I really wonder what editorial staff members do for these sites. The number of times I see than/then confused in print is terrifying. I fear the battle on that one is lost already; soon they’ll both be used appropriately for each instance. That is what is bad about the english language- we have a descriptive dictionary (OED) as the arbiter of correct usage and spelling as opposed to languages like German, French, Finnish, etc., which have governing bodies proscribing the proper use of their words.
I’ve been known to be a grammar fascist myself (being a teacher and all), but I’m trying to relax on it a bit. Yes, there are some egregious mistakes that are made, some of which make you scratch your head and wonder what certain people get paid for (especially the editors, as someone pointed out), but I feel like as long as the point of the writing is clear, that is what matters most. Maybe I just tell myself this because I would otherwise have to stop reading EVERY piece of written work, because everything contains and error at one point or another. But it helps me from going crazy.
I’m glad CNN keeps transcripts of their shows because it allows me to post something from when Hurricane Gustav came ashore in Louisiana.
Keep in mind Rob Marciano is a METEOROLOGIST and therefore has a significant amount of education…
“ROB MARCIANO, CNN METEOROLOGIST: …And it really is an eerie sight. You know with these centuries-old buildings, some cases well over 200 years old, it almost it feels like you’re on the city walls of some an ancient city looking at — at the rooftops as the wind continues to **buffer** the structures.
In some cases we have seen — you can see Jackson Square. In some cases we have seen roof tiles…
MYERS: Not today.
MARCIANO: … and other sort of structures off flying about town. But more so we’ve seen it at some of the higher structures of downtown. We’ll swing it around now.
We feel fairly safe at this spot because even though the winds from this morning were blowing off the French Quarter, obviously, we’re pretty much at one of the higher spots. Now we go to downtown where — you know, it’s just a tale of two cities almost.
Modern buildings, skyscrapers being **buffered** by this wind and this rain as well. Not sure if the power is out there. It’s certainly been out in most of the French Quarter today. ”
One mistake could be passed off as a misspeak in the middle of a storm, but twice? I nearly coughed my orange juice the second time he said “buffer” instead of “buffet.”
Probably just sloppy spell checking. I am a very poor speller. Sometimes when tired or rushed I will select the wrong spell check suggestion.
While I am guilty of both, for some reason poor spelling doesn’t bother me nearly as much as poor grammar. Spelling mistakes generally don’t have the power to radically alter meaning. Sure the use of road versus rode changes the literal meaning, but the phonetics make the correct meaning obvious.
Grammatical errors have the power to radically alter meaning in a way that is far more difficult for the reader to correct on the fly.
Interestingly the next generation may get even worse in spelling and grammar due to the popularity of the Teachers College pedagogical method. It stresses the craft and act of writing and reading while forsaking the nuts and bolts of grammar and spelling. Students in the future will not be able to diagram sentences, identify parts of speech, or spell their own language correctly, but (apparently) will be enthusiastic readers and writers. I must say though: a) I am very skeptical of any language education that forgoes the building-blocks of language; b) I wonder how that will affect the foreign language ability of young students; c) I have always wondered how we have even gotten to this point where it is so acceptable to be unaware of how to spell in English. The concept of a spelling bee or questioning how to spell something is entirely foreign to German or Finnish for example, but in our language these are normal parts of society. It’s a bit strange.
What would you rather have, Francis? A society with flawless spelling and grammar but nobody to read the words, or one where individuals forgive small mistakes for the sake of the greater read? Sure, I can’t stand seeing mistakes everywhere–the school I work for has two glaring agreement errors in its mission statement–but suggesting that lazy editing implies some moral depravity on the part of an entire society seems like a major stretch.
Francis, I am confused by your last statement. Are you saying we OVERemphasize spelling by stating we are the only society with spelling bees? Or we underestimate because of what you have identified as changes to teaching philosophy?
As a teacher (not TC-educated, but Bank Street), I can tell you that your understanding of shifts in pedagogy are not 100% accurate. You are essentially looking at the debate between whole-language based reading/writing instruction and phonics based instruction. Ideally, the best strategy exists somewhere in between, but neither one is “right” or “wrong” absolutely and are their success is primarily dependent upon how they achieve the goals of the educator (be it an individual teacher, school, or society-at-large).
