Archive for the ‘Grammar’ Category
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012
I have one or two posts on Grammar Glitch Central that correct the use of INTO in connection with perpetrators turning themselves into police officers. Today's suspect did something even more unusual. He turned himself into the jail! Consider this sentence from The Birmingham News:
(The man) turned himself into the jail, sheriff's officials said Sunday.
As I have pointed out before, there is a difference in usage between INTO and IN TO. You can say that you walked INTO the drugstore or you fell INTO a ditch or you transformed yourself INTO a happy person. In each case, you are creating a prepositional phrase that describes where or what (INTO the drugstore, INTO a ditch, INTO a happy person).
TURN IN, on the other hand, is a verb plus an adverb. Used together, TURN IN means to give over to someone or something else, as in "The man turned himself IN TO the police." or "Alice WILL TURN IN her keys before she leaves the building."
I am certain that the man arrested in the shooting death at a Forestdale convenience store recently did NOT become the Jefferson County Jail! He simply went there to TURN HIMSELF IN. This sentence would be much clearer and simpler with this wording:
(The man) turned himself in at the jail, sheriff's officials said Sunday.
Tags: The Birmingham News, word usage
Posted in Grammar, word usage | No Comments »
Sunday, February 19th, 2012
The basic difference (most of the time) between AFFECT and EFFECT is that AFFECT is a verb, and EFFECT is a noun. About 90 percent of the time, that definition will serve you well. Here are some example sentences:
My uncle's stroke affected his ability to speak clearly.
My uncle's stroke had an effect on his ability to speak clearly.
The slow economy is affecting the election campaigns.
One definite effect of the slow economy is cuts in local government.
In a less well-known usage, EFFECT can be used as a verb that means "to bring about" something. I came across this usage recently in a fascinating article about the Great Sunflower Project launched by San Francisco State University associate biology professor Gretchen LeBuhn. LeBuhn has enlisted volunteers across the country to plant sunflowers and other bee-friendly flowers in their yards, then count the number of bees that visit during two 15-minute observation periods each month. She wants to find out why bee populations have plummeted in recent years and what can be done to increase those populations.
Here is the sentence:
I used to despair about our ability to affect change.
I do not know how Gretchen LeBuhn would have spelled this word if she had written her comment rather than spoken it, but the writer who quoted her in the Fall/Winter issue of SF State spelled it AFFECT, which would suggest the idea of "having an impact on" change. I think LeBuhn was probably referring to "bringing about" change, She went on to say in her interview that, "This (the Great Sunflower Project) restored hope in me that we as a society can do some things to really improve the world." I believe the sentence should have been written this way:
I used to despair about our ability to ef fect change.
Here is another example of an error with the less common usage of AFFECT and EFFECT. It appeared in a comment on one of the LinkedIn forums I read:
I'd say that YES misspelling and bad grammar effect credibility of a company.
What this writer meant to say was that misspelling and bad grammar have a bad EFFECT on the credibility of a company. (I agree completely with what she meant to say.) However, as worded, it sounds as if misspelling and bad grammar "bring about" credibility, which is the exact opposite of what she meant. It should be written one of these two ways:
I'd say that YES misspelling and bad grammar can affect the credibility of a company.
I'd say that YES misspelling and bad grammar can have a negative effect on the credibility of a company.
 If you would like to know more about the Great Sunflower Project, you can visit www.greatsunflower.org.
Tags: word usage
Posted in Grammar, wording | 1 Comment »
Monday, February 13th, 2012
This was the lead sentence for a recent front page article in One Voice, the newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama:
Divisions among Christians, including on moral issues, weakens their credibility and their ability to respond to the spiritual yearning of many men and women today, Pope Benedict XVI said.
Whoops! Although I think this sentence expresses a good point about today's "gridlock thinking," the grammar is not correct. DIVISIONS (with an S) is plural. (The basic thought is DIVISIONS AMONG CHRISTIANS WEAKEN THEIR CREDIBILITY….) Therefore, DIVISIONS should take a plural verb, which would be WEAKEN (without an S). The sentence should read this way:
Divisions among Christians , including on moral issues, weaken their credibility and their ability to respond to the spiritual yearning of many men and women today, Pope Benedict XVI said.
Apparently the headline creator for this newspaper has a better grasp of grammar because the headline uses the correct subject/verb agreement. It reads this way:
Christian Divisions, Including on Morality, Weaken Witness, Pope Says
PLEASE NOTE: My thanks to Ilene (See her comment below.) who spotted my error in this post. I have made the appropriate correction above.
Tags: agreement
Posted in Grammar, Subject/Verb Agreement | 2 Comments »
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012
Here is a usage glitch I've never come across:
In fact, they overroad then-Gov. Bob Riley's veto, preserving their 61 percent increase in compensation.
Whoops! What the OUR VIEWS page of The Birmingham News meant to use in their editorial about state government budget woes was the word OVERRODE (past tense of RIDE). ROAD, of course, is a noun that does not fit this situation. The sentence should read as follows:
In fact, they overrode then-Gov. Bob Riley's veto, preserving their 61 percent increase in compensation.
Tags: The Birmingham News, verbs, word usage
Posted in Grammar, verbs, wording | 2 Comments »
Friday, January 20th, 2012
Here is a good example of where proofreading could improve a sentence:
Ikea has received eight reports of the buckles opening worldwide, with three reports of injuries.
