Ripped from the possible headlines: How many media outlets will get lazy?

Here's a game you can play Tuesday night and Wednesday, especially if you live in Pennsylvania:

In Pennsylvania, we have a candidate named Tom Smith running for U.S. Senate. If he wins, count how many newspapers and TV broadcasts go the lazy route with the headline Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Sure, it's accurate and timely, but to me it's too easy and obvious.

If he wins, let me know how many times you see or hear this headline.

Don't dress up as Captain Obvious this Halloween

One of my pet peeves in writing and speaking is obviousness. If possible, don't tell me what I already know. Of course, some obvious information might be needed to introduce new material or used as background later in the story, and that's fine, but obvious information shouldn't dominate a story.

Here's an example of a headline I saw Wednesday from Yahoo News:

Northeast struggling to get back to normal

Ya think?

It has been less than 36 hours since Hurricane Sandy, one of the worst storms in U.S. history, did major damage to New York City, New Jersey and other areas. So, some editor decides it would be a good idea to go with the stale and overused "struggles to get back to normal" headline. The only thing more obvious (and more cliche) is "(insert city here) begins to clean up."

Another area of obviousness is photo captions, especially regarding sports photos. I can't tell you how many times I've seen photos of baseball pitchers with the caption: John Smith pitches the ball in Tuesday night's game against Jonesville. In many cases, it's not necessary to tell me what someone is doing in a photo - I can usually figure that out for myself. Tell me who the person is, what group the person is with, when the event happened, the result of the event and other information, such as statistics or the highlight of the event, that can't be seen in the photo.

Writing or saying the obvious is a sign of laziness. Usually, the cure to obviousness is specificity. If you don't generalize, you'll have a much better chance not stating what is apparent to everyone.

Playing the percentages

Sorry for not posting for such a long time. I kept putting off a new post because I was focusing on other things, and suddenly, 2 ½ weeks have sped by.

I’ll get back to posting with an issue that pops up from time to time, and it can be confusing: Should you use a singular verb or plural verb with the word percent?

This is fairly simple when a noun/pronoun follows the phrase percent of. When a noun/pronoun that follows percent of is singular, use a singular verb. When a noun/pronoun that follows percent of is plural, use a plural verb. For example:

Twenty-five percent of the ocean is polluted.

Twenty-five percent of the oceans are polluted.

Twenty-five percent of it is polluted.

Twenty-five percent of them are polluted.

The professor said 25 percent of the student body takes night classes.

The professor said 25 percent of the students take night classes.

OK, that’s clear. But, what about when percent stands on its own? The Associated Press Stylebook says percent takes a singular verb when standing alone. Treat percent as a singular noun:

The teacher said 60 percent is a failing grade.

OK, so what about when percent is standing alone, but a noun/pronoun is implied after percent? For example:

The students are going on the field trip. Twenty-five percent (has or have) sent in permission slips.

The AP doesn’t address this issue, so I will. Although percent is standing alone, the implied construction (derived from the previous sentence and common sense) is percent of students. Students is plural, so the verb should be have. If there is no noun/pronoun after percent but a noun/pronoun is implied from context and common sense, determine whether it is singular or plural and then use the appropriate verb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's National Punctuation Day

I found out through a friend on Facebook that today is National Punctuation Day. Who knew? To celebrate, here's a classic bit from Victor Borge.

Grammar terms made easier: The independent clause vs. the dependent clause

I try to keep things understandable in this blog, not getting caught up in grammar jargon and English-class speak. I've been in the editing business in one form or another for about 25 years and even I get confused when grammarians use all that jargon: reflexive pronoun, future perfect tense, dangling participle, antecedents, etc.

So, from time to time on this blog, I'll take a grammar term and try to simplify it for you.

This time, I'll discus independent clause and dependent clause.

An independent clause is a group of words that could stand on its own as a sentence.

For example, two halves of a sentence on each side of a semicolon are independent clauses because each half could stand on its own as a sentence: I rode in Dan's car; it was blue.

Here's another example: She will visit us if she can.

The part She will visit us is an independent clause because it could stand on its own as a sentence. But the part if she can is a dependent clause because it can't stand on its own as a sentence - it is dependent on the other clause for it to make sense.

If you have any suggestions of grammar terms you would like me to simplify, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Never, ever use this word

Want to drive me crazy?

Use winningist.

Every time I hear it I just want to slap someone.

I don't care if ESPN and all the other networks use it; I don't care if some dictionaries allow it; I don't care if newspapers and magazines use it. Winningist is not a word.

If winninger isn't a word, then neither is winningist.

So, what do you use to describe a person who has won the most games in a sport? Use most winning.  For example:

     John Smith is the most winning coach in NCAA Division I football.
OR
     John Smith has won most games in NCAA Division I football.