Anyway, my personal feeling is that fluency and the communication of ideas should be the primary focus of reading and writing instruction and therefore learning the “nuts and bolts” is less important than developing a passion for the craft and learning how to effectively communicate. Other people have different ideas (some valid, some not). Studies I have seen show that students who have a more phonics-based approach often end up with more technical skill but less interest and appreciation for the work and therefore a quality to their work that does not indicate this skill. Students with more whole-language experience have less technical skill, but far higher interest in reading and writing and a better appreciation for the art of reading/writing. These students generally test poorly compared to those with a phonics background but create better overall writing and have better comprehension skills. Again, it somewhat comes down to what your emphasis as an individual is. Mine, and much of what the research suggests is best, is somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards whole-language over phonics if one must be chosen.
I think that the point about spelling bees is this: The fact that we have bees shows that we consider the ability to spell to be a kind of accomplishment. And the ability to spell could only be prestigious in this way if most people could not do it.
English is a legendarily ugly language for outsiders to learn. One of the reasons is that spelling is easy in other languages! Having a spelling bee in a Russian school is pointless – the written language is entirely phonetic. This is one of the reasons why many non-native english speakers are terrible spellers.
Jeff, that’s true. Not to mention the fact that English has more words in its vocabulary and a far larger variety of languages from which it draws, thus creating multiple spellings of a phonetically identical sound (bow, bough, beau). However in German and French the languages are certainly not entirely phonetic, but the spelling is not a challenge. My point on spelling bees is the one Andy was pointing out: we are underemphasizing spelling. I just do not think that people write or read much less than they used to even if it might seem that way. They simply read different media. They forsake literature for the popcorn novel, newspapers for news websites and blogs, surely. But they read and write constantly (including in online community discussions such as this one). The problem is that without knowing the nuts and bolts the language further degrades into the AOL chat dialect of initials and improper spelling and sentence structure. My feeling is that if the spelling and grammar were more stressed (I’m not so concerned with phonics) these people would at least know what proper language looks like while writing and reading their pop-media. But I am aware there is a debate about this Brian. I only know what I know from talking to a few teachers who told me that TC is the way young teachers are going and only the old guard is staying which the spelling and grammar methods. I guess I would clearly fall on the side of the old guard.
All good points indeed. I tend to view language as some that is “alive” rather than “static” and therefore am all for societal shifts in the use and form of language. Francis, as you pointed out, major societal shifts have led to different priorities for many people in how they use language. I think this is great. Many of the rules of language (especially English spelling) are arbitrary and only learned through rote practice. If the world is changing, I feel that language should change to keep up and meet the needs of people that are far different than they were years ago when the rules of grammar were determined. This does NOT excuse laziness, but perhaps informs some of the differences we see nowadays. Interesting debate!
This conversation would be remiss in not mentioning the cruel coincidence that David Foster Wallace died this past weekend of an apparent suicide. Check out his article from April 2001 in Harper’s, “reprinted” here:
Brian, how do you fit “standards” and “rules” into your framework? Funny how educators have trouble enough teaching subjects that don’t change too much – math and spelling – and yet policy focus seems to orbit sex ed for k-9.
The one that drives me up the wall is “penultimate” being used where “ultimate” is intended. Why, why, why would we need a word that means “ultimate,” that includes “ultimate” as part of the word, and also means “ultimate?” It’s like using “irregardless” when what you mean is “regardless.”
Francis, to be fair, I teach young kids (Pre-K/K) so I don’t really get into that at all. I can’t speak to how it should look with older kids, but in general, I always say there is a balance. There should be opportunities for children to engage academics in a child-centered, exploratory way that allows for creativity and passion to develop AND should learn form and function from people who are experts (as teachers SHOULD be, but are not always) in the area. IF only one approach was going to be followed, I would lean towards the former.
Don’t get me started on educational reform movements; just please don’t lump ALL teachers into the vast majority who, unfortunately, are ridiculously unqualified to do their jobs and, more importantly, with uninformed politicians directing educational policy.
I must confess when I started writing a sports blog and my kindly American friends said your spelling and punctuation reeks (I am a Brit and we never would say). I said don’t worry no one reads it!
