What's your English bugbear?

Some time ago, a reader commented that thus-and-such was a spelling error he always made. I said that was forgivable. Because he was aware of the tendency to make that error, he made a point of looking for and correcting it. Problem solved.

Don't feel bad when you realize you can't correctly spell or use every single word and symbol and construction at your disposal. That's what dictionaries, grammar guides, and stylebooks are for!

I don't think it would be a stretch to say every single person who writes any language fluently probably has at least a couple little mental hitches, errors that have somehow gotten ingrained. Maybe that's even a defining difference between average writers and good ones:  The good ones realize they are going to make errors, and then they go back to look for and fix them.

Myself, I confess...

1. I always have to fix my spelling of judgment. Left to my own devices, I put an e between the g and m.
2. I have to stop and think before deciding between em- vs. en-dashes.
3. I delete a lot of verys and reallys.
4. Words that end in -l confuse me when I add -ing. Some must have the -l doubled, but others don't--I'm constantly looking up controling/controlling, labeling/labelling, etc. It doesn't help that American and British standards differ on which is preferable in some of those pairs. Because I see both versions of those words all the time, flip-flop spelling is a hard habit to break. 
5. More often than I like to admit, I'm overly verbose. (For an example, see #4 above!)

I thought it would be fun to start an open thread--no specific lesson, just a collection of answers to this prompt: Whether spelling, grammar, punctuation, diction, or otherwise, what are your personal English bugbears? Do you have a favorite mnemonic or other method of finding and correcting those problems--or even a plea for someone else to share a particular memory trick? Your input is welcome, readers.

Capitalizing nouns: Are these "common" conventions "proper"?

Reader Pam sent Word-wise a question nearly two weeks ago (eek! Apologies for the long delay!) regarding capitalization. It's a good one. Here's the question, altered a bit to preserve a client's anonymity:

When capitalizing or not capitalizing "state," does it make any difference if you're referring to the state as a state, or the state as an employer? I know it's, "I'm going to the state of Massachusetts," but what about when it's your employer.
I work for the [S]state of Massachusetts.

I work for the [S]state.

As an employee of the [S]state, do you have [S]state health insurance?

The above would not be transcription for a government agency.

But, I did read somewhere that government entities often capitalize "county," for instance, when referring to themselves, if I understood that correctly. One of my clients, Midfield County, always capitalizes "County" when referring to Midfield (and City when referring to Capital City [Midfield's county seat]). I'm assuming this is not the correct way normally, but is okay within their documents?

To answer these questions, we must consider two underlying concepts: common nouns vs. proper nouns, and in-house style.

common noun: a general, nonspecific noun; a word that could refer to one of any number of objects, persons, etc. of its kind
Ex: woman, car, sea, apple, rodent, composer

proper noun: a specific noun that identifies a particular individual
Ex: Jeannine, Corvette, Mediterranean Sea, Red Delicious, Mickey Mouse, Aaron Copeland

In most circumstances* the word state, defined as a semi-autonomous region within the jurisdiction of a larger governing body (Utah is a state within the United States), is a common noun. The word can be used to name any of the states. It is nonspecific, hence, not capitalized.

That said, Pam's conclusion in the question above is still correct: It would not be just "okay" but absolutely expected to capitalize State, even though it's a common noun, in order to conform to the county's established practice.

It may not be comfortable for usage purists (I know! I hear you!), but sometimes we must cross the line between what's strictly proper, and what's historically accepted and expected within an organization.

In Midfield County, capitalization appears to be an in-house style preference that both signals respect for the region as an entity, and provides for consistency throughout its entire collection of internal documents (since "County" and "City" are treated the same way). However odd we find it, and however much it may seem to contradict the rule, I would advise conforming to this capitalization practice when working with Midfield documents.

Even the often-uncompromising Chicago Manual of Style acknowledges the occasional necessity for this kind of departure. From Section 8.65:

For consistency, however...[capitalizing] the organization and its adherents, in both noun and adjective forms, will prevent editorial headaches.

(If you have access to Chicago's 16th Edition, refer to sections 8.61-8.68 for a much more thorough discussion of when to/not to capitalize government and organization terms.)

Perhaps there's one final issue: Midfield County is located in one of four U.S. regions (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) that officially identify themselves commonwealths, not states. But let's just sidestep that consideration, shall we? That question is traditional and legal rather than linguistic, and this discussion is already dense enough!