Titles are a capital idea - sometimes

During these weeks of political conventions, we all have seen references to the president, representatives, senators, governors and other officials.

It has been my experience that many people have trouble with rules of capitalization when using titles with names. I use The Associated Press Stylebook rules for these situations, and the rules are fairly simple.

Generally, when an official title comes before someone's name, capitalize the title and abbreviate it when appropriate. When the title comes after someone's name, lowercase the title and usually spell it out. Here are some examples:

Five speakers, including U.S. Sen. John Smith, spoke to the delegates.
Five speakers, including John Smith, a U.S. senator, spoke to the delegates.

The council and New York Mayor John Smith criticized the proposal.
The council and John Smith, the mayor of New York, criticized the proposal.

Customers sued Widget Inc. Chief Executive Officer Bob Jones.
Customers sued Widget Inc. CEO Bob Jones.
Customers sued Bob Jones, chief executive officer of Widget Inc.
Customers sued Bob Jones, CEO of Widget Inc.


OK, that's pretty simple. Now, what about plurals - when you have more than one person with the same title? When the title comes before the name, capitalize and make plural, abbreviating the title when appropriate. When the title comes after the name, lowercase and make plural. Here are some examples:

The audience heard U.S. Sens. John Smith and Bob Jones speak.
The audience heard from John Smith and Bob Jones, U.S. senators.

Speeches given by Chief Executive Officers John Smith and Bob Jones were well received.
Speeches give by John Smith and Bob Jones, chief executive officers, were well received.

The James Dean of the grammar world: "its" vs. "it's"

 

 

When it comes to the possessive form, the word it is a rebel with a clause - the anguished street punk with a heart of gold who loves to cause trouble, and a lot of it, but nothing that can't be worked out.

The trouble it causes has to do with the possessive form vs. the contraction form. In my opinion, it's (it is) in the top three mistakes made  by writers, especially those who don't write often. Heck, even the grammar checker that came with my computer gets it wrong all of the time, telling me to do the opposite of what I should do.

Other singular words form a possessive with the apostrophe-s combination: the boy's ball, Dad's car, the doctor's practice. But the word it is contrary. The possessive is its - with no apostrophe: its food, its length.

The apostrophe comes in with the contraction of it is. The contraction is it's.

So the rules are:
Possessive: its
Contraction for it is: it's

Is your goose cooked if you don't bring home the bacon? Only in Canada

It's Canada goose but Canadian bacon.

I have no idea why there's a difference. I grew up saying Canadian goose until I was told I shouldn't say Canadian because the goose isn't a citizen of Canada. So then what about bacon? Don't get me wrong - I am all for bacon being eligible for citizenship in any country, but there does seem to be a contradiction here.

So, I looked up the issue on a couple of websites (trust me, I didn't spend a lot of time researching this) and the posters were all over the place regarding the usage of these words.

In the end, because The AP Stylebook uses Canada goose and Canadian bacon, that's what I use.

And one last thought - if Canada geese aren't really Canadians, then does that make them illegal immigrants?

Word usage tip: "farther" vs. "further"

Here's a classic word usage problem: farther vs. further.

You can hear and see these words getting mixed up frequently on television, radio, in print and in everyday speech. The rules are simple:

Farther is to be used  only for physical distances.
Further is to be used for any other extension of time or degree.

Pretty simple, right?

Here are two examples:

He went farther into the woods than I did.
He went further in his career than I did.

So, just keep in mind: Farther is for distances and further is for all other uses.

What the H E double toothpicks is your motivation for using certain words?

A high school diploma is being withheld from an Oklahoma girl, a valedictorian by the way, because she used the word hell in her graduation speech. Here's the link: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/20/13377164-oklahoma-high-school-valedictorian-denied-diploma-for-using-hell-in-speech?lite

My first reaction was probably the same as yours: Some ultra socially conservative southern school officials  who don't have enough things to worry about are going way overboard on this.

But then I read the story all the way through and started to think a little deeper. The copy of the speech she gave to school officials ahead of time used the word heck instead of hell. Could she have had a slip of the tongue in her speech? Or could she have changed the word at the last second? Yes to both, but I don't think either was the case. In my mind, the girl intentionally deceived school officials. 

That's not a nice thing to do. Does it merit withholding a diploma? Of course not. In this case, I think it's a no real harm done sort of thing.

But I do wonder why she changed it. Would she have received less of a positive response by using heck? Probably not. So why change it? And if she thought there was nothing wrong in using hell, then why not include it in the copy given to school officials and discuss the issue then? Because she knew they would object and she knew she would lose.

