With Halloween just around the corner at the time this piece is being written, we’re reminded of an incident from long ago, when we too were kids out seeking edibles ruinous to our teeth on the eve before All Saints Day.
First, though, we have to lay the background. The grammar school we attended from ages five through twelve was headed by an old maid principal. Since those were the Great Depression years, necessitating that staff costs be held to a minimum, the boss lady’s duties required doubling as the sixth grade teacher for three days each week.
In order that she might handle her administrative chores adequately, the school had engaged a substitute teacher to fill in the other two days. This had been the practice for a number of years.
The substitute was a widow somewhere in her forties. By temperament, she may have been mankind’s most mild-mannered person since Melanie Hamilton of Gone with the Wind fame. In fact, her demureness had become known to the extent of making her a virtual local institution among the student gentry.
Having Mrs. Alma Horn as a part-time teacher in place of the bulky and gruff principal was a pleasure we kids actually looked forward to while working up the ladder sixth-gradeward. Older lads would revel in describing how they’d incessantly gotten the poor lady’s goat with mischievous acts during their own school attendance at age twelve.
Finally, the blessed day arrived when Mrs. Horn first presented herself to a fresh new band of cherubic-looking but rather mean-minded pupils. The girls all seemed to be polite and respectable, but not our little band of male troublemakers.
To put it mildly, a small corps of us made the woman miserable countless times throughout the year with minor pranks and antics. She became extremely frustrated on more occasions than we can recall. Although never moved to tears during our particular reign of terror, she’d been known to do so in the past.
However, the days tolled on until our crew of impish Dillinger and Nelson types moved up to junior high. No more Mrs. Horn.
Not quite, though. On Halloween night, when we were “grown up” seventh-graders, a pair of us former vagabonds began our annual house-to-house patrol to load our huge paper sacks with goodies.
The writer’s companion was Alan Hunt, a longtime buddy, who happened to live in the sector of town near the Horn residence, which was our chosen area for the evening. In due course, we rang her bell and dutifully awaited response.
Mrs. Horn opened the front door and had no difficulty recognizing two of her former adversaries. She’d already been busily dishing out candy to other trick-or-treaters, and now our turn had come – or so we believed.
We jointly rendered the lady a polite smile-laden greeting. It’s certain that our facial expressions conveyed the message “Mrs. Horn, we brought you a great deal of misery in days past, but that’s over, and we’re obviously your true pals now”.
With the door just half-open, the mild-toned lady stared at us unemotionally for perhaps ten seconds, before calmly stating “Well ….. you’d better run along”.
A bolt of lightning suddenly struck both Alan and the writer. She wasn’t going to give us any handout! An unforgiving Mrs. Horn had seized an opportunity to extract vengeance on a couple earlier enemies. After having let us drive her to distraction in the classroom, she hadn’t the slightest intent of accepting us a short year later as matured chaps claiming her friendship.
We stood dumbfounded as she slowly closed the door.
Understanding this mildish person’s basic demeanor, we can almost guarantee that, following her abrupt refusal action, the lady sat down and cried her eyes out.
We’ve never forgotten this disruptive (at the time) event. However, we must concede that Mrs. Alma Horn gained our everlasting respect for having the nerve to stick to her guns in failing to offer us so much as a small lollipop.
There’s no question but that Alan and I deserved the treatment she exacted.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
ANOTHER SMALL HANDFUL OF GRAMMATICAL FLUBS
One or our recent editorial contributions dealt with English language butchery as practiced by an overly massive population segment, despite those never-ceasing schoolmarm efforts to convince pupils to do otherwise. We cited a number of the most common awfulisms uttered virtually every day by that vast array of radio and television spokespersons, whose sworn task really should be to address the viewing public in a proper manner.
Since putting that particular piece to bed, we’ve gone on to note several additional linguistic vulgarizations which we neglected to mention earlier. Again, the key culprits are those TV announcers, performers, and the like, who should have listened more intently to Miss or Sister Pruneface during their classroom years.
Consequently, we’ve chosen to discuss a few other sinful examples, in hopes of encouraging and promoting much-needed improvement, at least among our small reader band.
Mixing Plural with Singular
We’ve long failed to understand why such perfectly correct statements as “This kind of weather upsets me” or “Matters of that sort are none of your business” so often become corrupted when pluralization is required, as follows:
These kind of strawberries are the best.
Those sort of people annoy me.
