Word-wise

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

2012-01-26T12:00:00.000-05:00

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?

2012-01-10T10:28:00.001-05:00

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

2011-12-15T09:10:00.000-05:00

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

2011-11-29T10:33:00.033-05:00

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.)

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?

2011-10-25T10:31:00.000-04:00

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

2011-10-11T09:30:00.062-04:00

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.)

A Word-wise hodgepodge

2011-09-12T10:00:00.002-04:00

I have no single, unified post ready to share this week, but recently three English language items that Word-wise readers might find noteworthy have crossed my radar.

Numbers Round-up
Last year Word-wise looked at the question of whether numbers should be represented in writing with Arabic numerals (1, 12, 305, etc.) or words (fifteen, twenty-six, ten thousand, etc.). It's a complex question that took four posts to cover sufficiently.

In the final, summary numbers post, I provided several examples where mixtures of spellings and Arabic numerals were appropriate. Those were a good start, but my local newspaper ran a story last week that was chock full of similar examples. Test your memory of the rules: In the excerpt below, what is the reason each of the numbers appears in the format it does? (Hint: All numbers below are correct. Newspaper = Use the AP standard, not the Chicago.)

...Thursday's checks netted 125 traffic offenses. Thirty-five of those were for speeding - 27 in Chesapeake and eight in North Carolina; 64 tickets were issued for vehicle equipment; six were issued for driving on a suspended license; and 45 were for other violations.

Plurals and Apostrophes, Redux
And earlier this year was a series on how to correctly use apostrophes. Among the trickier apostrophe decisions is when it's necessary to add an apostrophe to a plural.

Reader Pastor Ben shared a link that nicely wraps up apostrophe usage in the form of a wry flow chart-style illustration. That link reminded me of another apostrophes/plurals cartoon that circulated among the classrooms of my fellow English teachers a few years ago. Both illustrations prove that grammar and punctuation lessons don't have to be humorless.

A Brief Look at Linguistics
Finally, reader Jerry shared a link, this one an audio interview with linguist John McWhorter. The conversation begins with a very generalized look at what makes language and a teaser overview of McWhorter's latest book. Then a wide variety of listener questions rolls in. The segment's topics range from the academic to the pedestrian: what a tonal language is; where to find other people who want to talk about language; and what kind of phrasing "makes you sound like a fop," to name a few. (Note: When you open or download the file, the time summary is a bit misleading. McWhorter's segment is only 25 minutes long, but the MP3 also contains a second, unrelated interview.)

Thank you for sharing your language-related finds!

There's a lot to think about here. Jump right in with your observations, comments, questions, or even additional link suggestions.

Usage tip: imply vs. infer

2011-09-01T22:29:00.000-04:00

It has been some time since Word-wise addressed any commonly confused words. Let's remedy that!

imply (v.) to suggest; to indirectly hint
ex: Calling Jean's fender-bender a "crash" seemed to imply what James thought about who was at fault.
infer (v.) to conclude or surmise; to pick up on a hint
ex: There's no ancillary material with the workbook; from that, the committee inferred that the program is simple to use.

While imply and infer aren't mixed up nearly as frequently as its/it's or there/their/they're, you can see where that occasional confusion comes from. They so often occur together, they are already linked in our minds. In any conversation where one person implies, another person doesn't get the whole message unless he infers. Together these verbs describe two opposite ends of a subtle subtext communication.

And so, because they are closely related, they can easily be confused. But they are not interchangeable, and they need attention when used incorrectly. In a case like this, I think the easiest way to keep the words straight when there's no dictionary handy is to think through the meanings of other words that come from them. For example, the noun form of imply is implication; the verb infer, on the other hand, becomes inference--and these derived words are far less often confused. Use them to check your use of the verbs.

That's one example of how to remember the difference, and it works for any number of other word pairs also. But this is nowhere near the only way to "check your work" even when references are unavailable. Readers, what is your favorite memory trick for keeping common usage problems like imply and infer straight? And beyond questions of usage, what other mnemonics or checking practices do you find useful for keeping your English on the straight and narrow?