So, I think she made an end run around the wishes of school officials in the form of a mini teenage rebellion wrapped in a valedictorian speech.

In the grand scheme of things, is it a big deal? No, not even close. But it might make for an interesting discussion. So, what do you think? Let me know.

Talk about overkill: the ultimate example of verbosity

A Facebook friend and former colleague at The Times Leader newspaper, Rob Fucci, posted this image today, and I couldn't resist using it here. Perhaps you know some ridiculous examples of verbosity or word usage. Feel free to share them in the comment section below.

Grammar tip: when to use "less" and when to use "fewer"

Although I see the words less and fewer confused in many of the documents I edit, I think it is abused more often in everyday speech and by people who should know better, such as TV news broadcasters.

The rule is simple. Use less for a bulk item or one amount. Use fewer for individual items.

 For example:

-        I have less sugar, but I have fewer grains of sugar. The first part refers to a bulk item; the second part refers to individual items.

 Here are some examples from The Associate Press Stylebook:

-        Wrong: The trend is toward more machines and less people. (This should be fewer people because we’re referring to individuals.)

-        Correct: Fewer than 10 applicants applied. (individuals)

-        Correct: I had less than $50 in my pocket (one amount)

-        Correct: I had fewer than 50 $1 bills in my pocket. (individual items)

-        Wrong: She was fewer than 60 years old. (This should be less because we’re referring to a one period of time, not individual years.

Credibility can be in the details

Another friend and former colleague at The Times Leader newspaper, Joe Student, sent me a comment regarding an article about grammar. Here’s the link to the article: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/i_wont_hire_people_who_use_poo.html.

The gist of the article and comments is about how much weight should be given to job applicants’ grasp of grammar/punctuation, even if the job has little to do with those areas. Some of the people writing comments are very strict - more strict than me (and that’s saying something), and others are more lenient.

The comment Joe sent me started me thinking on one of my pet peeves: credibility. The comment is the following:

Truth: last week, my vice-president sent me a document and asked that I check it for "typoes and grammer."

OK, obviously this was an in-house communication – not something for public consumption. So, even I think leeway on grammar and spelling can be given in these situations. The occasional misspelling or grammar error in a business memo is understandable, especially in a hectic environment; many in-house notes are just that - notes quickly written in note form or in company shorthand.

However, there are limits. Even though this is an in-house note, the damage the vice president did to himself/herself could be in the form of mocking criticism from the employee at best, or a permanent dent to credibility at worst. And, that dent could get bigger and cause some severe damage with employees if the vice president has a pattern of this sort of thing. That credibility issue could grow into a lack of trust and respect of the vice president and the company.

I’m sure you have heard the following phrase used regarding politicians: character matters. Well, so does credibility. Although little mistakes – and even some big ones – can be excused with a little empathy from your readers, it is best to sweat the details so empathy isn’t needed in the first place. If you keep  using your readers’ goodwill and understanding as excuses for your mistakes, your readers will eventually run out of both and you’ll run out of credibility – and readers.

Catching "up" with my friend, Ray

Ray Blockus, a good friend and fellow copy editor for many years at The Times Leader newspaper, where I worked for more than 17 years, recently read some of my blog posts and responded with an email about his “favorite” unnecessary word. Here’s what Ray had to say in the way only Ray can say it:

“As for one of my pet peeves, in a word, the most overused and unnecessary word is up. … People need to know that up is a two-letter word that indicates direction. Rooms need not be cleaned UP. The leaves need not be raked UP. The car need not be started UP. I'm certain that you are well aware of those things, and I realize that I'm not the first - or only - one to object to the overuse of up. But, before I die, I hope my crusade against that little invader of good writing has succeeded in eliminating its overuseivesness and unnecessariessness forever and ever, to wit, that it stops turning UP in seemingly everything I read and hear. Perhaps you wish to follow UP on this?”

Thanks, Ray, for keeping me up on something everyone should be cracking down on – or should I say on which everyone should be cracking up?

Remember three things: 1. Focus. 2. Focus. And what was that last one? Oh yeah, FOCUS.

I'm taking a walk, doing some window shopping, and I come across one of those things that drive copy editors crazy. I walk by a store called:

JUST CABINETS Furniture and More

My face starts to twitch and my breathing gets strained. While shaking a mental fist at the owners of this place, I'm thinking: "OK, which is it? Does this store have just cabinets or does it have furniture and more? Make up your mind!"
So, I go inside. The bulk of the store consists of all types of furniture and relatively few cabinets. Sigh.

The lessons?
1. Some people don't know how to name their stores.
2. For writers and editors:
- Beware of contradictions.