Readers, what examples have you run across in which a standard English practice is intentionally, consistently altered to achieve some specific goal? What other instances of proper vs. common noun usage or noun capitalization can cause confusion? All related comments and questions are welcome.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*In a rarer non-local context, State (note the capital S) may be defined as "an independent self-governing body," roughly synonymous with "country."

The United Nations resolved that it would impose sanctions against the State [referring to one specific, previously named country] until such time as human rights investigators are admitted.

What's in a name?

I wasn't planning to do a post this week, but Mike Gruss, one of my favorite local newspaper columnists, spurred me to write. He published a piece yesterday that is so Word-wise friendly, I must pass it along. Gruss articulates beautifully the advantages versus pitfalls that come with changing a company's name.

Gruss nailed nicely, in modern terms, an old, old idea.

Four hundred years ago, Shakespeare averred that "a rose by any other name smells as sweet." In other words, changing the words that make up its name doesn't change the substance of a thing.

A well-worn cliche speaks of "calling a spade a spade"--that is, not disguising our meaning by choosing other (presumably kinder) words.

I'm no marketing expert, but as a person who loves playing with words, I find this topic endlessly fascinating.

The first example of corporate name change I remember well came along over 20 years ago, when all of a sudden the restaurant we knew as Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC. The popular thinking at the time was that executives wanted to de-emphasize the word "fried" because of growing public concern about diet and nutrition. Company officials have refuted that idea, but it's still the impression that has stuck with a sizable portion of the public nonetheless.

Other changes are more factual and less seemingly obfuscatory, reflecting shifting corporate status or new ownership. The now-defunct car maker Chrysler/Chrysler-Dodge/Daimler Chrysler falls into this category.

Name changes seem to be endless among celebrities. My favorite example is the entertainer Prince, who for a time changed his name to that weird hybrid symbol. In print he was dubbed "the artist formerly known as Prince" until recent years, when he once again became simply Prince. (Would that make him now "the artist former known as, 'the artist formerly known as Prince'?) Another example of celebrity change/change back is comedienne Roseanne Barr/Roseanne Arnold/Roseanne.

Let's lengthen the list, readers. What other examples of advantageous vs. camouflage-creating vs. just plain confusing name changes would you add? And what are your favorite famous quotes and old sayings related to names or plain speaking?

Usage tip: bald-faced vs. boldfaced

No, this is definitely not a usage pair that comes up often. After all, we have cause to use bald-faced and boldfaced pretty infrequently. But since I encountered a possible mix-up recently in a book by a very well-known, bestselling fiction master, it seemed to warrant a post.

In that novel, the context is thus: A villainous character asks a lesser villain-in-the-making a question. The lesser villain doesn't tell the truth. He silently congratulates himself for the ease of his own "boldfaced lie" before his mentor.

What struck me was how much sense either bald-faced OR boldfaced could make. In the context it appeared, it's impossible not to see how these words can be confused. Their meanings are awfully similar.

bald-faced (adj) brazen and without shame
boldfaced (n) (alt "bold") a dark, heavy typeset used for emphasis; (adj) that which is printed in boldfaced type

Those meanings are universal. In addition, two of the four dictionaries I consulted list a second adjective definition for boldfaced: "impudent."

So, it would seem that the example I cite above is a case where the finest shades of meaning are at work. Truly, the author could mean "boldfaced" in that second, lesser-known sense of the term (that is, the lesser villain character answered his mentor impudently). But given that at this point in the story, the lesser character still follows his mentor around like a fawning puppy, my gut argued the meaning intended was actually bald-faced (that is, the lesser villain is already so skilled at lying that he does it boldly, without raising the suspicion of even his prevarication-practiced mentor).

The etymology of the pair is interesting. Here's a post that nicely summarizes it. (I would note that the linked article identifies the usage "bare-faced" more common and appropriate than "bald-faced." This is a difference that tends to split along British/American usage lines. In American usage, "bald-faced" is perfectly acceptable.)

Two questions to consider, readers:
1) I can't think of a time I've encountered the adjective bald-faced paired with anything other than the noun lie. But grammatically, the word doesn't seem to be limited to just one noun. What's your experience? Can anything but a lie be "bald-faced"?
2) What are other examples of words that are very close in spelling and meaning, but which, like this pair, may be interpreted to go one way or another depending strictly on context?

And, as always, feel free to add whatever other commentary or questions this little musing inspires. Comments are open!

5 editing fixes you can (and should!) give your business writing

From time to time, I hear a business owner mention wanting--but not being able--to hire an editor to fine-tune online copy, company documents, signage, etc. It's not that editors and proofreaders are hard to find, but for cash-strapped solopreneurs or new start-ups, the bottom line sometimes gets in the way.

