I work in a place that reveres grammar above all else. For every mistake I correct, my employees usually thank me for catching their error. I have, over the course of the last weeks, found this pattern to be false with any other than the people I work with. What follows are the excerpts from my attempts to correct the grammar of others.
Random person waiting in line at the Frontier:
“So me and Mack went to the store,” the guy in front of me said. I told him kindly he meant “Mack and I,” and then he asked me how I knew Mack. I told him I didn’t know Mack, but that he used the wrong pronoun. He looked at me blankly, and turned away.
Fellow classmate in design class:
“Over 30,000 fans!” the poster for a rock show said. I asked what the fans were over. And why did they need so many fans. I said I only had one fan in my house and I got along just fine. Did she mean more than 30,000 fans? My classmate also started at me blankly before telling me that we probably shouldn’t talk to each other anymore.
My little brother’s science fair project:
“Which plane flies the furthest?” his board said. In the interest of teaching him good habits early, I told my younger brother, he’s nine, that he meant to use farther. I told him “farther” is especially for distances and “further” is for everything else. He was grateful, but my mother came in shouting at me. “You don’t correct a nine year’s old grammar! What’s wrong with you?”
My girlfriend via text message:
“You think I am a unique dancer?” she asked. I had to say no because I know that unique means. That it means a sole example. It means only one, and my girlfriend isn’t the only dancer in her style. She has defining traits, but she’s not unique according to the traditional sense of the word. Or at least that’s what I told her. She told me she wasn’t talking to me for a while as that was the best way to avoid grammatical mistakes.
So in short, I figure there’s a time for grammatical excellence, namely when someone pays or asks for your expertise. Otherwise, it may be best to keep your mouth shut and allow others to destroy the conventions of language. And if you can’t do that, just prepare for the consequences.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Pronouns Pt. 1: Teams are its
Quick, which is right?
The organization’s funding ran out. They need more money.
The organization’s funding ran out. It needs more money.
Aww, pronouns. Aren’t they lovely? They save space and time, yet as it the case with all grammatical rules people will find a way to misuse them.
In the above example, the second option is most correct despite what common sense might otherwise dictate. Yes, an organization is made up of different people, which might suggest the use of “they,” but really, the correct pronoun is the singular “it.”
Why? The organization is acting as whole. It’s a singular object composed of many smaller objects, thus the “it.” Simple stuff, right?
Wrong.
My writers, and copyeditors, at my newspaper fail to catch this error all the time. I don’t know what their problem is, but they can’t seem to understand a team, organization, company, or group is a singular object.
I am ready to give up quite honestly. I figure if the writer wants a team to be a “they” then fine. The team can be a “they” because honestly what difference does it make?
It would be simpler if a group was represented with a group pronoun. However, this concept would only work though if there was only one group in question, otherwise everything stops making sense.
For example, this sentence, “The Association of Angry Aardvarks ate all the ants. They enjoyed the feast,” it isn’t clear who enjoyed the eating.
Did the ants enjoy being eaten? Or did the Association enjoy eating the ants? A quick tweak fixes the situation, “The Association of Angry Aardvarks ate all the ants. It enjoyed the feast.”
With the established rules, I know for a fact that the “it” refers to the organization and not the ants. See grammar saves the day again.
The question, then, is how to get people to understand this simple rule. As usual, I have got a few suggestions.
Offer the correct pronoun, and explain why it’s the correct pronoun, every time: The first time you explain to a person why a team is an it, and not a “they,” the offending person might even be grateful. The second time, not so much. The third, not at all. And by the fourth, he or she will stop for good.
Ask for clarification about the correct pronoun, every time: This solution follows a dialogue format along these lines every time he or she mentions a team, and then calls said team a “they,” you say something like, “Wait, where did the “they” come from? Was there an element of this conversation I missed? My god, please tell me, please.” Cry when you do this. It should fix the error.
Call the pronoun police: Their methods are cruel. Their practices illegal in the greater continental USA, but their success rate is near 95 percent. Do note they cost around 100,000 per corrected pronoun.
Move on with life without letting let things such as improper pronoun use affect you: Yeah, like that’s going to happen, am I right?