It’s nothing short of obvious that “kinds” and “sorts” form the correct plurals in each above case.
Except for the convicted Italian anarchist Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who used the term “these thing” in his famous last will and testament, we’ve never once heard of any person making a similar mistake when that noun is involved. What, therefore, prompts such mental carelessness with “kind” or “sort”?
Improper Comparison
Simply stated, people or things are always different from each other, whereas than is frequently substituted in error. Correct examples are:
Susan is different from Patty (not than).
Dogs are different from Cats (not than).
It’s rather interesting that “different” seems to be the only adjective wherein such rule applies. In every other comparison which comes to mind, “than” has to be used, as in “bigger”, “smaller”, “older”, “younger”, “fatter”, “thinner”, “nicer”, “meaner”, and so forth.
Adjective Used as Adverb
This point was cited in our previous article, regarding such adjectives as “good”, “bad”, and others being employed as adverbs instead of “well”, “badly”, et al. However, we forgot to mention “real”, per the following illustrations.
Our cook makes real good apple pie.
The people next door are real nice.
Without question, either really or very is required in every such instance.
Preposition Used in Comparison
Most of our readers should be old enough to remember the furor aroused a few decades ago, when a certain tobacco company came forth with the controversial ad slogan “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”. The hue and cry over substituting “like” for “as” had grammatical perfectionists from coast to coast yelping bloody murder. This fellow actually had some acquaintances who switched to other brands for that reason alone.
What hardly improved the situation was the manufacturer’s feeble public retort “What do you want, good grammar or good taste?” The damage had been done.
Surprisingly, despite the purist feelings of this fellow who’s been devoting paragraph after paragraph deploring spoken improprieties, he never considered the Winston flub as being all that bad, for reasons given immediately below.
A License to Kill
James 007 Bond isn’t the only person empowered to commit homicide with apparent impunity. The same relative privilege exists in the realm of English grammar.
The unwritten rule for those of us linguistically endowed is that “If you know how to say it right, then you’re entitled to say it wrong on special occasions”, thus allowing resort to the vernacular whenever the purpose becomes suitable.
Accordingly, we must offer a personal confession for having once spoken before an assembled civic audience with an address bearing the title Tell It Like It Is. Our recollection is that the talk went over rather well.
Another expression occasionally uttered by this fellow when deemed fitting employs not a double, but a triple, negative, with “Don’t say I never done you no favors”, a personal favorite, notwithstanding the compound rule fracture.
The renowned lyricist Ira Gershwin was once known to become upset upon hearing a girl vocalist belt out the key line of his number as “I’ve got plenty of nothin’”. In his mind, “I got” should forever be the standard version. The man who also wrote “It ain’t necessarily so”, and “Bess, you is my woman now” clearly earned such a rightful claim.
What can we say by way of closing comment other than almost everything has its exceptions, no matter how hard and fast the stated rules, provided the circumstances permit?
Since putting that particular piece to bed, we’ve gone on to note several additional linguistic vulgarizations which we neglected to mention earlier. Again, the key culprits are those TV announcers, performers, and the like, who should have listened more intently to Miss or Sister Pruneface during their classroom years.
Consequently, we’ve chosen to discuss a few other sinful examples, in hopes of encouraging and promoting much-needed improvement, at least among our small reader band.
Mixing Plural with Singular
We’ve long failed to understand why such perfectly correct statements as “This kind of weather upsets me” or “Matters of that sort are none of your business” so often become corrupted when pluralization is required, as follows:
These kind of strawberries are the best.
Those sort of people annoy me.
It’s nothing short of obvious that “kinds” and “sorts” form the correct plurals in each above case.
Except for the convicted Italian anarchist Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who used the term “these thing” in his famous last will and testament, we’ve never once heard of any person making a similar mistake when that noun is involved. What, therefore, prompts such mental carelessness with “kind” or “sort”?
Improper Comparison
Simply stated, people or things are always different from each other, whereas than is frequently substituted in error. Correct examples are:
Susan is different from Patty (not than).
Dogs are different from Cats (not than).
It’s rather interesting that “different” seems to be the only adjective wherein such rule applies. In every other comparison which comes to mind, “than” has to be used, as in “bigger”, “smaller”, “older”, “younger”, “fatter”, “thinner”, “nicer”, “meaner”, and so forth.