I spent hours making myself write “it is” so I would never “its” when I meant “it’s”…. Now I can its and it’s mostly without error… So I see it as bad habits we were allowed/not told about consistently that can be got over.
Another Jdas classic is to re-read something after I have sent and realise I have missed out important words – mostly “not”, yes I often say the opposite of what I mean!
I don’t know the solution if it was not drummed in at school. In England I can’t remember when someone tried to correct my lousy punctuation and spelling. If they did would most people would see them as having the problem? As some kind of ninny.
Anyway these days I make an effort and applaud the US for leaving out extraneous ‘u’s as in Color/Colour.
I think the problem with improving, as I am trying but no doubt this is error strewn (please point out), is that it seems picky to tell someone they should improve. It’s funny but now I have started marginally improving from a low base I see others butchery….
I am now working on my possessives as in my children’s toys. Also is and are I frequently get wrong. Although there is some debate over sports teams as in “Chelsea are idiots” but some say “Chelsea is an idiot” is correct…. The BBC use are for sporting outfits so do I as it clearly sounds more convincing to say the Rays are leading the AL East.
Professional writers of any sort have less excuse…
Hey Brian,
I just wanted you to expand on your pedagogical philosophy.
I had an interesting conversation with a random former principal from upstate NY. Some of the stories he told me were pretty ridiculous.
It reminds me of a story when Gov Reagan entered the Berkeley campus for an appearance. As his limo approached, a student got up on the car and yelled, “we are the future!” Reagan then held up a note that said, “Then I’m selling my bonds!”
Debates like this are great. There is not necessarily a “correct” answer as to what the ultimate goal of education should be. However, individuals or groups need to decide on THEIR priorities and then educate accordingly. If I value the creative process and want to nurture a joy of reading and writing, I will teach in a way that supports this value. If someone has a different perspective, they are not necessarily wrong, but they would probably not be happy to put their child in my class.
Unfortunately, all too often, people want a one-size-fits-all approach. This is what Hirsch’s “Core Knowledge” approach is. It sounds like something you may be advocating. The theory itself is a sound one and with a certain degree of merit; where I find a problem is the idea that any type of consensus has been reached on the educational values of this country (or if one ever will or SHOULD be reached).
This is what drives me nuts:
There is a guy at my office who keeps saying “mine as well,” instead of “might as well,” and sadly this is not the first time I have heard a person confuse the two 🙁
I know it has become popular and acceptable now, but I still can’t stand dropping the comma before “and” in a list. UGH. I don’t know why, but that DOES boil my blood for some bizarre reason.
Brian, what you’re referring to is the Oxford comma. The comma that comes in a list of three or more things. You are correct that while some outfits (generally newspapers, magazines, and other sorts of press) would suggest the Oxford comma be phased out, there are certain publishing houses (such as Oxford University Press and my own T & T Clark e.g.) that encourage it. There is however a proper place for both its use and disuse. When it alleviates confusion it should be used, when it brings ambiguity it should be left out.
Here are a couple examples:
“I went to Rome with Sally, a dog and a suitcase.” — Here if you used the Oxford comma it might look like Sally was a dog, but forgoing it makes it clear that there were three items that went with you to Rome.
“On vacation I read something about horses, Romulus, and Faustulus. –If you didn’t use the Oxford comma here then one might confuse the horses’ names with Romulus and Faustulus, instead of seeing that all three were separate entities.
There are of course myriad other examples where no ambiguity is made either way, or both the use or non-use are ambiguous. In these cases both are correct and it is up to the author.
Thanks Francis, that actually clears up the comma thing for me. It might actually extend my life, as lists missing the oxford comma probably won’t trigger such abject rage.
Thanks also to rob, for linking that David foster wallace article. I had never read it, but it is absolutely wonderful.
I’m in sales and being in a sales org, many of my co-workers don’t think that we are INCENTIVIZED to sell the right products. Incentivized? Really? In my industry, it is imperative that we be knowledgeable and sound intelligent (we aren’t selling cell phones at a kiosk) and my colleagues think we can just make up words? It drives me mad…
According to the OED incentivize is in fact a real transitive verb meaning to provide (someone) with an incentive for doing something. I’m not trying to clown you, just saying, it appears to be a word.