Where it belongs and where it doesn't

2011-08-23T23:01:00.000-04:00

The editor of my community newspaper met all of us local freelancers for lunch a few weeks ago. It was mostly a social event, but there were a few shop-talk items to discuss. Among them was a rule of thumb the editor asked us to keep in mind when we write: Nonspecific time elements such as "lately" or "last week" are best left to the middle or end of sentences, not the very beginning.

Yes, how the parts of a sentence are arranged is just one detail that shapes a person's signature writing style. And yes, in most cases, the placement of nonessential words (assuming they are punctuated appropriately) is only a matter of preference; such phrases can correctly fall in many places without altering a sentence's meaning. From a grammar/syntax perspective, no position is strictly right or wrong.

But as my editor pointed out, in some specific contexts, one syntax can be smarter than another. And the media world--wherein expediency is second only to accuracy--is definitely one of them.

Newspapers specialize in immediacy. Phrases that don't deliver useful information slow down a sentence. Put them in the front of a sentence, and they can discourage an impatient reader from continuing. Hold off until after the meat of the sentence, though, and the risk of losing your one-minute skimming/scanning reader decreases significantly.

And since our community newspaper is published only once weekly, immediacy takes on a whole different meaning. Vague terms like "recently" and "soon" can be especially tricky with such a lag time between when they are written and when the paper gets into readers' hands. For past events in particular, the "when" of the story is just not as important as the other facts.

Readers, this newspaper example is one situation that calls for following language rules that might seem overly restrictive in other contexts. Certainly there are many others. What is your experience with language guidelines that are context- or medium-specific? All anecdotes, questions, examples, and comments are welcome!

Punctuation tip: Ellipsis vs. em dash, Part II

2011-08-11T21:45:00.001-04:00

Welcome back!

Last time, I defined the purpose of the ellipsis, that punctuation mark built of three or four periods in a row. Let's pick right up from where we left off by examining a similar but NOT identical mark, the em dash, and how the two differ.

Em dash
The em dash (—) has many uses, but generally it's only confused with the ellipsis in one scenario: when showing an interruption or other abrupt change in thought. If an interruption is the case, this usually results in an em dash at the end of the sentence or fragment.

Miss Prudence faced the chalkboard. As soon as her eyes were off us, Bobby whispered, "So I was telling Billy, I wish—"
"You wish what, Mr. Thompkins? You wish you were not failing this class?" Miss Prudence turned and directed The Look at us.

An abrupt diversion in thought is more likely to occur mid-sentence. Any tangent phrase, translation, example, or other nonessential detail can be correctly added or inserted with em dashes. In this way, em dashes are simply an alternative to commas or parentheses.

When I move to Cincinnati—assuming this job transfer happens—I will be sure to look her up!

Some perennials—chili peppers, lantanas, and snapdragons, for example—behave as annuals when grown outside their ideal climates.

Phil might be a boor, but he is the best man for the supervisory job—it's just unfortunate for the rest of us that he knows it.

As with the ellipsis, there are typographical considerations with an em dash.

1) The em dash does not exist on your keyboard. To render it correctly, hit the hyphen key twice, with no space between (--). Most word processing programs will change a double-hyphen to a proper em dash by default. Like the ellipsis, this auto-format option can be deactivated if you so choose. You may have noticed that, with the exception of the post above, I usually don't take the time to look up the code for a real em dash for this blog. The double-hyphen is just much more convenient to type.

2) If the em dash is the mark you need, do NOT render it by typing space-hyphen-space. When translated by a word processor, the result will likely be an en dash, a different mark with different uses than the em dash. (And yes, the difference between en dash and em dash will be the subject of a separate future post.)

Now it's your turn, readers. What mystifies, fascinates, or thrills you about the ellipsis and the em dash? Can you think of any examples in which using one where the other should be would result in serious (or funny) miscommunication? All ellipsis and em dash comments are welcome!

Punctuation tip: Ellipsis vs. em dash, Part I

2011-08-10T21:59:00.020-04:00

Reader Pam suggested this topic (pardon the tardiness) quite some time ago: When is the ellipsis preferable to the em dash, or vice versa?

Pam has a better reason for wondering than the average person. She is an audio transcriptionist. Her job requires that she type precisely what the voices in her files say, but punctuation is a notoriously tricky thing to "hear." Choosing the right mark requires not just careful listening but interpretation.