Adjective Used as Adverb
This point was cited in our previous article, regarding such adjectives as “good”, “bad”, and others being employed as adverbs instead of “well”, “badly”, et al. However, we forgot to mention “real”, per the following illustrations.
Our cook makes real good apple pie.
The people next door are real nice.
Without question, either really or very is required in every such instance.
Preposition Used in Comparison
Most of our readers should be old enough to remember the furor aroused a few decades ago, when a certain tobacco company came forth with the controversial ad slogan “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”. The hue and cry over substituting “like” for “as” had grammatical perfectionists from coast to coast yelping bloody murder. This fellow actually had some acquaintances who switched to other brands for that reason alone.
What hardly improved the situation was the manufacturer’s feeble public retort “What do you want, good grammar or good taste?” The damage had been done.
Surprisingly, despite the purist feelings of this fellow who’s been devoting paragraph after paragraph deploring spoken improprieties, he never considered the Winston flub as being all that bad, for reasons given immediately below.
A License to Kill
James 007 Bond isn’t the only person empowered to commit homicide with apparent impunity. The same relative privilege exists in the realm of English grammar.
The unwritten rule for those of us linguistically endowed is that “If you know how to say it right, then you’re entitled to say it wrong on special occasions”, thus allowing resort to the vernacular whenever the purpose becomes suitable.
Accordingly, we must offer a personal confession for having once spoken before an assembled civic audience with an address bearing the title Tell It Like It Is. Our recollection is that the talk went over rather well.
Another expression occasionally uttered by this fellow when deemed fitting employs not a double, but a triple, negative, with “Don’t say I never done you no favors”, a personal favorite, notwithstanding the compound rule fracture.
The renowned lyricist Ira Gershwin was once known to become upset upon hearing a girl vocalist belt out the key line of his number as “I’ve got plenty of nothin’”. In his mind, “I got” should forever be the standard version. The man who also wrote “It ain’t necessarily so”, and “Bess, you is my woman now” clearly earned such a rightful claim.
What can we say by way of closing comment other than almost everything has its exceptions, no matter how hard and fast the stated rules, provided the circumstances permit?
ANOTHER SMALL HANDFUL OF GRAMMATICAL FLUBS
One or our recent editorial contributions dealt with English language butchery as practiced by an overly massive population segment, despite those never-ceasing schoolmarm efforts to convince pupils to do otherwise. We cited a number of the most common awfulisms uttered virtually every day by that vast array of radio and television spokespersons, whose sworn task really should be to address the viewing public in a proper manner.
Since putting that particular piece to bed, we’ve gone on to note several additional linguistic vulgarizations which we neglected to mention earlier. Again, the key culprits are those TV announcers, performers, and the like, who should have listened more intently to Miss or Sister Pruneface during their classroom years.
Consequently, we’ve chosen to discuss a few other sinful examples, in hopes of encouraging and promoting much-needed improvement, at least among our small reader band.
Mixing Plural with Singular
We’ve long failed to understand why such perfectly correct statements as “This kind of weather upsets me” or “Matters of that sort are none of your business” so often become corrupted when pluralization is required, as follows:
These kind of strawberries are the best.
Those sort of people annoy me.
It’s nothing short of obvious that “kinds” and “sorts” form the correct plurals in each above case.
Except for the convicted Italian anarchist Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who used the term “these thing” in his famous last will and testament, we’ve never once heard of any person making a similar mistake when that noun is involved. What, therefore, prompts such mental carelessness with “kind” or “sort”?
Improper Comparison
Simply stated, people or things are always different from each other, whereas than is frequently substituted in error. Correct examples are:
Susan is different from Patty (not than).
Dogs are different from Cats (not than).
It’s rather interesting that “different” seems to be the only adjective wherein such rule applies. In every other comparison which comes to mind, “than” has to be used, as in “bigger”, “smaller”, “older”, “younger”, “fatter”, “thinner”, “nicer”, “meaner”, and so forth.
Adjective Used as Adverb
This point was cited in our previous article, regarding such adjectives as “good”, “bad”, and others being employed as adverbs instead of “well”, “badly”, et al. However, we forgot to mention “real”, per the following illustrations.
Our cook makes real good apple pie.
The people next door are real nice.
Without question, either really or very is required in every such instance.
Preposition Used in Comparison
Most of our readers should be old enough to remember the furor aroused a few decades ago, when a certain tobacco company came forth with the controversial ad slogan “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”. The hue and cry over substituting “like” for “as” had grammatical perfectionists from coast to coast yelping bloody murder. This fellow actually had some acquaintances who switched to other brands for that reason alone.