Again, I don’t have the answers, just hopes for a brighter grammatical future.
The organization’s funding ran out. They need more money.
The organization’s funding ran out. It needs more money.
Aww, pronouns. Aren’t they lovely? They save space and time, yet as it the case with all grammatical rules people will find a way to misuse them.
In the above example, the second option is most correct despite what common sense might otherwise dictate. Yes, an organization is made up of different people, which might suggest the use of “they,” but really, the correct pronoun is the singular “it.”
Why? The organization is acting as whole. It’s a singular object composed of many smaller objects, thus the “it.” Simple stuff, right?
Wrong.
My writers, and copyeditors, at my newspaper fail to catch this error all the time. I don’t know what their problem is, but they can’t seem to understand a team, organization, company, or group is a singular object.
I am ready to give up quite honestly. I figure if the writer wants a team to be a “they” then fine. The team can be a “they” because honestly what difference does it make?
It would be simpler if a group was represented with a group pronoun. However, this concept would only work though if there was only one group in question, otherwise everything stops making sense.
For example, this sentence, “The Association of Angry Aardvarks ate all the ants. They enjoyed the feast,” it isn’t clear who enjoyed the eating.
Did the ants enjoy being eaten? Or did the Association enjoy eating the ants? A quick tweak fixes the situation, “The Association of Angry Aardvarks ate all the ants. It enjoyed the feast.”
With the established rules, I know for a fact that the “it” refers to the organization and not the ants. See grammar saves the day again.
The question, then, is how to get people to understand this simple rule. As usual, I have got a few suggestions.
Offer the correct pronoun, and explain why it’s the correct pronoun, every time: The first time you explain to a person why a team is an it, and not a “they,” the offending person might even be grateful. The second time, not so much. The third, not at all. And by the fourth, he or she will stop for good.
Ask for clarification about the correct pronoun, every time: This solution follows a dialogue format along these lines every time he or she mentions a team, and then calls said team a “they,” you say something like, “Wait, where did the “they” come from? Was there an element of this conversation I missed? My god, please tell me, please.” Cry when you do this. It should fix the error.
Call the pronoun police: Their methods are cruel. Their practices illegal in the greater continental USA, but their success rate is near 95 percent. Do note they cost around 100,000 per corrected pronoun.
Move on with life without letting let things such as improper pronoun use affect you: Yeah, like that’s going to happen, am I right?
Again, I don’t have the answers, just hopes for a brighter grammatical future.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Literally, and what it “literally” means
I overheard this while eating in a restaurant last night.
“I am so hungry, I could literally eat all the food in the whole restaurant.”
It’s hyperbole and I generally have no problem with it conversation.
Talking with other human beings can be a boring practice and spicing it up is necessary through metaphor and hyperbole, but I draw the line at literally.
As an English major, I use the word all the time to distinguish between metaphorical interpretations of passages and literal interpretations of passages.
For example, for this sentence, “Jane walked with her friend Maria into the canyon,” literally means she walked into a canyon with her friend Maria. That’s the simple meaning of that definition.
Or as Merriam Webster likes to define it, Literally is “in a literal sense or manner : ACTUALLY ”
A metaphorical, and ridiculous, meaning could be something along the lines of “Jane and Maria explored their sexuality” because metaphorical canyons represent vaginal symbols or some ridiculous bullshit.
See, the literal tag allows writers and interpreters to allow them to them to cut through the metaphorical swatches of meaning with the word, “literal.”
The word has a concrete and unbreakable connotation. Something is what it is, and there are no exceptions about it. It’s like the top from Inception that supposed to fall over when the narrator is in reality but keeps spinning when he’s dreaming.
“Literally” is that totem. Not literally, but in a metaphorical sense, you know?
However, the misuse of this word is taking away its concrete meaning, and throwing the rest of the world into a horrible surreal reality where everything is literal and nothing is metaphorical. This is just as frustrating as it is in the movie when one can’t tell if the top falls or not. And just as anticlimactic.
When that women said, she could literally eat all the food in the restaurant. I was scared. I hid my food. I didn’t want her to eat my food as well.
