Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[WarnerCL45]

^^  Although "who can you trust?" is generally accepted as OK-ish and less formal.  See partial article below (if anyone is interested, you can check out the link):

http://copywriter-editor.com/who-or-whom/

Who or Whom?

How to get it right—and when and how to fudge it

Who and whom are tricky. Every language guide has an entry on how to deal with these pronouns. One of my favorites—Bryan A. Garner’s Modern American Usage—devotes a full page to published faux pas. Among the offenders are the likes of William F. Buckley and a passel of journalists who not only write for a living but probably also enjoy the ministrations of professional copy editors.

Part of the problem is the fact that, in casual speech and writing, who is widely and acceptably used in place of whom. That can leave whom sounding just plain wrong even when it’s right. This has been true for a long time. Observers of the language have been predicting and even promoting the demise of whom since at least 1870 (according to Webster’s dictionary). Yet we keep right on using who and whom in much the same way they were used in Shakespeare’s day.

Which is to say, who is a subject and whom is an object—until it sounds funny.

[Brookside]

On 8/17/2018 at 12:25 PM, Brookside said:

"Mr. Brennan's lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries which is to sow division and chaos."

Regardless of one's politics, is it too much to hope that the White House Press Secretary could write a coherent opening sentence?

 

1 hour ago, legaleagle53 said:

 

Well, if I read it slowly, I get what she's saying.  She could have taken a much shorter and clearer path to get there, however.

It may be possible to get what she's trying to say, but it's a grammatical nightmare, starting with "lying and recent conduct . . . [and] commentary is" and going downhill from there.

And "secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries which is to sow division and chaos" makes no linguistic sense.

[rur]

And speaking of making no linguistic sense . . .  I was compelled to write a letter to the local candidate whose campaign ad began with this: "(X) ridicules people with disabilities, locks up the children of immigrants and makes demeaning women his personal punching bag."

[Sandman87]

From a local ad which talks about the fire we've been having: "Our thoughts and prayers go out to people, friends, and neighbors who have been affected by the fire." I guess that friends and neighbors don't qualify as people.

 

On 8/22/2018 at 8:04 AM, rur said:

And speaking of making no linguistic sense . . .  I was compelled to write a letter to the local candidate whose campaign ad began with this: "(X) ridicules people with disabilities, locks up the children of immigrants and makes demeaning women his personal punching bag."

Well I certainly wouldn't support anyone who punches demeaning women.

[shapeshifter]

9 hours ago, Sandman87 said:

Well I certainly wouldn't support anyone who punches demeaning women.

While I would tend not to support punchers in general, I might forgive those who punch women and men who demean others in particularly abusive ways (like some demeaning bosses do).

[supposebly]

11 hours ago, Sandman87 said:

Well I certainly wouldn't support anyone who punches demeaning women.

Question from a second language speaker and linguist. Would another interpretation that we would support punching women who demean (others) be possible?

So, women who are demeaning (others) would be his punching bag?

Or is my German interfering here? I'm not saying it's the first that would come to mind but is it possible?

[topanga]

On 8/22/2018 at 11:04 AM, rur said:

And speaking of making no linguistic sense . . .  I was compelled to write a letter to the local candidate whose campaign ad began with this: "(X) ridicules people with disabilities, locks up the children of immigrants and makes demeaning women his personal punching bag."

46 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Question from a second language speaker and linguist. Would another interpretation that we would support punching women who demean (others) be possible?

So, women who are demeaning (others) would be his punching bag?

Or is my German interfering here? I'm not saying it's the first that would come to mind but is it possible?

 

My interpretation was that the candidate (or his staff) was using two metaphors in the same phrase--and wording them badly. 

So the Unnamed Politician 1) demeans women and 2) makes women his figurative (I hope) punching bag. 

--OR-- The writer meant to say that the politician makes demeaning women his personal crusade or personal mission, but they used the term "punching bag" instead. But calling someone a punching bag means that person gets beaten up or picked on, either literally or figuratively. So the act of demeaning women can't also be a punching bag. It doesn't make sense.