What hardly improved the situation was the manufacturer’s feeble public retort “What do you want, good grammar or good taste?” The damage had been done.
Surprisingly, despite the purist feelings of this fellow who’s been devoting paragraph after paragraph deploring spoken improprieties, he never considered the Winston flub as being all that bad, for reasons given immediately below.
A License to Kill
James 007 Bond isn’t the only person empowered to commit homicide with apparent impunity. The same relative privilege exists in the realm of English grammar.
The unwritten rule for those of us linguistically endowed is that “If you know how to say it right, then you’re entitled to say it wrong on special occasions”, thus allowing resort to the vernacular whenever the purpose becomes suitable.
Accordingly, we must offer a personal confession for having once spoken before an assembled civic audience with an address bearing the title Tell It Like It Is. Our recollection is that the talk went over rather well.
Another expression occasionally uttered by this fellow when deemed fitting employs not a double, but a triple, negative, with “Don’t say I never done you no favors”, a personal favorite, notwithstanding the compound rule fracture.
The renowned lyricist Ira Gershwin was once known to become upset upon hearing a girl vocalist belt out the key line of his number as “I’ve got plenty of nothin’”. In his mind, “I got” should forever be the standard version. The man who also wrote “It ain’t necessarily so”, and “Bess, you is my woman now” clearly earned such a rightful claim.
What can we say by way of closing comment other than almost everything has its exceptions, no matter how hard and fast the stated rules, provided the circumstances permit?
Since putting that particular piece to bed, we’ve gone on to note several additional linguistic vulgarizations which we neglected to mention earlier. Again, the key culprits are those TV announcers, performers, and the like, who should have listened more intently to Miss or Sister Pruneface during their classroom years.
Consequently, we’ve chosen to discuss a few other sinful examples, in hopes of encouraging and promoting much-needed improvement, at least among our small reader band.
Mixing Plural with Singular
We’ve long failed to understand why such perfectly correct statements as “This kind of weather upsets me” or “Matters of that sort are none of your business” so often become corrupted when pluralization is required, as follows:
These kind of strawberries are the best.
Those sort of people annoy me.
It’s nothing short of obvious that “kinds” and “sorts” form the correct plurals in each above case.
Except for the convicted Italian anarchist Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who used the term “these thing” in his famous last will and testament, we’ve never once heard of any person making a similar mistake when that noun is involved. What, therefore, prompts such mental carelessness with “kind” or “sort”?
Improper Comparison
Simply stated, people or things are always different from each other, whereas than is frequently substituted in error. Correct examples are:
Susan is different from Patty (not than).
Dogs are different from Cats (not than).
It’s rather interesting that “different” seems to be the only adjective wherein such rule applies. In every other comparison which comes to mind, “than” has to be used, as in “bigger”, “smaller”, “older”, “younger”, “fatter”, “thinner”, “nicer”, “meaner”, and so forth.
Adjective Used as Adverb
This point was cited in our previous article, regarding such adjectives as “good”, “bad”, and others being employed as adverbs instead of “well”, “badly”, et al. However, we forgot to mention “real”, per the following illustrations.
Our cook makes real good apple pie.
The people next door are real nice.
Without question, either really or very is required in every such instance.
Preposition Used in Comparison
Most of our readers should be old enough to remember the furor aroused a few decades ago, when a certain tobacco company came forth with the controversial ad slogan “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should”. The hue and cry over substituting “like” for “as” had grammatical perfectionists from coast to coast yelping bloody murder. This fellow actually had some acquaintances who switched to other brands for that reason alone.
What hardly improved the situation was the manufacturer’s feeble public retort “What do you want, good grammar or good taste?” The damage had been done.
Surprisingly, despite the purist feelings of this fellow who’s been devoting paragraph after paragraph deploring spoken improprieties, he never considered the Winston flub as being all that bad, for reasons given immediately below.
A License to Kill
James 007 Bond isn’t the only person empowered to commit homicide with apparent impunity. The same relative privilege exists in the realm of English grammar.
The unwritten rule for those of us linguistically endowed is that “If you know how to say it right, then you’re entitled to say it wrong on special occasions”, thus allowing resort to the vernacular whenever the purpose becomes suitable.
Accordingly, we must offer a personal confession for having once spoken before an assembled civic audience with an address bearing the title Tell It Like It Is. Our recollection is that the talk went over rather well.