Whenever someone says they literally could kill someone, I run in fear. Literal or not, I don’t want to be part of a murder investigation.
And I am even more cautious when someone says, they literally drank a gallon of vodka. I always call the cops, but I am usually made into a fool because I believed the literal sense of what a drunk person was telling me.
My reality is unreal because of the bastardization of this word. I have taken the pains of proposing possible solutions.
Treat the word and what follows it as concrete truth: In this manner, maybe people will stop using it. I know I would the first time I said something like, “I literally don’t need my pinky toe,” and then had my pinky toe taken away from me.
Treat the word and what follows it as metaphorical: This manner will also encourage the use of the word to die down. For example, if someone said, “I am literally dying for water,” and they were in fact dying, and I told them to quit exaggerating, and they died, I am sure no one would ever use the word literally around me again for fear of not being taken seriously.
Ignore anything that’s said if it contains the word: This applies better to the previous example. “ I am still literally dying of thirst.” Oh yeah? I am still literally not listening to you until you change your diction choice.
Stop overreacting to a seemingly innocent word choice: This manner would require English majors to let things go, which seems like a great idea. However, it’s not possible and will not be considered.
Again, I don’t have the solution.
Until a solution is reached, I will continue to overreact, for safety of course, anytime literally comes up.
“I am so hungry, I could literally eat all the food in the whole restaurant.”
It’s hyperbole and I generally have no problem with it conversation.
Talking with other human beings can be a boring practice and spicing it up is necessary through metaphor and hyperbole, but I draw the line at literally.
As an English major, I use the word all the time to distinguish between metaphorical interpretations of passages and literal interpretations of passages.
For example, for this sentence, “Jane walked with her friend Maria into the canyon,” literally means she walked into a canyon with her friend Maria. That’s the simple meaning of that definition.
Or as Merriam Webster likes to define it, Literally is “in a literal sense or manner : ACTUALLY
A metaphorical, and ridiculous, meaning could be something along the lines of “Jane and Maria explored their sexuality” because metaphorical canyons represent vaginal symbols or some ridiculous bullshit.
See, the literal tag allows writers and interpreters to allow them to them to cut through the metaphorical swatches of meaning with the word, “literal.”
The word has a concrete and unbreakable connotation. Something is what it is, and there are no exceptions about it. It’s like the top from Inception that supposed to fall over when the narrator is in reality but keeps spinning when he’s dreaming.
“Literally” is that totem. Not literally, but in a metaphorical sense, you know?
However, the misuse of this word is taking away its concrete meaning, and throwing the rest of the world into a horrible surreal reality where everything is literal and nothing is metaphorical. This is just as frustrating as it is in the movie when one can’t tell if the top falls or not. And just as anticlimactic.
When that women said, she could literally eat all the food in the restaurant. I was scared. I hid my food. I didn’t want her to eat my food as well.
Whenever someone says they literally could kill someone, I run in fear. Literal or not, I don’t want to be part of a murder investigation.
And I am even more cautious when someone says, they literally drank a gallon of vodka. I always call the cops, but I am usually made into a fool because I believed the literal sense of what a drunk person was telling me.
My reality is unreal because of the bastardization of this word. I have taken the pains of proposing possible solutions.
Treat the word and what follows it as concrete truth: In this manner, maybe people will stop using it. I know I would the first time I said something like, “I literally don’t need my pinky toe,” and then had my pinky toe taken away from me.
Treat the word and what follows it as metaphorical: This manner will also encourage the use of the word to die down. For example, if someone said, “I am literally dying for water,” and they were in fact dying, and I told them to quit exaggerating, and they died, I am sure no one would ever use the word literally around me again for fear of not being taken seriously.
Ignore anything that’s said if it contains the word: This applies better to the previous example. “ I am still literally dying of thirst.” Oh yeah? I am still literally not listening to you until you change your diction choice.
Stop overreacting to a seemingly innocent word choice: This manner would require English majors to let things go, which seems like a great idea. However, it’s not possible and will not be considered.
Again, I don’t have the solution.
Until a solution is reached, I will continue to overreact, for safety of course, anytime literally comes up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)