Even Good Authors Goof the Usage!

I'm reading an interesting historical book called The Island at the Center of the World http://www.russellshorto.com/. It is about Manhattan when it still belonged to the Dutch. This book contains many good stories and dispels the caricatures of Peter Stuyvesant and other Dutch leaders as well as Native American residents at that time.



A friend loaned me this book after I recommended Ric McCammon's The Queen of Bedlam to her http://www.RobertMcCammon.com/. McCammon's book is another good read--a fiction narrative about a murder in New York in the early English times of that city. McCammon has a new book out, also set in New York City and featuring Matthew Corbett, the main character in Queen of Bedlam.



Okay, now I will get to the point of this blog entry. Russell Shorto, who wrote The Island at the Center of the World, is an excellent writer, but like many of us, he has a mental block about one particular grammar point. In his case, it is the difference between AFFECT (usually a verb) and EFFECT (usually a noun).



There are two examples of this in his book:



page 242-- These updates on the situation in the colony had an affect on the assembly.



page 268--With municipal government on Manhattan came an innovation whose affect would long outlive the colony itself, and help to impress the island's legacy into the American character.



In both of these sentences, the word called for should be the NOUN, which is EFFECT. They should read as follows:



These updates on the situation in the colony had an effect on the assembly.



With municipal government on Manhattan came an innovation whose effect would long outlive the colony itself and help to impress the island's legacy into the American character.



BONUS POINT: Please notice that I also removed the comma before AND in the second sentence. Because the author means that the EFFECT would do two things (long outlive the colony AND help to impress the island's legacy into the American character), there should NOT be a comma separating the second verb phrase from the subject EFFECT.



Have a great day, everyone!

Question Mark? Quotation Marks? Which Where?

One of my readers sent a question this morning about how to use quotation marks with a question mark. Her example sentence read something like this:

I knew to combine the two words into a compound word, but could you blog about the "why" and the "when"?

She wanted to know if she had been correct in placing the question mark OUTSIDE the quotation marks. The answer is YES.

Here is a simple two-part rule for deciding when to put the question mark OUTSIDE the quotation marks and when to put it INSIDE:

PART A: If the material INSIDE the quotation marks is NOT a question, as in her example, the question mark goes OUTSIDE the quotation marks. Here are a few more examples:

Have you ever read Fitzgerald's short story, "Bernice Bobs Her Hair"?

How would you define the word "defeat"?

Did you actually hear Mr. Weston say that he was "outraged"?

PART B: If the material INSIDE the quotation marks IS a question, the question mark goes INSIDE the quotation marks, as in these examples:

The witness responded with his own question, "What do you think, Mr. Prosecutor?"

Denis has written a short story titled, "What now?"

"Where's the beef?" asked Clara Peller in 1984.

BONUS POINT: The rule (at least for now) for commas and periods is even simpler. Just remember that COMMAS and PERIODS ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks--no exceptions.

There, that wasn't too complicated, was it?

Another Comma Glitch

Last Tuesday, I talked about not separating an adjective from its noun with a comma. Here is another good rule: Do not use a comma to separate a subject from its verb.

Walgreens had an ad in this morning's newspaper for a horse linament that erases pain. This was the first sentence of the description:

An ingredient often used to treat inflammation in race horse legs, is now back on the market in its original doctor recommended clinical strength formula.

There should NOT be a comma between "legs" and "is." The only time you would have a comma between the subject and the verb is IF a phrase that does not change the meaning of the subject is inserted. In that case, there would be TWO commas, one at the beginning of the inserted phrase and one at the end of it. In this sentence, that is not the case. The information beginning with "often used" DEFINES the ingredient and is necessary for meaning. Therefore, it is NOT set off by commas.

Use horse linament for your pain if you wish, but use your commas correctly!

Legal eagles (sober or intoxicated) need more than spell checkers.

Proofreading is important, especially if you are writing something that has legal implications. I recently read through a "Declaration of Protective Covenants" for a development in my area and found a paragraph on the second page that contained two typos. Neither of them would have been caught by running a spell checker.

The first statement referred to the size of dwelling that could be erected on a lot in the development. It said that no dwelling could contain less than "one thousand eight hundred (2,800) square feet of living area for a one (1)-story dwelling.

Hm-mmm. If an argument over size ever went to court, I wonder which figure--the one written out in words or the one in numerals inside the parentheses--would carry the legal weight. Obviously, the two do not match.