Another expression occasionally uttered by this fellow when deemed fitting employs not a double, but a triple, negative, with “Don’t say I never done you no favors”, a personal favorite, notwithstanding the compound rule fracture.
The renowned lyricist Ira Gershwin was once known to become upset upon hearing a girl vocalist belt out the key line of his number as “I’ve got plenty of nothin’”. In his mind, “I got” should forever be the standard version. The man who also wrote “It ain’t necessarily so”, and “Bess, you is my woman now” clearly earned such a rightful claim.
What can we say by way of closing comment other than almost everything has its exceptions, no matter how hard and fast the stated rules, provided the circumstances permit?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
SPOOFIA -- GUARANTEED TO FIX YOUR WAGON
After a great many years of engagement in other business activities, we’ve finally decided to enter the TV advertising field, having become duly inspired by the never-ending parade of commercial messages we see every day ad nauseam -- especially those extolling the health-enhancing qualities available from all those grand and glorious pharmaceutical products on the market. Accordingly, we plan to submit the following script to a suitable agency.
Fade in to a rugged-looking man in his late 40s or early 50s, standing outside and wearing conventional work clothes, as he utters his words of endorsement:
“I used to be a real wilting violet on the job I’m employed to carry out. Then one day,
my doctor recommended Spoofia. Ever since I started taking it on a regular basis,
I’ve been able to handle the heavy needs related to my work performance much
more effectively. In fact, so much of the energy I’d lost has returned to a point
where I can now hold my own with all my colleagues.”
Fadeout to a new scene of an elderly lady moving about in her living room and attending to odd chores as she speaks:
“Before taking Spoofia, I never felt like doing anything but sit around the house.
That has all changed, now that I’m using it every day. I’m always eager to get out
and do my shopping, tend to my gardening, and keep my home in shipshape order –
and I never stop feeling great around the clock. I heartily recommend Spoofia for
everybody.”
Fadeout, followed by several sequential shots of the man at work and the lady attending to various shopping, gardening, or household chores, as the background announcer carries on:
“You’ll make no mistake with Spoofia, a thoroughly-tested pharmaceutical product
recommended by leading doctors from coast to coast. Your buildup to restored
healthfulness and energetic vitality will be a certainty once you begin the requisite
daily dosage.”
(Speaking a bit more rapidly, and in a milder tone)
“Side effects from using Spoofia might include post-nasal drip, occasional vomiting
without advance warning, hiccoughs, and poison ivy. If your teeth begin to fall out
one-by-one, stop taking Spoofia and see your doctor.”
At approximate midpoint in the above background announcer’s spiel, the following text to appear at the bottom of the screen, then disappear after only a second:
Spoofia may be health-hazardous or even fatal if you had measles as a child, or
have ever smoked cigars.
Closing remarks by the background announcer, still at a fairly rapid pace and quite softly in tone:
“If after taking Spoofia, you begin having dreams that you are King Kong, and wake
up with an urge to climb the Empire State Building, check with your doctor right
away.
(Now in a much louder voice)
“Don’t wait to call the 800 number on your screen. If you phone RIGHT NOW, you’ll
be eligible for our limited offer to receive the opening one week’s supply for only
$19.95 (more rapidly and low tone once again) plusshippingandhandling. (Back to a
slower rate and louder tone) And remember, Spoofia is bound to fix your wagon –
but good!!!”
Fadeout
Fade in to a rugged-looking man in his late 40s or early 50s, standing outside and wearing conventional work clothes, as he utters his words of endorsement:
“I used to be a real wilting violet on the job I’m employed to carry out. Then one day,
my doctor recommended Spoofia. Ever since I started taking it on a regular basis,
I’ve been able to handle the heavy needs related to my work performance much
more effectively. In fact, so much of the energy I’d lost has returned to a point
where I can now hold my own with all my colleagues.”
Fadeout to a new scene of an elderly lady moving about in her living room and attending to odd chores as she speaks:
“Before taking Spoofia, I never felt like doing anything but sit around the house.
That has all changed, now that I’m using it every day. I’m always eager to get out
and do my shopping, tend to my gardening, and keep my home in shipshape order –
and I never stop feeling great around the clock. I heartily recommend Spoofia for
everybody.”