Thanks for the insight. I was aware of the shift and how, when it does not cause ambiguity, it has become acceptable, but it still bothered me. I wasn’t aware of situations in which the traditional method COULD cause ambiguity (Sally the dog), though that sentence could still be read as “Sally being a dog and a suitcase.” This seems ridiculous, but try this: I went with John, an officer and a gentleman. There is always room for confusion so I generally rely on context.
I’m not disagreeing with you by any means and appreciate the further info. It just bothers me when it is used unnecessarily. I guess some minor OCD I have.
@ Mike– I have seen dozens of blog posts, and especially comments, talking about how so-and-so must have “Made a pact with Stan” to [insert whatever the blog is about here].
Ouch. I’ve found that loose-lose is the (sadly, too common) language mistake that drives me craziest.
I think the most common is your and you’re. This is the first time I have seen rode and road confused.
I’m always a fan of core/corps. Really, I love it when people complain about NFL teams’ wide receiver cores.
My pet language peeve is ‘mediums’ instead of ‘media’. Also: the dreaded ‘medias’.
What really annoys me is when people say “the reason is because … ”
Possibly, the road-rode bit in this case is more a brain fart than an actual misconception.
I really wonder what editorial staff members do for these sites. The number of times I see than/then confused in print is terrifying. I fear the battle on that one is lost already; soon they’ll both be used appropriately for each instance. That is what is bad about the english language- we have a descriptive dictionary (OED) as the arbiter of correct usage and spelling as opposed to languages like German, French, Finnish, etc., which have governing bodies proscribing the proper use of their words.
I’ve been known to be a grammar fascist myself (being a teacher and all), but I’m trying to relax on it a bit. Yes, there are some egregious mistakes that are made, some of which make you scratch your head and wonder what certain people get paid for (especially the editors, as someone pointed out), but I feel like as long as the point of the writing is clear, that is what matters most. Maybe I just tell myself this because I would otherwise have to stop reading EVERY piece of written work, because everything contains and error at one point or another. But it helps me from going crazy.
Yes, it does seem like everything contains AND error at one point or another.
I’m glad CNN keeps transcripts of their shows because it allows me to post something from when Hurricane Gustav came ashore in Louisiana.
Keep in mind Rob Marciano is a METEOROLOGIST and therefore has a significant amount of education…
“ROB MARCIANO, CNN METEOROLOGIST: …And it really is an eerie sight. You know with these centuries-old buildings, some cases well over 200 years old, it almost it feels like you’re on the city walls of some an ancient city looking at — at the rooftops as the wind continues to **buffer** the structures.
In some cases we have seen — you can see Jackson Square. In some cases we have seen roof tiles…
MYERS: Not today.
MARCIANO: … and other sort of structures off flying about town. But more so we’ve seen it at some of the higher structures of downtown. We’ll swing it around now.
We feel fairly safe at this spot because even though the winds from this morning were blowing off the French Quarter, obviously, we’re pretty much at one of the higher spots. Now we go to downtown where — you know, it’s just a tale of two cities almost.
Modern buildings, skyscrapers being **buffered** by this wind and this rain as well. Not sure if the power is out there. It’s certainly been out in most of the French Quarter today. ”
One mistake could be passed off as a misspeak in the middle of a storm, but twice? I nearly coughed my orange juice the second time he said “buffer” instead of “buffet.”
Probably just sloppy spell checking. I am a very poor speller. Sometimes when tired or rushed I will select the wrong spell check suggestion.
While I am guilty of both, for some reason poor spelling doesn’t bother me nearly as much as poor grammar. Spelling mistakes generally don’t have the power to radically alter meaning. Sure the use of road versus rode changes the literal meaning, but the phonetics make the correct meaning obvious.
Grammatical errors have the power to radically alter meaning in a way that is far more difficult for the reader to correct on the fly.