The same paragraph contained a statement that began this way: "Story and one-half dwellings mush have a minimum of....

I couldn't help but wonder if the typist was drunk and slurring words in the brain as well as on paper!

Using "Include/including" in sentences.

One of my readers asked recently if I would clarify the proper way to use "include" in a sentence. The simple, direct answer is WITHOUT A COLON. Just go right on with what is included. Here are some examples:



The Grammar Glitches that annoy me most include subject/verb agreement and apostrophe goofs.



The newly appointed board members include Sam Jones, Polly Troxell, and Jim Henry.



Notice that neither of these sentences requires a colon after INCLUDE.




If you use the word "including," it may help clarify to put a comma BEFORE it, but you still do not need a colon after it. More examples:



Everyone survived, including the family dog.



The price for the ticket is $15.75 including sales tax.



The band has five members, including a drummer, two guitars, a violin, and a flute.



The only time you would place a colon after "include" is when you are setting up a bullet list rather than a sentence, as in these examples:



Your choices for the banquet menu include:

• roast beef with mashed potatoes, gravy, and green beans


• chicken quesadillas with cheesy nachos


• moo goo gai pan

Optional side trips for this cruise include:

• visiting a glacier


• photographing seals at play


• dining in an old-time saloon

My thanks to Rachel for suggesting this topic.

A wonderful, furry, hug,,,,And other comma glitches

Let's tackle a comma Glitch today. One basic rule is that you do not use a comma to separate an adjective from the noun it modifies. This sentence appears in a delightful article in 280 Living about Macy, the loveable service dog:

Say the word "snuggle" at Danberry at Inverness retirement community and you will get a wonderful, furry, hug....

The first comma (between WONDERFUL and FURRY) is fine because it separates one adjective from another adjective. The second comma (between FURRY and HUG) is not fine because it separates the descriptive word FURRY from what it describes, which is HUG. The sentence should read as follows:

Say the word "snuggle" at Danberry at Inverness retirement community, and you will get a wonderful, furry hug....


In an article on the same page of 280 Living, two sentences illustrate another basic rule for comma use: If an introductory clause is longer than three words, it should be set off by a comma so that the reader can find the main subject of the sentence. Those of you who have attended my business writing workshops have heard me compare this to Hansel and Gretel dropping breadcrumbs--Yoo-hoo, the subject is over here!

When a doctor approaches the bedside with an air of quiet confidence the therapeutic process can begin.

When you are calm and filled with self-respect others immediately pick up on that energy and some of it rubs off on them.

Whew! That is a lot of information to muddle through without any breadcrumbs or road signs. In the first sentence, the main subject is PROCESS, which is the 15th word in the sentence! In the second sentence, the main subject is OTHERS, which is the 9th word in the sentence. In my opinion and according to most business writing manuals, a comma is necessary after the introductory clause in each sentence, as follows:

When a doctor approachs the bedside with an air of quiet confidence, the therapeutic process can begin.

When you are calm and filled with self-respect, others immediately pick up on that energy, and some of it rubs off on them.

BONUS POINT: In the second sentence, I also added a comma before AND because the last part of the sentence (some of it rubs off on them) is a completely separate idea.

A nondisputable truth?

Perhaps a good spell checker would have questioned this one, but the current issue of 280 Living has a column about "calm assertiveness" that includes this sentence:

Lastly, realize there is a nondisputable truth regarding the human body.

Whoops! The correct word here is INDISPUTABLE. I checked three dictionaries and ran an online search to be sure my Grammar Glitch instinct was correct. This goof points out that, when you want to make a word negative, you can't just tack any old negative prefix on the front. You need to take the time to find out which negative prefix has been declared official and, therefore, will be recognized by your readers.

What you don't want is for your astute readers to react the way I did when I read this column: What? Is that a word? That distracts me from your message and also gives me the impression that you are not careful with language.

This sentence should read as follows:

Finally, realize that there is an indisputable truth regarding the human body.

BONUS POINT #1: The word FINALLY is a much better choice than LASTLY at the beginning of this sentence.

BONUS POINT #2: Although I often recommend getting rid of extra THAT phrases and clauses in sentences, I think the addition of the word THAT in this sentence makes it read more smoothly.