Fadeout, followed by several sequential shots of the man at work and the lady attending to various shopping, gardening, or household chores, as the background announcer carries on:
“You’ll make no mistake with Spoofia, a thoroughly-tested pharmaceutical product
recommended by leading doctors from coast to coast. Your buildup to restored
healthfulness and energetic vitality will be a certainty once you begin the requisite
daily dosage.”
(Speaking a bit more rapidly, and in a milder tone)
“Side effects from using Spoofia might include post-nasal drip, occasional vomiting
without advance warning, hiccoughs, and poison ivy. If your teeth begin to fall out
one-by-one, stop taking Spoofia and see your doctor.”
At approximate midpoint in the above background announcer’s spiel, the following text to appear at the bottom of the screen, then disappear after only a second:
Spoofia may be health-hazardous or even fatal if you had measles as a child, or
have ever smoked cigars.
Closing remarks by the background announcer, still at a fairly rapid pace and quite softly in tone:
“If after taking Spoofia, you begin having dreams that you are King Kong, and wake
up with an urge to climb the Empire State Building, check with your doctor right
away.
(Now in a much louder voice)
“Don’t wait to call the 800 number on your screen. If you phone RIGHT NOW, you’ll
be eligible for our limited offer to receive the opening one week’s supply for only
$19.95 (more rapidly and low tone once again) plusshippingandhandling. (Back to a
slower rate and louder tone) And remember, Spoofia is bound to fix your wagon –
but good!!!”
Fadeout
TOUCHING UP OUR ENGLISH JUST A TAD
Any person who has attended elementary and high school will recall exposure to an annual parade of English language teachers, whose task was to ensure that the students would spend their adult lives speaking in a flawless manner. Despite such devoted effort, upon hearing today’s ordinary street dialogue, and even radio or television utterances, it’s obvious how miserably they’ve all failed.
This writer was somehow blessed with the surprising ability to remember every single grammatical rule thrown at him and his classmates throughout the lengthy ordeal. Although not the world’s most magnificent natural endowment, such condition has never gone unappreciated. Unhappily, we’ve found this to be far from the case with a substantial majority of our native populace.
Not a single conversation-listening or TV-watching day goes by without our being forced to grimace slightly over a deluge of fundamental speech errors. They range from frightful down to relatively minor, and are all in conflict with the explicit schoolroom instructions put forth by every Miss or Sister Pruneface seated up front.
The oral butchery we encounter on the street, with its rash of double negatives, wrong pronouns, incorrect verb forms, improper noun or adjective selection, misused prepositions, and the like might as well be summarily ignored. Such constant and uncontrollably misguided output is best written off, as would be a bad loan to your shiftless brother-in-law. They add up to sheer hopelessness, with no solution in sight.
However, what we view as the prime correctible sins are those committed by that vast array of persons whose livings are earned by addressing the public on a daily basis. Television, which holds predominance in our modern media world, is therefore the chief source of our private dilemma.
News and sports announcers, political pundits, talk show hosts, commercial message blabbers, and even congressmen are often heard uttering vocal errors, in what we may fittingly call benign disdain for those dedicated English teachers who once strove so valiantly on their behalves.
If a reader should choose to challenge any point we cover below regarding basic rules, our response will be either to “look it up” or else “go consult an English teacher”. Unfortunately though, following this latter route may prove fruitless, since we’ve had a few disturbing past experiences in encountering Prunefaces whose detailed language cognizance fell below acceptable standards.
Misapplied Pluralization
Pronouns which come under what we call the “indefinite” category and pertain to persons may sound plural by their nature, but are decidedly singular. Such treatment applies to “anyone”, “anybody”, “everyone”, “everybody”, “no one”, and “nobody”.
When any of the above terms is followed by a possessive adjective which modifies a noun, pluralization can never apply. In order to cut through the gobbledegookery of the statement we’ve just made, typical incorrect examples are cited below.
Anyone (or anybody) must live up to their standards.
Everyone (or everybody) wants to have their own way.
No one (or nobody) likes to have their dreams spoiled.
In each above instance, the possessive adjective must be either his or her. There are absolutely no exceptions.
The same principle applies when using the word “each”, in apparent reference to multiple persons. As a memory aide, think of the once-famous song and the old movie, both entitled To Each His Own.
Wrong Case Before Gerund
For those whose minds need a little refreshing, a gerund is a verb form that ends with “ing” and thus becomes a noun under certain context circumstances. If a personal pronoun adjective is required to precede it, the possessive case must be used. Again, we’ll illustrate with a few common erroneous examples, followed by the proper form.