Interestingly the next generation may get even worse in spelling and grammar due to the popularity of the Teachers College pedagogical method. It stresses the craft and act of writing and reading while forsaking the nuts and bolts of grammar and spelling. Students in the future will not be able to diagram sentences, identify parts of speech, or spell their own language correctly, but (apparently) will be enthusiastic readers and writers. I must say though: a) I am very skeptical of any language education that forgoes the building-blocks of language; b) I wonder how that will affect the foreign language ability of young students; c) I have always wondered how we have even gotten to this point where it is so acceptable to be unaware of how to spell in English. The concept of a spelling bee or questioning how to spell something is entirely foreign to German or Finnish for example, but in our language these are normal parts of society. It’s a bit strange.
What would you rather have, Francis? A society with flawless spelling and grammar but nobody to read the words, or one where individuals forgive small mistakes for the sake of the greater read? Sure, I can’t stand seeing mistakes everywhere–the school I work for has two glaring agreement errors in its mission statement–but suggesting that lazy editing implies some moral depravity on the part of an entire society seems like a major stretch.
Francis, I am confused by your last statement. Are you saying we OVERemphasize spelling by stating we are the only society with spelling bees? Or we underestimate because of what you have identified as changes to teaching philosophy?
As a teacher (not TC-educated, but Bank Street), I can tell you that your understanding of shifts in pedagogy are not 100% accurate. You are essentially looking at the debate between whole-language based reading/writing instruction and phonics based instruction. Ideally, the best strategy exists somewhere in between, but neither one is “right” or “wrong” absolutely and are their success is primarily dependent upon how they achieve the goals of the educator (be it an individual teacher, school, or society-at-large).
Anyway, my personal feeling is that fluency and the communication of ideas should be the primary focus of reading and writing instruction and therefore learning the “nuts and bolts” is less important than developing a passion for the craft and learning how to effectively communicate. Other people have different ideas (some valid, some not). Studies I have seen show that students who have a more phonics-based approach often end up with more technical skill but less interest and appreciation for the work and therefore a quality to their work that does not indicate this skill. Students with more whole-language experience have less technical skill, but far higher interest in reading and writing and a better appreciation for the art of reading/writing. These students generally test poorly compared to those with a phonics background but create better overall writing and have better comprehension skills. Again, it somewhat comes down to what your emphasis as an individual is. Mine, and much of what the research suggests is best, is somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards whole-language over phonics if one must be chosen.
Should be “underemphasize” in the first paragraph (among other errors I probably missed). I hope I don’t make anyone weep :-p
I think that the point about spelling bees is this: The fact that we have bees shows that we consider the ability to spell to be a kind of accomplishment. And the ability to spell could only be prestigious in this way if most people could not do it.
A point on spelling bees:
English is a legendarily ugly language for outsiders to learn. One of the reasons is that spelling is easy in other languages! Having a spelling bee in a Russian school is pointless – the written language is entirely phonetic. This is one of the reasons why many non-native english speakers are terrible spellers.
Jeff, that’s true. Not to mention the fact that English has more words in its vocabulary and a far larger variety of languages from which it draws, thus creating multiple spellings of a phonetically identical sound (bow, bough, beau). However in German and French the languages are certainly not entirely phonetic, but the spelling is not a challenge. My point on spelling bees is the one Andy was pointing out: we are underemphasizing spelling. I just do not think that people write or read much less than they used to even if it might seem that way. They simply read different media. They forsake literature for the popcorn novel, newspapers for news websites and blogs, surely. But they read and write constantly (including in online community discussions such as this one). The problem is that without knowing the nuts and bolts the language further degrades into the AOL chat dialect of initials and improper spelling and sentence structure. My feeling is that if the spelling and grammar were more stressed (I’m not so concerned with phonics) these people would at least know what proper language looks like while writing and reading their pop-media. But I am aware there is a debate about this Brian. I only know what I know from talking to a few teachers who told me that TC is the way young teachers are going and only the old guard is staying which the spelling and grammar methods. I guess I would clearly fall on the side of the old guard.
All good points indeed. I tend to view language as some that is “alive” rather than “static” and therefore am all for societal shifts in the use and form of language. Francis, as you pointed out, major societal shifts have led to different priorities for many people in how they use language. I think this is great. Many of the rules of language (especially English spelling) are arbitrary and only learned through rote practice. If the world is changing, I feel that language should change to keep up and meet the needs of people that are far different than they were years ago when the rules of grammar were determined. This does NOT excuse laziness, but perhaps informs some of the differences we see nowadays. Interesting debate!
