tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30564225490167445202024-03-05T01:25:54.729-05:00SprachgefuhlToward an intuitive sense of what is linguistically appropriate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger495125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-6574512125984985632024-02-15T13:57:00.008-05:002024-02-15T13:58:20.562-05:00Don’t Use a Preposition After the Word “Including”<b>Wrong</b>:<br>
<i>Barbie</i>, <i>Oppenheimer</i>, and <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i> all scored multiple Oscar nominations, including for best picture.<br><br>
<b>Right</b>:<br>
<i>Barbie</i>, <i>Oppenheimer</i>, and <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i> all scored Oscar nominations in multiple categories, including best picture.<br><br>
—<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/even-real-writers-make-five-mistakes-paul-stregevsky-htgme/">Paul Strevegsky</a>Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-71661787619387607572024-02-15T11:30:00.003-05:002024-02-15T11:30:27.135-05:00graceful. graciousBallerinas are <i>gracefu</i>l; tactful people are <i>gracious</i>.<p><p>
—<a href="about:invalid#zSoyz">Paul Stregevsky</a>Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-55670131986113704482023-12-08T13:33:00.003-05:002023-12-08T13:33:47.266-05:00’tis. ‘tisThe grammar geeks at the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href=https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/vol-36-no-11-tis-an-apostrophe-5c251f72>clarify an issue</a> I’ve long wondered about:<p><p>
The word <em>’tis</em> takes an apostrophe, not an open single-quote, because the apostrophe replaces a “missing” letter. In other words, <em>’tis</em> is a shortened form of “it is.”<p><p>
This is why <em>rock ’n’ roll</em> is properly spelled with two apostrophes, though writers often stumble and use an open-quote mark before the “n.” The two apostrophes replace the missing letters in “and.”<p><p>
Problem is, unlike in the typewriter era, today’s writers are at the mercy of their editing software with such keyboard characters. We can think we’re typing in an apostrophe, but chances are that an open quote will appear instead if it’s before a letter. The writer has to go back and hit the key again to get the proper character to appear.<p><p>
And note the spelling <em>’N Sync</em> for the band (the apostrophe replaces the “I” in what could be read as <em>In Sync</em>), as well as the <em>’Ndrangheta</em>, Italy’s most powerful and richest crime syndicate. Both names properly start with an apostrophe.
Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-74545609077883001242023-08-21T09:09:00.004-04:002023-08-21T09:09:20.586-04:00elder. eldestUse <i>elder</i> when comparing two people.<br><br>
Use <i>eldest</i> when comparing three or more.<br><br>
Lianna always admired her <i>elder</i> brother.<br><br>
The <i>eldest</i> person at the reunion will receive a plaque.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-8034566372024233152023-08-21T09:08:00.001-04:002023-08-21T09:08:16.168-04:00moved. touched.Which is better?<br><br>
1. Your letter moved me.<br><br>
2. I was touched by your letter.<br><br>
#1 is preferable, since #2 puts the focus on me, whereas #1 puts the focus where it belongs: On you!Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-8258817665265627322023-06-08T11:20:00.001-04:002023-06-08T11:20:27.974-04:00Is a Comma Necessary in Spelling Out Locations?Which sentence is correct?<br><br>
1. She graduated from the University of California, Davis, in 2020.<br><br>
2. She graduated from the University of California, Davis in 2020.<br><br>
Similarly:<br><br>
3. We visited their Arlington, Virginia, home.<br><br>
4. We visited their Arlington, Virginia home.<br><br>
According to <a href=https://amzn.to/3qvZTlU><em>Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style</em></a>, #1 is correct, while #3 is preferred.
Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-6552930480213838082023-06-08T11:14:00.002-04:002023-06-08T21:47:16.538-04:00Should You Use a Comma After a Job Title?Which sentence is correct?<br><br>
1. Tom Jones, PhD, specializes in oncology.<br><br>
2. Tom Jones, PhD specializes in oncology.<br><br>
I think that #1 is better, since the symmetry of the commas — both before and after “PhD” — provides visual clarity.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-36554163642812754922023-05-23T22:26:00.001-04:002023-05-23T22:26:51.518-04:00e-newsletter. newsletterAccording to Google, “<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=newsletter">newsletter</a>” (8.4 billion results) is more common than “<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=e-newsletter">e-newsletter</a>” (5.7 billion results). <br><br>
Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster doesn’t even list “<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/e-newsletter">e-newsletter</a>” in its standard-setting dictionary.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-92161997551957239782023-05-08T12:36:00.000-04:002023-05-08T12:36:14.833-04:00chance. chances.Is it your “chance,” or your “chances”?<br><br>
<a href=https://discover.ap.org/webmail/62432/1132902427/0cf3436ff8a5cde2803f3aa7614ce821d417b3a589e08315533a8d1dd73acd85>Here’s the answer from Colleen Newvine</a>, the product manager of the A.P. Stylebook:<br><br>
Generally plural, as is the case with “odd” vs. “odds.”<br><br>Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-34357769225388332322023-05-08T12:32:00.004-04:002023-05-08T12:35:57.259-04:001 Out of 2 “Are,” or 1 Out of 2 “Is”?Which is correct: “1 out of 2 people <i>are</i>,” or “1 out of 2 people <i>is</i>”?<br><br>
<a href=https://discover.ap.org/webmail/62432/1132902427/0cf3436ff8a5cde2803f3aa7614ce821d417b3a589e08315533a8d1dd73acd85>Here’s the answer from Colleen Newvine</a>, the product manager of the A.P. Stylebook:<br><br>
There often are gray areas with no absolute right or wrong (or at least, strongly divided opinions on what’s right and what’s wrong). These fall in that category.<br><br>
Either can be OK. Some very formal approaches to grammar argue that “1” is the subject and thus the verb should be singular. But many grammar experts emphasize what’s called <i>notional agreement</i>: When the agreement between a subject and a verb is determined by meaning rather than formal grammatical rules.<br><br>
In this example, I’d say that clearly the meaning is plural. I’d write “1 out of 2 people are.”<br><br>
On a side note, see the entry for “<a href=https://discover.ap.org/e/62432/ap-stylebook-ratios/4r58jk/1132902427?h=rdEgnq23TdstE9QVwoMqKFRXrW1VTNc3xQCGTQVGNjY>ratios</a>.” It has an example of using the numeral 1, rather than one, in this construction.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-65213813432951298662023-04-21T09:51:00.002-04:002023-04-21T09:51:35.392-04:00command attention. demand attention.In writing a recent article, I couldn’t decide whether to say that something “commands” attention or “demands” attention.<br /><br />
In my mind, “commanding” seems more emphatic — attention must be paid!<br /><br />
Indeed, Merriam-Webster defines “<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/command">command</a>” as “to direct authoritatively: order,” whereas it defines “<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand">demand</a>” as “to call for as useful or necessary.”<br /><br />
However, in Googling this distinction, I came across a blog post that seems to <a href="https://jimsmarketingblog.com/2011/07/20/are-you-commanding-attention-or-demanding-attention/">suggest the opposite</a>: That “demanding” attention is negative; it entails interrupting someone rudely.<br /><br />
By contrast, according to the blogger, “commanding” attention is positive; it means you’ve drawn someone in with subtlety, without waving your hands or shouting.<br /><br />
Who’s right? As always, I turned to my trusty colleague <a href="http://paulstregevsky.com">Paul Stregevsky</a>. Here’s what Paul wrote back:<br /><br />
<hr /><br /><div>
Something <i>commands</i> attention by being attention-worthy. It’s appealing, intriguing, or both. All in a good, unfaultable way.<br /><br /><i>
Usually</i>, something <i>demands</i> attention by being intrusive. A flashing sign or a slogan chanted over a bullhorn come to mind.<br /><br />
But <i>sometimes</i>, something demands attention by being urgent. For example, an email message marked “URGENT.”<br /><br />
And sometimes, yes, something demands attention by being excellent.<br /><br />
Beyond the difference in their degree of good to bad, the two terms differ more fundamentally:<br /><br />
When we say something <i>commands</i> attention, we mean, “People are paying attention to it.”<br /><br />