Let's face it. As the guy in the beater glued together with gallons of Bondo knows, sometimes we just don't have the finances to get professional assistance, even if we sorely need it. That's just a reality in the world of the micro-business.

But you still have a choice. If you find yourself in the budgetless boat, don't default to poorly presented materials that will ultimately turn away potential customers. Roll up your sleeves and brush a little well-matched paint over that Bondo with a few do-it-yourself editing tips.

1) Hunt down and correct the most common usage errors.
I firmly believe that a majority of people who use commonly confused words incorrectly do know the difference. They just don't realize their fingers have typed something their brains didn't intend.

Use your word processor's "Find" feature to quickly search your materials for each of these most-common culprits. Then reread each individual use carefully, and make corrections if appropriate. (If you're not sure whether the word you chose is right, click the links to refresh your memory of the differences.)

• its/it's
• there/their/they're
• affect/effect
• accept/except
• a lot (NOT "alot")/allot

2) Minimize long text blocks; consider using lists or tables instead.
I know, it's ironic that the Queen of the Windbags (ahem...me) should promote verbal simplicity. I can get away with all kinds of long, detailed explanations when I blog about language.

But sales material is a different ball game. The window of opportunity for making a sale is small. Cut to the chase by deleting repetitious phrases, using shorter words in place of needlessly complex words, and dividing long paragraphs into smaller ones.

And look for opportunities to get rid of data-heavy paragraphs altogether. Use clean, easy-to-read tables or lists instead. Consider this example from a real website (slightly altered to create anonymity):

For domestic clients, the packaging and shipping cost on a Size 1 model toy is $7. The cost for a Size 2 is $12, and a Size 3 model toy would be $15.

Accurate and informative? Yes. But rewritten as a table, these shipping figures are much more accessible:

3) Check your spacing.
You might be thinking, Really? Why on earth does spacing rate a top-5 editing tips spot?

Because perception is reality. An extra space here or there has no bearing on your product or skills, but those little hiccups can damage the overall appearance of a document--and your credibility. Too much, or inconsistent, white space can create the appearance of missing information. Too little white space can make a reader feel overwhelmed or distracted.

Sometimes spacing glitches are obvious and easily corrected. Other times they don't show up until written material is copied into new documents with, for example, a different default font or different tab or margin settings, where they suddenly throw off the alignment of the entire page or document.

Once again, your word processor can help with this. To eliminate dozens of extra hard spacebar strikes, choose "Find and Replace." In the Find field, hit the spacebar twice. In the Replace field, hit it once. Click OK.

Now here's the key: Don't automatically turn off the Find and Replace feature once it completes the process. Carefully read  the message in the results window. If your program made any number of replacements other than 0, run the command again. Keep running it again and again until your result is 0 replacements. This ensures that you've eliminated not just those stray double-spacebars but also any of those pesky three- or four-space sequences that are sometimes inadvertently left behind after using Cut and Paste.

4) Rein in the urge to over-style.
The fact that there are thousands of fonts, colors, and text decoration styles at our fingertips doesn't obligate us to use them all.

Regardless how perfect the wording or how stellar the product, material that is presented in too many conflicting styles looks haphazard. It can also be confusing because some styles, such as larger font or boldface type, are designed to indicate importance.

Don't make your information compete with itself. When it comes to formatting style--especially for small documents--the K.I.S.S. rule applies. For any one document type, it's a good rule of thumb to limit yourself to no more than four style types. And once you decide which to use, apply them without fail.

Which leads me directly to my last point:

5) When in doubt, choose consistency.
If you read my blog (or any other English language discussion blog) with any regularity, you know there are plenty of questions that have no single, clear-cut right answer. Different authorities may use different rules.

When you turn to a dictionary or the Web to check a spelling, usage, punctuation, or other writing rule and discover you're dealing with one of those slippery examples, be bold! Make an executive decision about which method you'll adopt. Then stick to it. Use your chosen method on every company Web page, every company letter, every company business card, etc.

Here are a few examples of common variable terms. Choose which method you'll adopt for each. Apply your choices regularly, and you'll go a long way to delivering a new level of professionalism among all of your written materials.