This conversation would be remiss in not mentioning the cruel coincidence that David Foster Wallace died this past weekend of an apparent suicide. Check out his article from April 2001 in Harper’s, “reprinted” here:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html
(Unfortunately, the formatting here doesn’t really do Wallace’s prose justice.)
“To” and “too” are often misused and that drives me crazy.
Brian, how do you fit “standards” and “rules” into your framework? Funny how educators have trouble enough teaching subjects that don’t change too much – math and spelling – and yet policy focus seems to orbit sex ed for k-9.
Keith, your 2 cents on Lehman and ML???
The one that drives me up the wall is “penultimate” being used where “ultimate” is intended. Why, why, why would we need a word that means “ultimate,” that includes “ultimate” as part of the word, and also means “ultimate?” It’s like using “irregardless” when what you mean is “regardless.”
“penultimate” = next to last
I would be happy that someone has even SEEN the word penultimate, even if they used it incorrectly. It’s one of my favorite words!
Seth: in the immortal words of Dr. Nick:
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
“Really, I love it when people complain about NFL teams’ wide receiver cores”
Maybe they want those players to do more crunches.
Malcolm,
I think Ralph Wiggum put it best when he said:
“Me fail English? That’s unpossible!”
I think rowed out the storm would have been a more appropriate goof.
Lyle… I think you win.
Francis, to be fair, I teach young kids (Pre-K/K) so I don’t really get into that at all. I can’t speak to how it should look with older kids, but in general, I always say there is a balance. There should be opportunities for children to engage academics in a child-centered, exploratory way that allows for creativity and passion to develop AND should learn form and function from people who are experts (as teachers SHOULD be, but are not always) in the area. IF only one approach was going to be followed, I would lean towards the former.
Don’t get me started on educational reform movements; just please don’t lump ALL teachers into the vast majority who, unfortunately, are ridiculously unqualified to do their jobs and, more importantly, with uninformed politicians directing educational policy.
Confessions of a Language Mangler here….
Is it cos I is stupid?
I must confess when I started writing a sports blog and my kindly American friends said your spelling and punctuation reeks (I am a Brit and we never would say). I said don’t worry no one reads it!
I spent hours making myself write “it is” so I would never “its” when I meant “it’s”…. Now I can its and it’s mostly without error… So I see it as bad habits we were allowed/not told about consistently that can be got over.
Another Jdas classic is to re-read something after I have sent and realise I have missed out important words – mostly “not”, yes I often say the opposite of what I mean!
I don’t know the solution if it was not drummed in at school. In England I can’t remember when someone tried to correct my lousy punctuation and spelling. If they did would most people would see them as having the problem? As some kind of ninny.
Anyway these days I make an effort and applaud the US for leaving out extraneous ‘u’s as in Color/Colour.
I think the problem with improving, as I am trying but no doubt this is error strewn (please point out), is that it seems picky to tell someone they should improve. It’s funny but now I have started marginally improving from a low base I see others butchery….
I am now working on my possessives as in my children’s toys. Also is and are I frequently get wrong. Although there is some debate over sports teams as in “Chelsea are idiots” but some say “Chelsea is an idiot” is correct…. The BBC use are for sporting outfits so do I as it clearly sounds more convincing to say the Rays are leading the AL East.
Professional writers of any sort have less excuse…
Another Jdas classic is to re-read something after I have sent IT and realise I have missed out important words! Doh
That’s elitist! We don’t like elitists in this country. Why don’t you move to France?
Oh, wait, I’m an elitist too. Damnitall.
Can I move to France? I really like raw milk young cheese.
Hey Brian,
I just wanted you to expand on your pedagogical philosophy.
I had an interesting conversation with a random former principal from upstate NY. Some of the stories he told me were pretty ridiculous.
It reminds me of a story when Gov Reagan entered the Berkeley campus for an appearance. As his limo approached, a student got up on the car and yelled, “we are the future!” Reagan then held up a note that said, “Then I’m selling my bonds!”
