I haven’t run into an article about the Oxford English Dictionary’s new words for the year, so I’ll have to let a comic do the job.
So—do you know the meanings?
Time for a Non-Lesson
A friend (Hi, Brenda!) sent me this with the message, “for the rag.” So here it is:
The comments in Facebook talk a lot about diagramming sentences. When I was in high school, the last thing I heard a teacher say about diagramming was that research showed that its main benefit was that the kids who did it could draw straighter lines. Oh well. I still know how to do it…
And while I’m at it, here’s another one she sent. Good point about contractions:
Someone Else Who Believes in Correctness
One of my five gold rules of good writing is to be correct. I mention it a couple times. The gist is that you need to get your mechanics (grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax) correct; the other is that your facts have to be true. (I tell people that as a tech writer, I tell the truth for a living.)
I just ran into an excellent essay on this subject. Here’s the incorrectness that triggered the essay:
Click the link under the picture. What he says is exactly my point about correctness. The sentence is not quite true. Some of you, no doubt, will be able to figure out that the inaccuracy is; it’s subtle. (And I’m not referring to the use of “which,” which should be “that.” —that’s an error in mechanics.)
So. Be sure you get your facts right. Tell the truth.
“And an Incorrect “Whom”
The last post featured a comic about politics. This comic appeared on the same page as one in the last post, and it’s also about politics, but I’m all about the grammar, and this time the guy gets it wrong:
It should be “Whom do you have?” But you probably know that by now. (“You” is the subject, the object should be “whom.”)
I wonder whether the solecism was part of the commentary. Oops. I don’t make political statements.
Yet Another Correct “Whom”
Normally I tend to avoid political stuff, concentrating on grammar and writing instead. My interest here is no exception. I like to point out any time someone uses “whom” correctly, politics or not. It’s in the third panel:
“Whom” is the object of the separable verb “vote for” even though “whom” comes first. And objects take the objective case!
This sentence has an interesting ambiguity, by the way. The verb in question is an infinitive (to vote for) and the subject of an infinitive takes the objective case in English; hence, that “whom” here could be considered the subject of the verb!
Strong Verbs
They call it “ablaut” in German. It’s when you show the present, past, and perfect forms of a verb by changing the vowel. Sing, sang, sung, for example. I have run into people getting this wrong in writing so often lately that I finally decided to mention it. (Again) This time with a comic. Second panel:
Should be “sprang,” of course. Brooke McEldowney, the cartoonist, Is a high-class sort of guy, so I suspect he’s accommodating the character of the speaker, for whom English is their second language.
But you, dear reader, probably don’t have that excuse. Don’t use the perfect when the simple past will do.
Don’t be Ambiguous!
“Be clear” is one of my five gold rules of technical (and any expository) writing. Here’s a good example of what I mean. Is eWeek saying that the updates have critical flaws?
Apple Patches Critical Flaws in iOS 12.1, macOS 10.14.1 Updates
You have to read the article to find out. Inside the article they got it better:
Among the updated releases are macOS Mojave 10.14.1, iOS 12.1 and watchOS 5.1, fixing high-impact flaws…
We hear of flaws being in operating systems, and we also hear of fixing things with an update. They could have put “with” right before “Updates” in their headline. Presto! Ambiguity removed!
They could also have changed the word order:
Apple Updates iOS12, macOS, and watchOS with Patches.
For that matter, whatever comes after “with” is unnecessary:
Apple Updates iOS12, macOS, and watchOS
That last suggestion isn’t as dynamic, perhaps, but shorter is good. Being concise is another of my rules. And it gives room to mention all three updates in the headline by getting rid of all those numbers. Want longer anyway? How about:
Apple Updates iOS12, macOS, and watchOS, Fixing Critical Flaws
Sorry—I couldn’t find a comic to illustrate this. Maybe my next post will have a comic.
Another Dieresis
I wrote about this little-used punctuation back in October, so click the link to see the lesson. Today you just get an example of correct usage. It’s from 1955, so it fits the pattern of the dieresis being an old usage. Middle panel.
A Little About Word Order
English, being light on inflections, uses word order a lot. Classical Greek, for example, is heavily inflected, so word order can be played with more than it can be played with in English. They even have a figure of speech called chiasmus, in which they arrange the words symmetrically in the sentence (for example, noun, adjective, adverb, verb, adverb, adjective, noun) and you use the inflections to figure out what refers to what.
Sometimes getting the word order correct in English can be tricky. I have mentioned where “only” should go several times. (Search for “only” in the search box in the upper right corner to see some examples.)
So this Buckles comic, first panel, gets it wrong, at least in expository writing. Perhaps we’re more relaxed in conversational speech.
The rule is that adjectives go right before the word they modify, so technically, the dog is saying that it’s Paul’s good pair, not good shoes.
Not a lot of difference there; it could go either way, and you might even make the excuse that “pair of shoes” counts as one word. Well, maybe.
But when you’re explaining something, be on the lookout for ambiguity, and avoid it.
An Interesting Plural Quirkiness
Is “bacteria” singular or plural? Well, it’s plural. The singular is “bacterium.” But here’s an example of using the singular to refer to a whole bunch of the little critters. Twice:
A bacterium named Moorella thermoacetica won’t work for free. But UC Berkeley researchers have figured out it has an appetite for gold. And in exchange for this special treat, the bacterium has revealed a more efficient path to producing solar fuels through artificial photosynthesis.
The writer isn’t referring to a single bacterial cell, but the whole species.
We do this a lot in American English, refer to a collective noun in the singular. We say “the team is,” for example.