When we say something <i>demands</i> attention, we mean, “People ought to pay attention to it.”<br /><br />
A third phrase comes to mind: “Attention must be paid.” We say that about something that stands out for its excellence, or perhaps for its novelty.<br /><br />
On a scale of 1 to 100, where 100 is perfectly safe/benign/positive, I would rank the three phrases as follows:<br /><br />
95: Attention must be paid.<br /><br />
80: Commands attention.<br /><br />
50: Demands attentions. (Too many meanings, too many connotations to use reliably.)</div>Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-21338806782179596352023-04-17T15:23:00.003-04:002023-04-17T15:29:09.237-04:00timetable. timeline. time frame.In my proposals, I include a section called either “timeline” or “timetable.” This section identifies how long the project at hand will take. Pretty standard stuff.<br /><br />
The problem: Neither “timeline ”nor “timetable” seems to mean precisely what I just said — that I can accomplish this project within, say, 3-6 weeks. Here are the definitions of these words from Merriam-Webster:<br /><br />
<b><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/timeline">timeline</a></b>: a schedule of events and procedures<br /><br />
<b><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/timeline">timetable</a></b>: a schedule showing a planned order or sequence<br /><br />
I suppose “duration” would be the technically correct word, but it doesn’t sound right. If I wanted to be conversational, I could call the section, “How Long?”<br /><br />
Yet after a little Googling, I was reminded of “<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/timeframe">time frame</a>,” which means “a period of time especially with respect to some action or project.”<br /><br />
That’s the mot juste!<br /><br />
Going forward, my proposals will no longer mention “timelines” or “timetables.” Instead, they’ll cite “time frames.”Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-59440634553418295012023-03-23T09:51:00.000-04:002023-03-23T09:51:12.354-04:00myselfWhich sentence is correct?<br><br>
1. Many ghostwriters (including me) have experience as a journalist.<br><br>
2. Many ghostwriters (including myself) have experience as a journalist.<br><br>
#1 is correct. As Bryan Garner explains in <a href=https://amzn.to/3JBHObL><em>Garner’s Modern English Usage</em></a>,<br><br>
“<i>Myself</i> is best used either reflexively (‘I’ve decided to exclude myself from consideration’) or intensively (‘I myself have seen that’; ‘I’ve done that myself’). The word shouldn’t appear as a substitute for <i>I</i> or <i>me</i> (‘My wife and myself were delighted to see you’).”Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-25600598713885516772023-03-06T18:44:00.000-05:002023-03-06T18:44:17.171-05:00“Me,” or “I”?Which is correct?<p><p>
1. Join Daria and me for lunch.<p><p>
2. Join Daria and I for lunch.<p><p>
#1 is correct.<p><p>
How do I know? Because if I omit the other person (“Daria and”), then #2 (“Join I for”) makes no sense. By contrast, #1 (“Join me for”) is perfectly grammatical.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-78317138331893383642023-01-17T12:48:00.004-05:002023-01-20T08:05:17.500-05:00Variety: A Deceptively Plural Noun▶️ A variety of words <i>are</i> found in religious services.<br><br>
▶️ A variety of equipment <i>is</i> attached.<br><br>
Thank you, <a href=https://content.bridgemailsystem.com/pms/v/w/zdTyioJp17Kn20Hj21Vo30Yo33Li26Gm17Lo20zvfrtg/kzaqwLc26Ee17He20Jf21Vi30Vf33kJUoi/>Bryan Garner</a>.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-64534726341957735262023-01-17T12:41:00.002-05:002023-01-17T12:43:13.745-05:00“The Most-Degrading Sequence of 5 Words in the English Language”Thank you, <a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/opinion/living-alone-single.html>Frank Bruni</a>!<br><br>
<blockquote>I’m certain I said “no worries” quite recently, and I cringed, though with only a small fraction of the self-loathing that I feel when I do the following face plant: “It is what it is.”<br><br>
That may be the most degrading sequence of five words in the English language. It serves no essential purpose. It says nothing at all. It’s syllables for the sake of syllables, a waste of cognition and breath, the kind of tautology that an absurdist playwright might put in a character’s mouth as a commentary on the pretentiousness and pointlessness of some human communication.<br><br>
I bet I heard it three times yesterday. And will hear it twice tomorrow. And, God forgive me, will say it once the day after that.<br><br>
Why? Because that’s how such expressions work: They go from quirky to commonplace to overexposed to ambient. Soon you’re repeating them without intention or awareness. And that’s fine — even a blessing — with a reflexive courtesy like “please excuse me” or “my pleasure.”<br><br>