BONUS POINT #3: I changed "a" in front of "nondisputable" to "an" in front of "indisputable" because the first letter of the word changed from a consonant to a vowel.


NOTE #1: If you are wondering what that indisputable truth about the human body is, the author of the article, Marlene Buckler, says it is that the body's God-given intelligence is genetically programmed to strive for health, balance, and homeostasis. That sounds good to me.


NOTE #2: If any of my readers would like a copy of my workshop handout on the "THAT PASTURE," which gives examples of THAT clauses that can be omitted and those that should be kept, just send me an e-mail, and I will send you that file.

Another Apostrophe Issue: Who's Son???

Among the many e-mails I've received in the past few days about the tragedy in Haiti, one referred to "a cousin who's son and his family live and work in Haiti."

Fortunately, this young man was able to get his wife and daughter evacuated from the country, and he has remained to help with the recovery. I hope you will keep him and all of those who are suffering and those who are trying to relieve that suffering in your prayers.

Meanwhile, I will use this Grammar Glitch to remind readers about the possessive of the word WHO. If you wish to use WHO to refer to a person and then refer to something or someone that belongs to that person, the proper form is WHOSE.

You would only use WHO'S in place of WHO + IS or WHO + HAS, as in the examples below:

Who's (Who is) in charge of this project?

Who's (Who has) been eating my porridge?

The phrase in the original example at the beginning of this post should read as follows:

...a cousin whose son and his family live and work in Haiti."

NOTE: Sometimes I receive comments from readers who say that the examples in my blog are too simple and elementary. Perhaps so, but as long as I continue to come across them over and over again in print and in business correspondence, I will continue to point them out and try to correct them.

More Apostrophe Issues

The current issue of 280 Living features an article about Shelby County students honored recently for their art work. It is a good article, but unfortunately, it contains three apostrophe problems in three paragraphs. That's a bit much in Grammar Glitches!

Here is the sentence from the first paragraph:

NF received additional honors by being selected for one of the 12 coveted spots for the next years St. Vincent's Foundation calendar.

Whoops! The St. Vincent's Foundation calendar BELONGS to next year, so there should be an apostrophe to indicate this. The sentence should read as follows:

NF received additional honors by being selected for one of the 12 coveted spots in next year's St. Vincent's Foundation calendar.



Here is the sentence from the second paragraph:

Additionally, the student's teachers received a cash award to be used during the year.

If you read the entire article, it is clear that two students received art awards, and this sentence is supposed to refer to both of them. It is also clear that one teacher entered the work of both students. BONUS POINT: I may be old-fashioned, but I still prefer IN ADDITION to ADDITIONALLY. I think this sentence should read as follows:

In addition, the students' (MORE THAN ONE) teacher (ONLY ONE) received a cash award to be used during the year.



The "whoops" sentence in the third paragraph involves a problem that occurs when things belong to TWO SEPARATE people.

DS, Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments at the Linda Nolen Learning Center, was the vision teacher that entered the show with NF and EG's art work.

NF and EG both created art work, but they did NOT work together on one piece. Therefore, each of their names should have an apostrophe and an "s" at the end. BONUS POINT: Remember that I also suggest using WHO rather than THAT when referring to people. This sentence should read as follows:

DS, Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments at the Linda Nolen Learning Center, was the vision teacher who entered the show with NF's and EG's art work.


In spite of the Grammar Glitches, I'd like to congratulate these students and also put in a good word for the Liz Moore Low Vision Center at St. Vincent's East, which does an outstanding job. Visit their website at
http://e-videoads.com/MCE/serv_vision_htm

How many of your "life's" have been enhanced by warning labels?

I'm back on my apostrophe kick this afternoon after a friend sent me a hilarious e-mail about oddly worded warning labels. I'll share a couple of those with you in a minute, but first to the GrammarGlitch part. The headline on the e-mail said this:

No telling how many life's have been enhanced or saved because of these warning labels!

Whoops! I have said it before, and I will continue to say it: Please do NOT use an apostrophe + an "s" to make a word plural. In this case, the word LIFE becomes LIVES when it is plural. The sentence should read as follows:

No telling how many lives have been enhanced or saved because of these warning labels!

There are only two instances where you would use "life's." One is when you are talking about something that BELONGS to "life." For example, a sentence like one of these:

Catching Grammar Glitches can be one of life's little pleasures.

My life's ambition is to write the great American novel.