 

And they didn't use an Oxford comma!!! I think that hurts me most.

(And hush up. I know using the Oxford comma is a stylistic choice). 

[Moose135]

12 minutes ago, topanga said:

And they didn't use an Oxford comma!!! I think that hurts me most.

(And hush up. I know using the Oxford comma is a stylistic choice). 

Oxford Comma Lovers unite!

[WarnerCL45]

We were taught to use the Oxford comma in Grammar class.  I still use this style.

[shapeshifter]

The use of the obective form after the comparison word "than" seems obviously wrong to me if I tack on an additional verb, as in: 

   My sister is older than I am. [correct]

   My sister is older than me am. [wrong]

But I am increasingly hearing an object used rather than a subject by reporters on NPR and now see it used by a New York Times writer who "has been a columnist for The Times since 2009. . . . and has served as a foreign correspondent and foreign editor," here near the end of his piece:

   "The problem is way deeper than him."

Shouldn't it be: "The problem is way deeper than he [is]"?

Or is it acceptable to use "him" for some grammatical reason unknown to me?

I also use the Oxford comma for clarity.

[Milburn Stone]

15 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

"The problem is way deeper than him."

Shouldn't it be: "The problem is way deeper than he [is]"?

I don't think so, not in this case. Because he (whoever he is) is not the one who is deep or not-deep. He/him is being cited as a contributing cause of the problem, not for his comparative deepness in relation to it. It's just an ordinary object-of-the-preposition situation, and so "him" is correct.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[rur]

On 8/24/2018 at 10:37 AM, supposebly said:

Question from a second language speaker and linguist. Would another interpretation that we would support punching women who demean (others) be possible?

So, women who are demeaning (others) would be his punching bag?

Or is my German interfering here? I'm not saying it's the first that would come to mind but is it possible?

Reading it literally, with the punching bag reference, my takeaway would be  that either 1) the person was against people who demean women, or 2) he was against women who demean others.  (It's what I explained in my letter of complaint.)

I think what was meant was that the person took delight in demeaning women. 

For what it's worth, the ad has since disappeared from local TV (a week before the primary election), but I don't think my letter alone did it. I think (and hope) the candidate who sponsored the ad got flooded with feedback. I'm taking it as a win for the Grammar Police. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by rur

[Brookside]

From a local news channel:

The suspect "forcibly raped her" - does that mean that rape isn't usually forcible?  And so if it's rape but not forcible, it's okay?

[HazelEyes4325]

This doesn't bother me as rape doesn't always involve force (think of cases where roofies were involved, for example...)

[bilgistic]

Rape is always forcible. It's against the victim's consent and therefore forced. The phrase "non-consensual sex" angers me for the same reason. There's no such thing. This might be a better topic for the "Hollywood's Dirty Little (Open) Secrets: Harvey Weinstein and Others Like Him" forum.

[WarnerCL45]

Somebody stated that "xx" sure hit the mother load, with her TV show.

[HazelEyes4325]

36 minutes ago, bilgistic said:

Rape is always forcible. It's against the victim's consent and therefore forced. The phrase "non-consensual sex" angers me for the same reason. There's no such thing. This might be a better topic for the "Hollywood's Dirty Little (Open) Secrets: Harvey Weinstein and Others Like Him" forum.

 

Taking my response to the Weinstein thread...

[shapeshifter]

11 minutes ago, WarnerCL45 said:

Somebody stated that "xx" sure hit the mother load, with her TV show.

As an older mother I'm amused, picturing my toilet after a bm on a TV show.

[legaleagle53]

On 8/24/2018 at 8:18 PM, Milburn Stone said:

I don't think so, not in this case. Because he (whoever he is) is not the one who is deep or not-deep. He/him is being cited as a contributing cause of the problem, not for his comparative deepness in relation to it. It's just an ordinary object-of-the-preposition situation, and so "him" is correct.

 

But "than" isn't a preposition in this construction.  It's a conjunction introducing a clause, with the unspoken but understood complement being a form of the verb "to be" : "The problem is deeper than he is."  The difficulty lies in the fact that this sentence is very poorly constructed to begin with.  It should actually be something like "He is one cause of the problem, but he's far from being the leading cause of the problem."