For those of us who are not transcriptionists, though, the question is still relevant. We make certain implications about the topics at hand when we choose one mark or the other. Is your punctuation doing what you intend it to do?

Ellipsis
The ellipsis (…) is used to show that a thought has been left incomplete. It often shows up when a person's speech wanders from one subject or association to another in a disjointed manner. It suggests a certain hesitation or uncertainty. In print, the ellipsis sometimes has the effect of encouraging the reader to mentally fill in the blank himself, essentially prodding him to make an assumption about the speaker's real meaning.

Crazy dream…driving a purple school bus down an unpaved road strewn with M&Ms…a dinosaur among the passengers…someone screaming…but I don't remember how the dream ended because the alarm woke me up.

"Yes, the person who did this is in this…" the witness trailed off and dissolved into tears.

The old woman's eyes took on a faraway look. "Oh, yes, I was there. It was 1928, and my father had just lost his job.…" She stopped speaking and smiled sadly, lost in her memory.

"I didn't…umm…didn't mean…uhh…" The boy tried to hide his bat when a furious Mr. Williams appeared at the shattered window.

Every time I hear the museum is featuring Manet, I recall my former neighbor, who was a painter…but I digress.

Those examples demonstrate some of the meanings the ellipsis implies. When you have those ideas nailed, there is something else to consider as well: how the ellipsis is rendered typographically.

1) The ellipsis exists in two forms. When an ellipsis marks both the end of a thought and the end of a (grammatically) complete sentence, it consists typographically of four periods in a row. By contrast, an ellipsis that only marks a transition between unconnected thoughts, or the end of an incomplete thought but NOT a complete sentence, consists of only three periods in a row.

2) In most cases, the Chicago Manual of Style recommends that the ellipsis appear with spaces both surrounding and within the periods ( . . . ). The AP Stylebook also prefers spaces surrounding, but not between the periods ( ... ). Note that, although I've taken the time to insert code for the examples in this particular post, I generally pay no attention to either Chicago or AP's rule when I'm in a plain-text based area such as a blog. Yep, I cheat. And I'd bet huge amounts of cold, hard cash that I'm not the only English stickler who takes the easy way out when a word processor isn't there to do the dirty work (more on that below). The fact is, the extra spaces around and/or between the periods don't seem to be that important. Readers who are not typesetters will almost never notice the difference, and the spaceless version is far quicker to type as well as less prone to typing consistency errors.

3) When you type three periods in a row, your word processing program may change them unless you've specifically told it not to. Auto-correct defaults often are set to translate three periods to that single-character version of the ellipsis I mentioned above, which conveniently has those tiny spaces around it built right in.

This is a lot to absorb in one shot, so let's stop here. Meet me here on Word-wise again tomorrow to tackle the em dash half of the question.

Commas and headaches

2011-07-26T12:30:00.001-04:00

I expect to get back to Word-wise more regularly again in the next few weeks, but for the moment I'd like to pass along a link forwarded to me several weeks ago by loyal reader Jerry: Going, Going, And Gone?: No, The Oxford Comma Is Safe ... For Now.

Despite the brushing-under of the comma issue after Oxford U's miscommunication came out, the serial comma debate is alive and well as it ever was. Two of the world's most prominent English language style guides, The AP Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, even in their most recent editions, continue to disagree on whether and when this comma is necessary. And since just about anyone who writes anything in English consults with one or the other of those manuals, it's a debate we're likely to continue tripping over for many, many more decades. (For some previous Word-wise discussion, background, and examples, try this archived article: The Serial Comma.)

But I digress. I would consider Jerry's forwarded article a must-read for anyone who does even the most casual dabbling in English study. Of course, as its headline states, the article discusses the serial comma debate. But along the way, author Linda Holmes makes a wonderful point about English rules in general. After giving a funny example of herself standing up for one language standard while pointedly ignoring another, she states

"Love of language, it turns out, is a complicated minefield of things you care about and things you don't, and one person's explosive issues are obviously no more valid than anyone else's."

What say you, readers? Where do you stand on the serial comma? More broadly, what are your personal "minefield" issues in English? And what's your take on Holmes's opinion that no single controversial or debatable English rule is "more valid than anyone else's"?