The crowd cheered at me scoring a touchdown. (my)
I don’t like you getting into fights. (your)
The policeman became curious over him standing around. (his)
I heard about her being sick. (her – this one’s free!)
The storekeeper wasn’t happy about us stealing his merchandise. (our)
We’re upset over them having difficulties. (their)
The same doctrine will normally apply where a noun is used in an adjectival sense, as shown below.
Parents seldom approve of their children eating junk food. (children’s)
Tell me about Betty attending school. (Betty’s)
We deplored Senator Foghorn shouting about the federal budget. (Foghorn’s)
A gerund should not be confused with the present participle verb form, spelled the same way, but becoming an adjective rather than a noun. We regret to say, however, that the distinction isn’t always too clear.
Superfluous Personal Pronouns
CNN’s well-known political reporter Wolf Blitzer commits this type of error night after night on his regular broadcasts, and he’s certainly not the medium’s only offender.
When referring to a specific person or group by name, it is absolutely incorrect to follow immediately with the related pronoun. The following examples state the case quite readily.
Peyton Manning, he’s a fine quarterback.
Michelle Obama, she appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s show.
Our foreign aid program, it’s a complex matter.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee, they met yesterday.
An individual’s or organization’s name provides adequate identification, so no need exists to embellish a sentence by adding a redundant pronoun. This is precisely in accordance with the King’s or Queen’s English rulebook.
Adjectives Used as Adverbs
The German language, a first cousin to English, contains a certain uniqueness, with the adjective and related adverb forms being the same, making matters a bit easier, at least in one isolated respect, for our counterpart citizens over yonder. We Anglophiles are granted only a small handful of similar opportunities.
However, we often hear additional adverb liberties being taken, as below.
Our family eats good. (well)
His new suit fits perfect. (perfectly)
Tom spoke direct to the commanding officer. (directly)
She fixed the dinner table up nice. (nicely)
We played the game bad. (badly)
They shouted too loud. (loudly)
Possessive Form of Else
There once was a rule which forbade using the word “else” in a possessive sense after an indefinite pronoun, but it seems to have disappeared from the books, and we consider that a fortunate development.
Technically speaking, the archaic means called for the following type of expression.
Anyone’s (or anybody’s) else contribution will be appreciated.
Everyone’s (or everybody’s) else clothing was gaudier.
No one’s (or nobody’s) else shoes will fit me.
That is someone’s (or somebody’s) else problem.
We thank our lucky stars that such silly sounding word combinations have disappeared from official use, allowing “else” to serve as a sort of specialized word under proper conditions.
After All Is Said and Done
Perhaps this fellow belongs to a very remote minority group, whose minds are devoted to 100% rulebook-adhering English. Nevertheless, we’re bound to go on wincing and gulping whenever the person on the TV screen utters a statement which fails to meet our somewhat stringent standards. Even though it’s most likely that we’ll have to go on living with this personally distasteful situation, we can’t resist the urge to fight windmills by a slightly more publicized means than before.
This writer was somehow blessed with the surprising ability to remember every single grammatical rule thrown at him and his classmates throughout the lengthy ordeal. Although not the world’s most magnificent natural endowment, such condition has never gone unappreciated. Unhappily, we’ve found this to be far from the case with a substantial majority of our native populace.
Not a single conversation-listening or TV-watching day goes by without our being forced to grimace slightly over a deluge of fundamental speech errors. They range from frightful down to relatively minor, and are all in conflict with the explicit schoolroom instructions put forth by every Miss or Sister Pruneface seated up front.
The oral butchery we encounter on the street, with its rash of double negatives, wrong pronouns, incorrect verb forms, improper noun or adjective selection, misused prepositions, and the like might as well be summarily ignored. Such constant and uncontrollably misguided output is best written off, as would be a bad loan to your shiftless brother-in-law. They add up to sheer hopelessness, with no solution in sight.
However, what we view as the prime correctible sins are those committed by that vast array of persons whose livings are earned by addressing the public on a daily basis. Television, which holds predominance in our modern media world, is therefore the chief source of our private dilemma.
News and sports announcers, political pundits, talk show hosts, commercial message blabbers, and even congressmen are often heard uttering vocal errors, in what we may fittingly call benign disdain for those dedicated English teachers who once strove so valiantly on their behalves.