But not with “it is what it is,” which marks an intellectual and moral surrender. “It’s an excuse not to better define whatever you’re trying hard not to further discuss,” Nathan Mitchell of Milwaukee wrote to me, joining a chorus of other readers, including Nancy Betz of Columbus, Ohio, and Gabe Yankowitz of Manlius, N.Y., who urged its banishment.<br><br>
It relieves you of coming to a conclusion, forming an opinion, developing an action plan — and even worse, tries to be cute about it. <a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/it-is-what-it-is.html>As William Safire observed</a> in an essay about “it is what it is” more than a decade and a half ago, “The trick to assertive deflection is in the ducking of a question in a way that sounds forthright.”<br><br>
“Will the vogue use of ‘it is what it is’ become fixed in the farrago of unresponsive responses?” Safire asked. We now have the exasperating answer.</blockquote>Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-54527745181584767552022-08-18T21:10:00.002-04:002022-11-15T16:22:38.184-05:00Commas Are TrickyWhich sentence is correct?<br /><br />
1. Join us, and go beyond a typical workday.<br /><br />
2. Join us and go beyond a typical workday.<br /><br />
It’s a trick question; both are valid, since they each convey a different sense.<br /><br />
<b>Addendum</b> (11/15/2022): Here’s a helpful explanation from <em><a href="https://amzn.to/3TD6Lqs">Merriam-Webster’s Guide to Punctuation and Style</a></em>:<br /><br />
“Commas are not normally used to separate the parts of a compound predicate. However, they are often used if the predicate is long and complicated, if one part is being stressed, or the absence of a comma could cause a momentary misreading.”<br /><br />
In other words: Commas can be subjective.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsYy02bKZWu7JMa6LFkGlnfKKfxh2tOuGreXWuIrfsNsYq1j9C09KwdvRRpBjalsN2t3wM-HCMvG9WE-dXe_UmLWeoG5cR2XkJw4erSvM5cYhXbb8H6D3F6-wIRPHx7-tSKykjJ3JGC72rBmhueIkSIDgp6KEEOwKNNKn3Lqgkb6VB75VmAZdfo0yU/s1758/Commas.png" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1758" data-original-width="1367" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsYy02bKZWu7JMa6LFkGlnfKKfxh2tOuGreXWuIrfsNsYq1j9C09KwdvRRpBjalsN2t3wM-HCMvG9WE-dXe_UmLWeoG5cR2XkJw4erSvM5cYhXbb8H6D3F6-wIRPHx7-tSKykjJ3JGC72rBmhueIkSIDgp6KEEOwKNNKn3Lqgkb6VB75VmAZdfo0yU/w311-h400/Commas.png" width="311" /></a></div>Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-11873701706331755672022-08-09T11:36:00.000-04:002022-08-09T11:36:13.200-04:00The Relative Length of Your Words MattersTechnically, there’s nothing wrong with <a href=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/02/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-visit-op-ed/>this sentence</a>:<br><br>
“The Taiwan Relations Act set out America’s commitment to a democratic Taiwan, providing the framework for an economic and diplomatic relationship that would quickly flourish into a key partnership.”<br><br>
However, it’s an example of a nuance that many people ignore: The <i>relative length of your words</i> matters.<br><br>
Specifically, since the author uses so many <i>big</i> words, it’s important that she also use a <i>small</i> one here and there.<br><br>
Why? Because big words in succession are hard to digest. By contrast, variety gives your reader a mental break.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-59008004243336372172022-07-12T17:53:00.004-04:002023-04-21T08:44:24.430-04:00who. that<a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/politics/house-passes-reconciliation-bill.html>Consider this sentence from the <em>New York Times</em></a> — specifically, the text that comes after the colon (I added the emphasis):<br><br>
“The fact that the bill could slightly add to the federal deficit did not dissuade House Democrats from voting for it, in part because the analysis boiled down to a dispute over a single line item: how much the I.R.S. would collect by cracking down on <em>people and companies that</em> dodge large tax bills.”<br><br>
Now, if I use the word “people” (or refer to a person), then grammar demands that the word “who” follow. By contrast, inanimate objects (basically, everything else, including companies) get “that” or “which.”<br><br>
But what happens, as in the above example, when a sentence contains both “people” and “companies”? Does “people” always predominate? Or is the last pronoun (in this case, “companies”) the deciding factor?<br><br>
In other words: Is it “companies and people <em>who</em>” or “companies and people <em>that</em>”?<br><br>
My understanding is that the inflected word that must apply to each element is governed by the element listed <em>last</em>. Thus:<br><br>