- Stay focused on your message; don't try to say too much at one time. In an effort to get as much information in their stories as possible (because all of the info is soooo important), writers will often spew all of their notes into their stories with little regard to focus and flow. And that can result in confusion for the readers.
  When writing, remember: Take one point at a time, and stay focused on a point until you're through with it. Then, make a transition to your next point, and then write about it.

- Readers almost never care as much about what you're writing as you do, so there's no need to tell them everything you've found during the research of your story. Writers have readers' attention for only a short time, so concise, focused writing with a smooth flow is extremely important to keep them reading. 

Now, back to that sign. Perhaps:
   ALMOST BUT NOT QUITE JUST CABINETS
 

It's literally raining cats and dogs out there - that's gotta hurt.

Ah, one of my favorite misused/overused words: literally. The word means in a literal sense or manner, or actually: The house literally burned to the ground.

But there are some dictionaries that are lenient, giving leeway to use the word for effect. Merriam Webster, for example, allows for the word to be used as in effect, or virtually: He will literally turn the world upside down to combat injustice. Webster's New World College Dictionary acknowledges this usage but adds, thank goodness, it "is objected to by some."

Count me as one of the "some." I'm a strict interpreter of the word.

But, the bottom line is it doesn't matter if you're on the strict side or the lenient side because I can't see any circumstance in which the word needs to be used at all.

So, if you're ever in doubt when to use literally, the lesson here is ... don't.

"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to spell."

As the evil villain (as opposed to the good villain) stroked his evil cat, he said with an evil smile: “So, Mr. Bond, it is very simple. All you have to do to save the world is … (dramatic music) … spell the word parallel!” MWA HA HA HA! (That’s an evil laugh.)

Well, if I were playing the character of Mr. Bond, the world would have ended in a tragic misspelling accident.

The lesson? Know your weaknesses and know how to address them.

There are some words and grammar issues that we’ll always have to look up in a dictionary or stylebook. There are many words I just can’t spell on my own – parallel top among them. As for grammar, lie vs. lay gets me every time; that page in my AP Stylebook is well worn.

You don’t have to be a great speller or grammarian to be a good writer. But you do need to know how to correct or deal with your flaws. What do you need to have at your side?

-         A dictionary: Webster’s New World College Dictionary for you Associated Press Style advocates and Merriam Webster for you Chicago Manual of Style people.

-        A stylebook: The AP Stylebook is my first choice because I have a journalistic background. The Chicago Manual of Style is probably the most popular and covers a much wider range of writing genres.

-        An atlas: needed for geographical names

-        A calculator: Writers and editors are notorious for being horrible at math.

There are other items that can help, but the four I mentioned will prevent a lot of mistakes from happening – as long as you use them. They might even stop an evil genius or two.

Question: What's the No. 1 entry on my list of useless words and phrases?

Answer: any words that follow the phrase "Needless to say" and "It goes without saying." And, of course, those two phrases themselves, by definition, are useless too.

The trouble with "that" and "which": Essential clause vs. nonessential clause

When writers confuse that and which, essential/nonessential clauses are usually involved.

Essential and nonessential clauses give additional information about a word or phrase. The difference between them is an essential clause cannot be removed without changing the intended meaning of the sentence, thus making it necessary – or essential - to the sentence.

Here are the rules to remember:

ESSENTIAL CLAUSE =                                      NONESSENTIAL CLAUSE =

Starts with that                                              Starts with which

Not set off by commas                                    Set off by commas

Necessary for intended                                   Not necessary for intended

    meaning of sentence                                       meaning of sentence

Let’s try some examples:

Pit bulls that are too aggressive should be illegal to own.

Pit bulls, which are too aggressive, should be illegal to own.

            In the first sentence, the writer is saying a specific set of dogs - pit bulls “that are too aggressive” – should be illegal. If the “that are too aggressive” clause is removed, the intended meaning of the sentence is changed to target all pit bulls. So, the phrase “that are too aggressive” is essential to the meaning of the sentence.

            In the second sentence, the writer is saying all pit bulls should be illegal. Removing the “which are too aggressive” clause doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence. So, the phrase “which are too aggressive” is not essential to the sentence.

The key that starts the car has a square head.

The key, which starts the car, has a square head.

         In the first sentence, the writer is saying a specific key – the one used to start the car – has a square head. If the essential clause “that starts the car” is removed, then the intended meaning is changed to refer to a key in general.

            In the second sentence, the writer is referring to a general key, which just happens to start the car.

Incorrect: The loaf of bread, that is a day old, can be fed to the birds.

Incorrect: The loaf of bread which is a day old can be fed to the birds.

Correct: The loaf of bread that is a day old can be fed to the birds.

Correct: The loaf of bread, which is a day old, can be fed to the birds.