The other instance is in casual, conversational writing where you create a contraction of LIFE and IS or LIFE and HAS, as in the following sentences:

Life's (Life is) frustrating sometimes.

I feel as if my life's (life has) been rescued.

Now, I think you will enjoy a couple of these hilarious warning labels. I might comment that a good proofreading editor would have fixed these, but then we wouldn't have the chuckle:

Many brands of Christmas lights contain the following warning: For indoor or outdoor use only. Hm-mm, I wonder where else they are worrying about.

A Sears hairdryer carries this warning: Do not use while sleeping. Who would go to bed with their hair wet anyway?

Some Swanson frozen dinners offer this serving suggestion: Defrost.

A brand of bread pudding warns: Product will be hot after heating. Duh!

Guardians of Grammar, But Not Too Much Sway!

The "Letters to the Editor" flap about judging grammar continued this week in The Birmingham News http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary when Eugene L. Griffin of Hoover, Alabama sent in this comment:



"The guardians of grammar ("Your Views," The News, Jan. 2) have their place. Let us not, however, give them too much sway. A culture should worry not so much about its rules of expression, but foremost about the quality of the thoughts emanating from that culture.

A case in point, whether spoken or written: 'He ain't heavy; he's my brother.'"



Before I make my own assessment of Griffin's opinion, I'd like to know what my blog readers think. Should we stop worrying "so much" about the rules? Does "ain't" have a time and place? Can the language of a culture be effective without rules? How would you rate the importance of rules in relationship to "the quality of the thoughts"?



PLEASE post a comment about this and let me know in your comment whether or not it is okay to quote you.

Customers should be counted, too!

I said yesterday that AMOUNT and NUMBER continue to be a problem. That remains true today. There is a good letter to the editor in The Birmingham News this morning about the cappuccino flap. Personally, I like frothy milk in my decaf skimmed milk cappuccino. At least I can pretend I'm sipping that great liquid through whipped cream!

Celia Mayhew, who works at Starbucks, defended the cappuccino, but in doing so, she made this statement:

I work at Starbucks, and there is no way to comprehend the insane amount of customers that complain about the frothy milk within a cappuccino.

Insane or not, those customers can be counted. They are not sugar or salt or laundry, as I pointed out yesterday. Therefore, the sentence should read as follows:

I work at Starbucks, and there is no way to comprehend the insane number of customers who complain about frothy milk within a cappuccino.

BONUS COMMENT: Notice that I also changed the word THAT to WHO in this sentence. This is not an absolute rule, but it is a good "rule of thumb." Whenever you refer to people (or a person), use WHO instead of THAT.

People Count! And They Should Be Counted!

I have pointed this out before, but it continues to be a problem. Things that can be counted (bridges, marmosets, peanuts, people) are described in one way, and things that occur in a lump sum (sand, money, glue, laundry) are described in a different way.

The TimesDaily in Florence, Alabama TimesDaily.com recently reported about how successful the North Alabama Birding Trail http://northalabamabirdingtrail.com is. It opened in September 2005, and the visitor response has exceeded expectations. That is the good news.

The bad news, at least from my GrammarGlitchCentral perspective, is that one of the statements in the article has the word AMOUNT where it should be NUMBER:

We have a tremendous amount of people coming by or contacting our office for information on the birding trail.

Whoops! You can talk about AMOUNTS of sand, money, glue, laundry, or rain. However, when you talk about people (or birds or visitors or trails) or anything else that can be counted individually (grains of sand, dollar bills, nickels, jars of glue, towels and sheets, or raindrops), the correct word is NUMBER. This sentence should read as follows:

We have a tremendous number of people coming by or contacting our office for information on the birding trail.

Happy Trails, everyone!

Got Gold? Need Punctuation Pointers! III.

My final blog entry on the Roadshow ad has to do with hyphenated words. Usually, a hyphen is placed between a verb and an adverb when the two words are combined so the combination word can describe a noun. Here are some examples:

...her cashed-in winning ticket

...the decades-long recession

...the check-in time for this event

When the verb appears in the normal VERB position in the sentence and has an adverb after it, the two should NOT be hyphenated. The Roadshow ad offered a great example of this grammar glitch:

If you go to the Roadshow, you can cash-in your items for top dollar.

Whoops! No hyphen is needed here. The sentence should read as follows:

If you go to the Roadshow, you can cash in your items for top dollar.