“companies and people who”<br><br>
or<br><br>
“people and companies that”<br><br>
A colleague disagrees. He says that we must stick to whichever pronoun works for <em>both</em> antecedents. Thus:<br><br>
“companies and people that”<br><br>
or<br><br>
“people and companies that”<br><br>
But not:<br><br>
“companies and people who”<br><br>
or<br><br>
“people and companies who”<br><br>
As for who’s right, I’m sorry to say that Bryan Garner, the leading voice on parsing precise usage, <a href=https://twitter.com/jrick/status/1546964508786282497>has not responded</a>.Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-16702506487628000922022-07-06T13:05:00.005-04:002022-07-06T13:05:42.002-04:00The Vocabulary of Grants and ProposalsIn describing their work, grant writers can sometimes be imprecise. For example, sometimes they use the word “grant” to refer both to the document from the donor and their own response to it.<br /><br />
That’s confusing.<br /><br />
So, in the interest of clarity, I’d like to define a few key terms.<br /><br />
<i>Donors</i> (usually foundations) issue R.F.P.s, or “requests for proposals.”<br /><br />
Organizations respond to these R.F.P.s by filling out an application. In other words: You write a <i>proposal</i>.<br /><br />
A team of reviewers evaluates your proposal. If your proposal scores highly, you get a <i>grant</i>.<br /><br />
Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-4280507012612540052022-06-16T17:53:00.003-04:002022-06-19T15:50:59.438-04:00The Case for and Against Elegant VariationIn a new article in the <em>New Yorker</em>, Naaman Zhou <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-twitter-account-that-collects-awkward-amusing-writing">runs down the pros and cons</a> of what writers call “elegant variation.”<br /><br />
<span><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Case Against</span></b><br /></span>
The Fowlers, whose early attempts to codify English are still followed by many sticklers, coined “elegant variation” sarcastically and described it as “false elegance” and “cheap ornament.” On Wikipedia, you’ll find an instructive essay titled “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_problem_with_elegant_variation">The Problem With Elegant Variation</a>.” “Elegant variation distracts the reader, removes clarity, and can introduce inadvertent humor or muddled metaphors,” it says. Or, as the Fowler brothers put it, in 1906, “These elephantine shifts distract our attention from the matter in hand.”<br /><br />
<span><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Case For</span></b><br /></span>
According to Kristen Syrett, a professor of linguistics at Rutgers University, people are instinctively drawn to elegant variation, or “second mentions,” because of a well-documented concept called the <em>repeated-name penalty</em>. This is a cognitive phenomenon, part of the way human minds process language. “If I say to you, ‘Jane walked into the living room, Jane picked up a book, Jane started to read the book’... that causes a delay in reading time,” Syrett said. Indeed, psycholinguists have conducted experiments with eye-tracking technology, where they watch the eyes of their subjects stumbling over these names and scanning back. The body stutters. This response, Syrett said, is “encoded in our brain” — it applies as much to Japanese as it does to Spanish.<br />Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-80425165409095901022022-06-15T11:46:00.006-04:002022-06-15T11:52:59.548-04:00Do You Make This Mistake in English?I certainly do!<br /><br />
Here’s the scenario: Which sentence is correct?<br /><br />
1. I appreciate <i>you</i> taking the time.<br /><br />
2. I appreciate <i>your</i> timing the time.<br /><br />
#2 is correct, even if many well-educated people say #1.<br /><br />
The issue is what H.W. Fowler called the “<a href="https://style.mla.org/fused-participle/">fused participle</a>,” which means a participle that is (1) used as a noun (i.e., a gerund), and (2) preceded by a noun or pronoun not in the possessive case.<br /><br />
Here are two more examples:<br /><br />
1. Shareholders worried about the company reorganizing.<br /><br />
2. Shareholders worried about the company’s reorganizing.<br /><br />
Again: #2 is correct.<br /><br />
1. Me going home made her sad.<br /><br />
2. My going home made her sad.<br /><br />