Edited August 31, 2018 by legaleagle53

[Brookside]

Listening to the BBC World Service a few minutes ago, I was reminded that when I open my remedial school for wayward journalists, my first words will be "It's a basic tenet, not tenant, you morons."

Edited August 31, 2018 by Brookside

[Brookside]

Opening sentence on NPR just now: "John McCain continues an emotional journey to Annapolis."  Is he driving?  Walking?  Taking a bus?  Enquiring minds want to know.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Brookside

[bilgistic]

Shouldn't it be his body continuing said journey?

[Brookside]

44 minutes ago, Brookside said:

Opening sentence on NPR just now: "John McCain continues an emotional journey to Annapolis."  Is he driving?  Walking?  Taking a bus?  Enquiring minds want to know.

 

37 minutes ago, bilgistic said:

Shouldn't it be his body continuing said journey?

Exactly, which is why I posted.  :-)

[bilgistic]

And it's not emotional for him; he's dead!

[topanga]

On 8/31/2018 at 1:30 PM, Brookside said:

Opening sentence on NPR just now: "John McCain continues an emotional journey to Annapolis."  Is he driving?  Walking?  Taking a bus?  Enquiring minds want to know.

 

On 8/31/2018 at 1:37 PM, bilgistic said:

Shouldn't it be his body continuing said journey?

 

On 8/31/2018 at 5:39 PM, bilgistic said:

And it's not emotional for him; he's dead!

I really shouldn’t laugh—but I can’t help it. 

[bilgistic]

We have to laugh. The whole thing has been a circus.

[topanga]

2 minutes ago, bilgistic said:

We have to laugh. The whole thing has been a circus.

Between this conversation and all of the great memes about Aretha Franklin’s long-ass funeral, I’ve been laughing about dead people all weekend. 

[WarnerCL45]

38 minutes ago, topanga said:

Between this conversation and all of the great memes about Aretha Franklin’s long-ass funeral, I’ve been laughing about dead people all weekend. 

When did mourning get so crazy?  I think JFK had only one funeral.

[kassygreene]

In my family we cremate, accept condolence cards, and eventually scatter ashes somewhere meaningful.  The rituals have been discarded over time (when you can''t find enough pallbearers it's really time to re-evaluate what is meaningful).  So, holding 4 services in two states and a district over five days, or holding an eight-hour-long blow-out with costume changes, or (worst worst worst of all) having a service performed by someone who not only didn't know the dearly departed, but insists on using a boilerplate sermon, is all strange to me.

But the funeral (or wedding, or christening, or bris, or bar mitzvah, or etc.) is in the category of other people, other customs, and as long as I'm not being forced to wail and heap ashes over my head, actually watch the bris, or do the chicken dance, I'm good.

Now, having a multi-million dollar estate, surviving family that you at least like, and no will -- oh come on.  All that does is make a party for the lawyers (Jarndyce and Jarndyce).

[Quof]

6 hours ago, bilgistic said:

We have to laugh. The whole thing has been a circus

Well, I wept when Obama said "make George and I say nice things about him."

If we can't count on him to speak English properly, what do we have left?  (I bet he didn't try out his eulogy on Michelle, she would have caught that).

[rur]

36 minutes ago, Quof said:

Well, I wept when Obama said "make George and I say nice things about him."

If we can't count on him to speak English properly, what do we have left?  (I bet he didn't try out his eulogy on Michelle, she would have caught that).

I'm willing to bet that he knew what was correct, but figured if he said "me" that most other people there would think he was wrong. 

[Quof]

That's when they win.   Those of us who know better must do better.

[StatisticalOutlier]

16 hours ago, Quof said:

If we can't count on him to speak English properly, what do we have left?  (I bet he didn't try out his eulogy on Michelle, she would have caught that).