Time elements

• a.m./p.m. (or a. m./p. m.)
  vs.
  am/pm (or a m/p m)
  vs.
  AM/PM (or A M/P M)
  

• 3:00 pm
  vs.
  3:00pm
  vs.
  15:00

Dates

• January 2, 2012
  vs.
  2 January 2012
  
• 1-2-12
  vs.
  01-02-2012

Contact details

• e-mail
  vs.
  email
  
• 1-800-555-1212
  vs.
  1.800.555.1212
  vs.
  1 800 555 1212
  
• Street
  vs.
  St.
  vs.
  St
  
• PO Box
  vs.
  P.O. Box
  vs.
  P. O. Box

Then, to help yourself make a commitment to consistency, consider creating and following a company style guide. And just what is that? The subject of an upcoming post, of course!

But for now, let's talk about the five editing tips above. What are your questions, observation, examples, or differing opinions? Discussion in Comments is open!

A new kind of double-negative?

A whole category of headlines over the past few months has fascinated me for reasons entirely unrelated to their news content. Here's one example: "Anti-war protester gets 8-month prison sentence."

My first thought when I read that and similar terms in a headline is, Wait! That's not what you mean! Consider this:

• We have tax protesters, that is, those who oppose taxation.
• We have entitlement protesters, that is, those who oppose compensating certain classes and categories in an attempt to level the economic playing field.
• We have war protesters, that is, those who oppose involvement in armed conflict.

What, then, is an "anti-war protester"? One who opposes those who are opposed to involvement in armed conflict--so, a protester against the people of the anti-war cause?

And that's why, to my ear, anti-war protester strikes as a double-negative, a term that grammatically seems to fails itself because it implies the opposite of what it means by expressing negativity twice. If you think of language in mathematical terms, a double negative would appear to support this truth:

negative x negative = positive (ex: -5 x -5 = 25)

while a single negative does the opposite:

negative x positive = negative (ex: -5 x 5 = -25)

But of course we know the mathematical argument only applies in standard English. Double-negatives are common, acceptable, colorful, and altogether quite useful in some English dialects. In phrases like "ain't got no," "don't see none," or "never ate no," the extra negative serves to emphasize, not cancel out, the sense of the phrase.

In the day-to-day scheme, though, I have to be practical. I am not a linguist whose work is to study such things. And as a mostly non-fiction focused editor, I have little if any call for working with anything other than standard English. So I'm left with the question: When I edit around a term like anti-war protester, is it acceptable, or is it something I should change because it's potentially confusing or distracting? After all, substituting the simpler war protester would avoid the problem.

Readers, chime in. Does "anti-war protester" ring standard to you, or does it sound like a kind of double-negative? What about other, perhaps more obvious, double negatives? Do you have any examples or anecdotes to share? All contributions and opinions are welcome.

Usage tip: a lot vs. "alot" vs. allot

Some commonly confused pairs are beaten to within an inch of their lives in countless reference books, classrooms, blogs, and online forums, and yet they refuse to die. The a lot vs. allot pair (not trio, as we will see) seems to be one of these. Since so many good discussions of this usage problem already exist, I haven't talked about it on Word-wise before. But...having seen in the past few days a handful more examples of the confusion, perhaps the time has come for me to throw my version of the lesson into the enormous mix.

a lot (the two-word phrase used as a single adj) an unspecified number, usually assumed to be rather large; multiple; many
Ex: There are a lot of good reasons to hire a proofreader.

allot (v) to reserve, appoint, or set aside for a particular purpose
Ex: The supervisor alloted two hours per week for Joe to do nothing but proofread.

Notice that "alot" is not in the list. That's because "alot" does not exist in standard English. And that's the main crux of the lesson: All too often, when a person means a lot, what s/he writes instead is the incorrect "alot."

Remember it this way: One of the definitions of the noun lot (without the a in front) is "group" or "set." You can have a group or a set (two separate words each), and thus you can also have a lot (two words):

We ordered a lot of mixed feed for the livestock.

But one could not order "agroup" or "aset" of feed (or anything else), and thus would not have "alot" of them, either.

Also remember that you can't add a modifier to the middle of a single standard English word*, but you CAN put a modifier between separate words. A sentence like this

We ordered a large lot of corn and a small lot of hay for the livestock.

could not exist as such if "alot" were the correct option.

What are your best tips for remembering this persistent error, readers? Please share!

*In casual English, there is a phenomenon known as "infixing" wherein an exclamatory or emphatic word or word part is inserted in a word instead of attached at beginning or end (as a prefix or affix would be). The result is humorous, colorful, or ironic. A well-worn example of this is the descriptor "fan-freaking-tastic." (Read more about infixing in one of my favorite English language-study blogs here.)