Yet again, only #2 is correct.<br /><br />Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-55400147956852455872022-02-25T08:15:00.006-05:002022-08-19T16:05:38.486-04:00Why the Wall Street Journal Embraces the Compound HyphenAs readers of Sprachgefuhl know, <a href="http://sprachgefuhl.blogspot.com/search/label/Hyphens">I favor the compound hyphen</a>. It turns out that I’m not alone. The great Paul R. Martin, a longtime editor at the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> who served as the paper’s final authority on language, was also a big fan. Here’s how William Safire, who wrote the “On Language” column in the <i>New York Times Magazine</i>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/14/magazine/on-language-get-off-my-laptop.html">described Martin’s meticulousness</a>:<br /><br />
.............................................................................<br /><br />
“Who is it in the press that calls on me?” asks Julius Caesar in the second scene of the first act of Shakespeare’s play. <br /><br />
It is Paul R. Martin, assistant managing editor of the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, known to his colleagues as the Great Hyphenator. He commends me for defending the use of the hyphen in <i>kitchen-table issue</i> “as befits a compound adjective modifying the noun issue,” but then takes me to task for using <i>health care reform</i> with the compound adjective health care naked of hyphenation. <br /><br />
All Americans deserve health care, but does all adjectival <i>health care</i> deserve a hyphen? Usagists disagree. <br /><br />
Mr. Martin does a sprightly flier on usage for the <i>Journal</i>, called Style & Substance, along the lines of the occasional Winners & Sinners that used to be put out by usageers at the <i>New York Times</i>. (I’m just trying out <i>usageer</i>, as an alternative to <i>usagist</i>; it has a three-musketeers quality, and usage diktats take courage and loyalty to a tight little band.) <br /><br />
In it, he asks us which of the following compound-modifier constructions (thereby using c<i>ompound-modifier</i> as a compound modifier for the first time in the history of grammar) should be hyphenated. <br /><br />
Mr. Martin’s brain-teasing list: “<i>mutual fund manager</i>; <i>hard line faction</i>; <i>health care program</i> [we know that one]; <i>fast food chain</i>; <i>drug price increases</i>; <i>credit card operations</i>; <i>page one article</i>; <i>variable annuity buyers</i>; <i>tax deferred annuities</i> [you can tell what paper he works for]; <i>real estate agent</i>; <i>high school student</i>; <i>natural gas pipeline</i>.” <br /><br />
His answer: “All of the above.” <br /><br />
He’s a hyphenation purist; I’m not. With <i>health care reform</i>, I’ll go along with <em>New York Times</em> style that calls for no hyphens, as in <i>sales tax bill</i>, when the meaning is clear without them. I disagree with the tendency of many <i>Times</i> editors to forgo the hyphen whenever nouns are used together as a compound modifier. Use no hyphen in <i>health care reform</i>, but because it adds to clarity, put a hyphen in <i>kitchen-table issue</i>. A hyphen is a tool. We own the tools; the tools don’t own us. <br /><br />
But what about Mr. Martin’s title, assistant managing editor? Should that have a hyphen? He says no: “I assist the managing editor; I don’t assistant-manage the editor.”
Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-62280251768841449482022-02-22T10:58:00.004-05:002022-04-05T14:58:36.501-04:00burglary. robberyDo you know the difference between a “robbery” and a “burglary”?<p>
Both are acts of thefts, but they’re not interchangeable.<p>
In a “robbery,” something is taken from another person.<p>
In a “burglary,” someone enters a building or other space.<p>
So, you can <i>rob</i> your neighbor, but you can only <i>burglarize</i> his house.<p>
[<a href=https://www.wsj.com/articles/vol-35-no-1-paul-martin-sr-11643730150>Vol. 35, No. 1: Paul Martin Sr.</a>]Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3056422549016744520.post-56743175194321934542022-01-21T17:08:00.006-05:002022-01-21T17:10:22.381-05:00me. I.I’m stealing <a href="https://www.grammarly.com/blog/the-most-common-grammar-and-language-questions/">this excellent answer</a> from Grammarly:<br /><br />
Is it <i>me</i> or <i>I</i>?<br /><br />
Remove the other noun and say the sentence aloud. If it sounds wrong, then switch the pronoun.<br /><br />
<b>Correct</b>: “Did you invite Billy and me?”<br /><br />
<b>Explanation</b>: “Did you invite Billy?” “Did you invite me?“” They both sound correct, so <i>me</i> is correct.<br /><br />
<b>Correct</b>: “Should Billy and I go to the store?”<br /><br />
<b>Explanation</b>: “Should Billy go to the store?” “Should I go to the store?” Again, they both sound correct, so <i>I</i> is correct.<br /><br />
<b>Incorrect</b>: “Sally and me sent gifts.”<br /><br /><b>Explanation</b>: “Sally sent gifts.” “Me sent gifts.” “Me sent gifts” doesn’t sound right, so substitute <i>I</i>:<br /><br />
“Sally and I sent gifts.”Jonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05611009568634072643noreply@blogger.com0