I'd like to agree with you, but I just don't know any more.  I think I've mentioned here before that I heard David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, say, "Between my wife and I" in a Fresh Air interview.  If he and Barack Obama will do it, I'm not sure even Michelle Obama can stem that tide, and that's saying something about the strength of the tide.

All I can hope is that since I didn't actually hear Barack commit this mortal sin, I'll be able to let it slip from my mind more easily than I can Remnick's abomination.

[Ohwell]

39 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

All I can hope is that since I didn't actually hear Barack commit this mortal sin, I'll be able to let it slip from my mind more easily than I can Remnick's abomination.

When he said it, I wanted to weep.

 

But I also agree with this:

16 hours ago, rur said:

I'm willing to bet that he knew what was correct, but figured if he said "me" that most other people there would think he was wrong. 

which makes me want to weep even more.

The sad thing is that it really was a funny quip, which is why the media showed it so much.  

*sigh*

Edited September 3, 2018 by Ohwell

[Ohwell]

Also, (now I really want to weep) this isn't the first time I've heard him make that mistake.  Michelle really does need to school him.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On a brighter note, let's hear it for George Clooney!  In the AFI Life Achievement tribute to him on TCM last night, he said his father was "an incredible influence on both my sister and me growing up."  Not only that, it was in an interview where he was telling stories so it appears he talks like that on the regular.  Geeeez, could the guy be any more perfect? 

Actually, maybe we can prevail upon him to make this one of his humanitarian causes, because it does cause terrible suffering among a lot of us.

The only down side is that it sounded almost wrong to me, but I'm not sure if it's only because it's the exception rather than the rule to hear it right these days, or because I can usually hear the situation coming several words in advance and steel myself for the inevitable and expect to hear it wrong so when I hear it right it's jarring. 

Oh well.  I'll take what I can get.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

On a brighter note, let's hear it for George Clooney!  In the AFI Life Achievement tribute to him on TCM last night, he said his father was "an incredible influence on both my sister and me growing up."  Not only that, it was in an interview where he was telling stories so it appears he talks like that on the regular.  Geeeez, could the guy be any more perfect? 

LOL

[WarnerCL45]

20 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Also, (now I really want to weep) this isn't the first time I've heard him make that mistake.  Michelle really does need to school him.

I think that particular mistake happens so often that most just accept it.  I wonder if Michelle proofread the speech?

[Ohwell]

21 minutes ago, WarnerCL45 said:

I think that particular mistake happens so often that most just accept it.  I wonder if Michelle proofread the speech?

I think not.

[Sandman87]

Fire season brought out the best in our newscasters today:

"Good news from CalFire reducing the estimate of the burned area from 2000 acres to 975 acres. That fire started yesterday, and has burned 2000 acres."

"We'll be back after the break to talk about where the origin of the fire started."

"Looking at the smoke, the direction of our sky-cam depends on which way it is looking."

[Annber03]

3 minutes ago, Sandman87 said:

"Looking at the smoke, the direction of our sky-cam depends on which way it is looking."

LOL, what? 

[Milburn Stone]

A scourge that's been going on for a long time is the misuse/overuse by reporters, anchorpeople, commentators, et. al., of the word "obviously."

Here's a tip: If a fact actually is obvious, you don't need to communicate the fact at all. Your audience already knows it. That's the definition of "obvious." Omit the sentence altogether instead of taking up valuable airtime with it.

If a fact isn't obvious, then tell us the fact without using the word "obviously." Because the word in that context is incorrect. 

[legaleagle53]

On 9/7/2018 at 7:35 AM, Milburn Stone said:

A scourge that's been going on for a long time is the misuse/overuse by reporters, anchorpeople, commentators, et. al., of the word "obviously."

Here's a tip: If a fact actually is obvious, you don't need to communicate the fact at all. Your audience already knows it. That's the definition of "obvious." Omit the sentence altogether instead of taking up valuable airtime with it.

If a fact isn't obvious, then tell us the fact without using the word "obviously." Because the word in that context is incorrect. 

Obviously, however, the word does still have a place in the English language.  Since you've just declared it verbum non gratum, what do you feel its proper place in the language is?