BONUS POINT: This same rule applies with compound words that do NOT have hyphens. Look at the difference between the sentences in each pair below:

My crew will set up (verb position) the chairs and tables in the conference room.

The setup (adjective position in front of noun) chart for the conference room will be available in the morning.

You must follow up (verb position) with your doctor next week.

We do not have a followup (adjective position in front of noun) procedure in place.

For more examples of hyphen use and compound word use, click on either of these topics in the index at the right.

Got Gold? Need Punctuation Pointers! II.

The Roadshow ad appearing in newspapers this week has apostrophe errors that call for reminders, too. (Click on "apostrophes" in the index at right to see the other blog entries on this subject.)

Jason Delong, who wrote the copy for the Roadshow ad, quoted one expert who works for the Roadshow as follows:

"...I would go through the change in my parents grocery store looking for rare dates and errors...."

Because the grocery store BELONGED to this man's parents, the writer should have used an apostrophe. Because the man had two parents who ran the grocery store (plural), that apostrophe should have come AFTER the "s." The sentence should read as follows:

"...I would go through the change in my parents' grocery store looking for rare dates and errors...."

The other apostrophe error is one of updating an old rule. It is no longer necessary to use an apostrophe when referring to decades or centuries. Delong wrote these two sentences as follows:

"Old tin wind-up toys from the late 1800's through the 1960's are in great demand now."

"Old Buddy L toys from the 1920's to 1960's are in demand."

In the 2010s, it is perfectly acceptable (and preferred) to write decades and centuries without the apostrophe. These sentences can be written as follows:

"Old tin wind-up toys from the late 1800s through the 1960s are in great demand now."

"Old Buddy L toys from the 1920s to 1960s are in demand."

While you are cleaning out the closet and the jewelry box as you look for hidden treasures, why not also clean out your old grammar rules and bring them up to date.

Stay tuned. One more blog on this Roadshow ad will deal with hyphenated words and when NOT to create them.

Got Gold? Need Punctuation Pointers!

The Roadshow is traveling around buying up gold and silver, antique toys and other goodies. Their full page ad is, for me, a treasure trove of poor punctuation, and I will share some of it with you over the coming days.

Let's begin with the most confusing problem, which is what to do with periods and commas when using quotation marks. Here is one example from the ad:

"Old tin windup toys...are in great demand now." said Davis, "Especially those that are character related."

Whoops! The first error comes after the word NOW. Because "said Davis" comes AFTER the quote, there should be a comma, not a period, after NOW. The second error is with the word ESPECIALLY. It should not be capitalized because it continues the sentence that starts before "said Davis." Because "said Davis" comes in the MIDDLE of a complete sentence, there should be a comma after "Davis" as well.

I can't resist also mentioning that the word WIND-UP, according to my trusty American Heritage Dictionary and my personal brain, has a hyphen in it when used as an adjective to describe a noun. When used as a verb + adverb as in something like "I'll wind up this explanation as soon as possible," there is no hyphen. To my knowledge, there is NO instance in which this should be spelled WINDUP.

Therefore, this sentence should read as follows:

"Old tin wind-up toys...are in great demand now," said Davis, "especially those that are character related."

Here is another quotation mark goof involving the last sentence of the same ad:

"We help people sort through their coins for unique dates....See you at the Roadshow." said Fuller.

Once again, because "said Fuller" comes AFTER what is quoted, there should be a comma, not a period, after ROADSHOW and then, as given, a period after FULLER. The statement should read as follows:

"We help people sort through their coins for unique dates....See you at the Roadshow," said Fuller.

Please stay tuned. My next blog entry will deal with the apostrophe errors in the same ad.

Letter to Editor Offers Laundry List of Grammar Goofs

It seems Sharon Nichol's book has stirred up comments in The Birmingham News about common grammar goofs. Barbara J. Belisle of Montevallo wrote this morning to state that she was beginning to think "poor grammar usage is an accepted practice."

Barbara mentioned the following common goofs:

1. YOU'RE and YOUR confusion

2. "If I would have" (should be: If I had) and "I wish I would have" (should be: I wish I had)

3. "between him and I" (should be: between him and me)

4. "people want they children" (should be "people want their children)

Apparently she has written a small book that offers advice on how to correct errors like these. It is called Where's U're?