Debates like this are great. There is not necessarily a “correct” answer as to what the ultimate goal of education should be. However, individuals or groups need to decide on THEIR priorities and then educate accordingly. If I value the creative process and want to nurture a joy of reading and writing, I will teach in a way that supports this value. If someone has a different perspective, they are not necessarily wrong, but they would probably not be happy to put their child in my class.
Unfortunately, all too often, people want a one-size-fits-all approach. This is what Hirsch’s “Core Knowledge” approach is. It sounds like something you may be advocating. The theory itself is a sound one and with a certain degree of merit; where I find a problem is the idea that any type of consensus has been reached on the educational values of this country (or if one ever will or SHOULD be reached).
This is what drives me nuts:
There is a guy at my office who keeps saying “mine as well,” instead of “might as well,” and sadly this is not the first time I have heard a person confuse the two 🙁
Or “could care less…”! If you could, then why don’t you?
I know it has become popular and acceptable now, but I still can’t stand dropping the comma before “and” in a list. UGH. I don’t know why, but that DOES boil my blood for some bizarre reason.
“Me fail English? That’s unpossible!”
Just to add one more… orientate instead of orient.
Brian, what you’re referring to is the Oxford comma. The comma that comes in a list of three or more things. You are correct that while some outfits (generally newspapers, magazines, and other sorts of press) would suggest the Oxford comma be phased out, there are certain publishing houses (such as Oxford University Press and my own T & T Clark e.g.) that encourage it. There is however a proper place for both its use and disuse. When it alleviates confusion it should be used, when it brings ambiguity it should be left out.
Here are a couple examples:
“I went to Rome with Sally, a dog and a suitcase.” — Here if you used the Oxford comma it might look like Sally was a dog, but forgoing it makes it clear that there were three items that went with you to Rome.
“On vacation I read something about horses, Romulus, and Faustulus. –If you didn’t use the Oxford comma here then one might confuse the horses’ names with Romulus and Faustulus, instead of seeing that all three were separate entities.
There are of course myriad other examples where no ambiguity is made either way, or both the use or non-use are ambiguous. In these cases both are correct and it is up to the author.
Thanks Francis, that actually clears up the comma thing for me. It might actually extend my life, as lists missing the oxford comma probably won’t trigger such abject rage.
Thanks also to rob, for linking that David foster wallace article. I had never read it, but it is absolutely wonderful.
I’m in sales and being in a sales org, many of my co-workers don’t think that we are INCENTIVIZED to sell the right products. Incentivized? Really? In my industry, it is imperative that we be knowledgeable and sound intelligent (we aren’t selling cell phones at a kiosk) and my colleagues think we can just make up words? It drives me mad…
Note: I am no master of language either, I just wanted to share one large pet peeve of mine.
According to the OED incentivize is in fact a real transitive verb meaning to provide (someone) with an incentive for doing something. I’m not trying to clown you, just saying, it appears to be a word.
Really? I guess me fail English. I retract my statement of complaint.
Francis-
Thanks for the insight. I was aware of the shift and how, when it does not cause ambiguity, it has become acceptable, but it still bothered me. I wasn’t aware of situations in which the traditional method COULD cause ambiguity (Sally the dog), though that sentence could still be read as “Sally being a dog and a suitcase.” This seems ridiculous, but try this: I went with John, an officer and a gentleman. There is always room for confusion so I generally rely on context.
I’m not disagreeing with you by any means and appreciate the further info. It just bothers me when it is used unnecessarily. I guess some minor OCD I have.
Where’s KLaw been in all this?
Klaw’s on vacation…
To further the discussion of linguistic pet peeves: someone just said to me “should of” instead of “should have” or “should’ve” — kill me.
Again? Damn him. To be fair, “should of” and “should’ve” are pronounced the same, so at least I understand that mistake.
When I see “then” instead of “than” I become possessed by Satan. Of course, Satan is probably spelled S-A-T-I-N these days.
@ Mike– I have seen dozens of blog posts, and especially comments, talking about how so-and-so must have “Made a pact with Stan” to [insert whatever the blog is about here].
That Stan, he sure seems to have some juice.
I have to imagine that if someone writes “Made a pact with Stan,” it’s just a typo; (s)he doesn’t actually think that the devil is named Stan.