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

Obviously, however, the word does still have a place in the English language.  Since you've just declared it verbum non gratum, what do you feel its proper place in the language is?

That's a good question. I think my answer is that when you are looking to create agreement, or build upon agreement, the word is appropriate. In your sentence, you're saying (to paraphrase), "we all know that the word has a place; that is the premise we all start from." But on TV news, it's more often employed not to build upon a commonly shared premise among listeners, but to demonstrate to listeners that the reporter knows his facts. (Sort of, "Just in case you thought I didn't know this, I do.")

I find the same phenomenon in reporters' overuse of the phrase "of course." If it really is "of course," you don't need to say "of course."

Edited September 11, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[legaleagle53]

6 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

That's a good question. I think my answer is that when you are looking to create agreement, or build upon agreement, the word is appropriate. In your sentence, you're saying (to paraphrase), "we all know that the word has a place; that is the premise we all start from." But on TV news, it's more often employed not to build upon a commonly shared premise among listeners, but to demonstrate to listeners that the reporter knows his facts. (Sort of, "Just in case you thought I didn't know this, I do.")

I find the same phenomenon in reporters' overuse of the phrase "of course." If it really is "of course," you don't need to say "of course."

Of course you don't!

[shapeshifter]

Cicero Police Department Superintendent regarding the shooting of a police officer during an attempted traffic stop, "The vehicle refused to stop" (https://abc7chicago.com/police-officer-shot-at-i-55-and-cicero-ave/4236140/ ).

So it wasn't the driver who refused to stop—it was the vehicle?

Edited September 14, 2018 by shapeshifter

[SrOfficial]

Somebody on FB just referred to a handy cap parking spot.

[fairffaxx]

The poster on Facebook had to type that -- what must he/she have been thinking?  The term "handy cap" means nothing (at least in English), so the poster can't have misinterpreted it.  Odd.

[SrOfficial]

9 hours ago, fairffaxx said:

The poster on Facebook had to type that -- what must he/she have been thinking?  The term "handy cap" means nothing (at least in English), so the poster can't have misinterpreted it.  Odd.

I think it's a matter of not being aware (or flunking Spelling).  They see sign saying "handicapped" parking, but it doesn't register.  I have a whole list of these types of things.  Examples:  pedal stool (pedestal) , lued behaviour, fame hoar, in vein (in vain), knit-pick.  Too depressing.

[shapeshifter]

On 9/16/2018 at 8:23 AM, SrOfficial said:

On 9/15/2018 at 10:55 PM, fairffaxx said:

The poster on Facebook had to type that -- what must he/she have been thinking?  The term "handy cap" means nothing (at least in English), so the poster can't have misinterpreted it.  Odd.

I think it's a matter of not being aware (or flunking Spelling).  They see sign saying "handicapped" parking, but it doesn't register.  I have a whole list of these types of things.  Examples:  pedal stool (pedestal) , lued behaviour, fame hoar, in vein (in vain), knit-pick.  Too depressing

I don't know if this makes it any less depressing, but consider that the FaceBook poster was aware that correctly spelling a word of 8 or more letters was beyond that poster's abilities and so used a variation of phonetics to convey a thought. "A" for effort? —especially if the poster's message was uplifting and/or informative. 

 

 

 

New issue:
From Variety's review of the new Hulu series, The First:

Quote

. . . It’s an canny formulation—one man looks to the stars even as crises, at least in part of his own making, keep him bound to familiar soil. No surprise that it sprung from the mind of Beau Willimon . . .

It's probably just a case of hurried editing, but sheesh, people, if you're going to put up a pay wall after I've read a few articles, you really should do better.
Perhaps originally it read "it had sprung" or "it has sprung," and the editor/author realized both were awkward, so attempted to change it to "it sprang," but was interrupted or something? If the author just received some life shattering news, I will forgive him/her.  
But I'm really not sure what was intended with "It's an canny." 

• It's canny
• It's uncanny

Even the spelling-handicapped poster above who typed "handy cap" at least made clear what was intended.

Edited September 20, 2018 by shapeshifter