If a reader should choose to challenge any point we cover below regarding basic rules, our response will be either to “look it up” or else “go consult an English teacher”. Unfortunately though, following this latter route may prove fruitless, since we’ve had a few disturbing past experiences in encountering Prunefaces whose detailed language cognizance fell below acceptable standards.
Misapplied Pluralization
Pronouns which come under what we call the “indefinite” category and pertain to persons may sound plural by their nature, but are decidedly singular. Such treatment applies to “anyone”, “anybody”, “everyone”, “everybody”, “no one”, and “nobody”.
When any of the above terms is followed by a possessive adjective which modifies a noun, pluralization can never apply. In order to cut through the gobbledegookery of the statement we’ve just made, typical incorrect examples are cited below.
Anyone (or anybody) must live up to their standards.
Everyone (or everybody) wants to have their own way.
No one (or nobody) likes to have their dreams spoiled.
In each above instance, the possessive adjective must be either his or her. There are absolutely no exceptions.
The same principle applies when using the word “each”, in apparent reference to multiple persons. As a memory aide, think of the once-famous song and the old movie, both entitled To Each His Own.
Wrong Case Before Gerund
For those whose minds need a little refreshing, a gerund is a verb form that ends with “ing” and thus becomes a noun under certain context circumstances. If a personal pronoun adjective is required to precede it, the possessive case must be used. Again, we’ll illustrate with a few common erroneous examples, followed by the proper form.
The crowd cheered at me scoring a touchdown. (my)
I don’t like you getting into fights. (your)
The policeman became curious over him standing around. (his)
I heard about her being sick. (her – this one’s free!)
The storekeeper wasn’t happy about us stealing his merchandise. (our)
We’re upset over them having difficulties. (their)
The same doctrine will normally apply where a noun is used in an adjectival sense, as shown below.
Parents seldom approve of their children eating junk food. (children’s)
Tell me about Betty attending school. (Betty’s)
We deplored Senator Foghorn shouting about the federal budget. (Foghorn’s)
A gerund should not be confused with the present participle verb form, spelled the same way, but becoming an adjective rather than a noun. We regret to say, however, that the distinction isn’t always too clear.
Superfluous Personal Pronouns
CNN’s well-known political reporter Wolf Blitzer commits this type of error night after night on his regular broadcasts, and he’s certainly not the medium’s only offender.
When referring to a specific person or group by name, it is absolutely incorrect to follow immediately with the related pronoun. The following examples state the case quite readily.
Peyton Manning, he’s a fine quarterback.
Michelle Obama, she appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s show.
Our foreign aid program, it’s a complex matter.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee, they met yesterday.
An individual’s or organization’s name provides adequate identification, so no need exists to embellish a sentence by adding a redundant pronoun. This is precisely in accordance with the King’s or Queen’s English rulebook.
Adjectives Used as Adverbs
The German language, a first cousin to English, contains a certain uniqueness, with the adjective and related adverb forms being the same, making matters a bit easier, at least in one isolated respect, for our counterpart citizens over yonder. We Anglophiles are granted only a small handful of similar opportunities.
However, we often hear additional adverb liberties being taken, as below.
Our family eats good. (well)
His new suit fits perfect. (perfectly)
Tom spoke direct to the commanding officer. (directly)
She fixed the dinner table up nice. (nicely)
We played the game bad. (badly)
They shouted too loud. (loudly)
Possessive Form of Else
There once was a rule which forbade using the word “else” in a possessive sense after an indefinite pronoun, but it seems to have disappeared from the books, and we consider that a fortunate development.
Technically speaking, the archaic means called for the following type of expression.
Anyone’s (or anybody’s) else contribution will be appreciated.
Everyone’s (or everybody’s) else clothing was gaudier.
No one’s (or nobody’s) else shoes will fit me.
That is someone’s (or somebody’s) else problem.
We thank our lucky stars that such silly sounding word combinations have disappeared from official use, allowing “else” to serve as a sort of specialized word under proper conditions.
After All Is Said and Done
Perhaps this fellow belongs to a very remote minority group, whose minds are devoted to 100% rulebook-adhering English. Nevertheless, we’re bound to go on wincing and gulping whenever the person on the TV screen utters a statement which fails to meet our somewhat stringent standards. Even though it’s most likely that we’ll have to go on living with this personally distasteful situation, we can’t resist the urge to fight windmills by a slightly more publicized means than before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