What was that again? Ikea has (to their credit) voluntarily recalled high chairs sold between 2006 and the beginning of 2010 because of a problem with restraint buckles. However, the sentence above makes it sound as if these buckles OPEN WORLDWIDE. What the reporter means is that, worldwide, there have been eight reports of the buckles opening unexpectedly, but that is not what the sentence says. It should read this way:
Worldwide, Ikea has received eight reports of the buckles opening unexpectedly, with three reports of injuries.
It is important to be sure that a modifier like WORLDWIDE is inserted where it will describe the correct thing.
Tags: adjectives and adverbs, Ikea, sentence structure, The Birmingham News
Posted in adjectives and adverbs, Grammar, wording | 10 Comments »
Tuesday, January 10th, 2012
As part of an email discussion about an upcoming workshop, I received this question yesterday:
Can you let me know what you're daily rate is?
Whoops! As I have "preached" before, YOU'RE is a contraction of the two words YOU and ARE. It can only be used where the words YOU and ARE (subject and verb) would fit in a sentence.
This writer needed the word YOUR, which is a possessive pronoun that describes something (in this case, DAILY RATE) that belongs to YOU. The sentence should read this way:
Can you let me know what your daily rate is?
EASY REMINDER: YOUR and YOU'RE are not interchangeable. They have different meanings and different functions.
Tags: apostrophe, pronoun
Posted in apostrophe, pronoun | 1 Comment »
Monday, January 9th, 2012
Here is part of a "Job Wanted" ad that appeared in my local newspaper this week:
Christian lady looking to clean one families home.
Whoops! The epidemic of apostrophe problems continues. This lady only wants to clean ONE HOME. The HOME should belong to ONE FAMILY. The proper way to show that ONE HOME belongs to ONE FAMILY is to add an apostrophe and an S to the end of FAMILY.
Changing the Y to I and adding ES makes the word refer to several FAMILIES, and I am sure the lady did not mean to suggest that this should be one HOME belonging to several FAMILIES. The sentence should read this way:
Christian lady looking to clean one family's home.
Tags: apostrophe
Posted in apostrophe, Grammar, plual forms | 2 Comments »
Friday, January 6th, 2012
I have read several news stories recently about Eagle Scout candidate Dane Smith who gathered volunteers to help clear an overgrown section of the new Bristoe Station Battlefield Heritage Park near Washington, D. C. About 90 soldiers from the Tenth Alabama Infantry Regiment camped there and died in an outbreak of disease in the summer of 1861.  
Since the first stories appeared, the park has received new information from families of these soldiers and has added to its documentation.
One sentence in The Birmingham News story about this caught my eye last week because the reporter apparently confused the word ANCESTOR with the word DESCENDANT:
Following a story in The News about the cemetery's rebirth, several ancestors, amateur genealogists and historic preservationists contacted park officials with information.
Whoops! The word ANCESTORS would refer to the previous generation family members who died at Bristoe. It is much more likely that it was their DESCENDANTS who contacted the park officials. Attention to correct vocabulary makes for much better writing. The sentence should read this way:
Following a story in The News about the cemetery's rebirth, several descendants, amateur genealogists and historic preservationists contacted park officials with information.
Congratulations to sixteen-year-old Dane Smith on a creative and important Eagle Scout project.
Tags: The Birmingham News, word usage
Posted in Grammar, word usage | 5 Comments »
Thursday, January 5th, 2012
There is an amusing sentence in a current Celebrex television commercial. It is part of that scary warning section that warns the viewer/listener about all the side effects of the medication. The same sentence appears in the warning section on the company's website:
 Patients taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers.
What is that again? It sounds as if both ASPIRIN and THE ELDERLY are objects of the present participle (ING word) TAKING. That would imply that PATIENTS take both things–ASPIRIN and THE ELDERLY–which, of course, does not make sense. Only the words TAKING ASPIRIN refer to PATIENTS. THE ELDERLY is a separate category.
The way to fix this sentence is to reverse the descriptions so that THE ELDERLY are not lumped with the ASPIRIN! It should be worded this way:
The elderly and patients taking aspirin are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers.
Tags: Celebrex, sentence structure, using ING forms
Posted in Grammar, using ING forms, wording | 3 Comments »
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012
Today's Grammar Glitch involves a criminal I would have to nominate for the "lowest of the low" award. A counselor on the approved list of providers for the Department of Human Resources in Alabama has been charged with using his position to force women to have sex with him. When DHR referred a woman to him for counseling, he would go to the woman's home and tell her that if she did what he asked, he would give DHR a good report and help her keep her children. He actually threatened these women with losing their children if they didn't comply.
Shame on him, double shame! I commend the young woman in her mid-20s who had the courage to set up spy cameras in her house and reported him to the police.
Now back to Grammar Glitches. The sentence in this news article that bothered me was this one:
The prosecutor, Laura Poston, said ( ) used his position to coerce the women into having sex with him during sessions he held at each woman's homes.
The word EACH is treated as singular. Notice that it is used with WOMAN, not WOMEN. Therefore, HOMES should be HOME to be consistent with the singular pattern. The sentence should read this way:
The prosecutor, Laura Poston, said ( ) used his position to coerce the women into having sex with him during sessions he held at each woman's home.
Speaking of sentences, the judge who heard this case was frustrated by the fact that he had to reduce the charges because state law required proving "forcible" compulsion, and it was not possible to define the threat of losing one's children as "forcible" compulsion against a woman. Personally, most women I know would probably consider that "forcible" compulsion.
Tags: pronoun/antecedent agreement, The Birmingham News
Posted in Grammar, pronouns | No Comments »
|