Interesting side note on capitalization

2011-07-08T01:21:00.005-04:00

I have several new posts in the works but no time to pound them out this week. But rather than leave you empty-handed, I thought I'd pass along a little language tidbit I happened upon this week.

In my last post, I mentioned that the capital letter in the center of my first name tends to confuse people who attempt to "initialize" me.

As it turns out, there's an actual name for this capitalization style: camel case.

Learn more about camel case here. Be sure to read through the comments after the article also to get a fuller conversation about possible reasons this new capitalization style is taking hold.

There's no question it's a growing convention, as we have more and more companies that, in the process of buying up or selling off, change names in unpredictable ways. Their nominal capitalization is equally unpredictable: For instance, PricewaterhouseCoopers uses the camel case convention while Time Warner Communications favors traditional spacing.

What do you think of these elastic conventions? Your opinions, impressions, and examples are welcome, readers. Jump right in!

Say it briefly: Abbreviations

2011-06-24T12:43:00.000-04:00

We English speakers have several options for condensing what we say or write into a more compact and modern form. I'm not just talking about slangy, super-relaxed text-speak, either. We might say info in place of the longer information or cop instead of the slightly dated, or perhaps just more firmly rooted in British culture than American, copper. But while cop has a slangy feel, info has become more acceptable even among button-down types.

Abbreviation is a general term that can apply to any shortened word form. This term does not specify how conciseness is achieved. Other terms go a step further. They describe a particular way of cutting down words and phrases into their smaller counterparts. These terms are not interchangeable. Here are a few types of abbreviation.

contractions
In a contraction, letters that represent sounds that have tended to fade from our informal spoken language are simply left out of the written form. An apostrophe appears in the place where those letters would have been. Contractions often come in part from modals or helping verbs.

cannot --> can't
would not --> wouldn't
should have --> should've

Portmanteaus
A portmanteau word is a type of contraction, but it's special in two ways: There is no apostrophe, and the word parts are often connected at a letter common to both original words. For example,

smoke + fog --> smog [connected at the common letter o]

initials or initialisms
The word initial means "first." Initialisms are, strictly speaking (more on that below), abbreviations made up of the first letter of each word in a phrase.

FBI ("Federal Bureau of Investigation")
IBM ("International Business Machines")
LBJ ("Lyndon Baines Johnson")

I confess, calling abbreviations made up of letters that are not at the beginning of a word "initials" bothers me irrationally because of my name. I maintain that because I have only four names (first, middle, maiden, and married), I have only four initials. But I have a capital L in the middle of my first name. For as long as I can remember, I have been correcting documents that treat that L as an extra initial--at the expense of my actual, legal initials on forms that have space for only three or four. In the face of common near-initialisms like IV ("intravenous") and DNA ("deoxyribonucleic acid"), however, mine is a futile argument.

acronyms
An acronym is an initialism (or near-initialism) with class: When spoken aloud, it is not spelled letter by letter but pronounced smoothly as though it is a single word.

AWOL ("absent without leave"): pronounced "A-wall"
NATO ("North Atlantic Treaty Organization"): pronounced "NAY-tow"

Sometimes acronyms become so ingrained in language that they become words visually by losing their capital letters. Scuba ("self-contained underwater breathing apparatus") and radar ("radio detection and ranging") are two notable examples.

Your turn, readers. What are your favorite abbreviations that have come into common and acceptable use, even in more formal settings? Are there cases when using an abbreviation causes confusion instead of efficiency? Have unfortunate pronunciations resulted from using only initials as an abbreviation? (I can recall a few of those.) Chime in!

Do you refer, or do you reference?

2011-06-14T07:10:00.002-04:00

I bought a washing machine last month. It's a shiny new model, far less noisy and more energy efficient than my old one. I'm pleased with the way it works, especially since the household laundry is now getting done without a routine leak-mopping afterward.

Yet my inner wordie has been groaning with every start of this fabulous new machine.

As with most top-loaders, the short-form instructions are printed on the inside of the lid. After Step 3 is this directive:

Always reference your owner's manual and garment care instructions for further information.

My mind jolts every time I read the sentence. Reference? Isn't that a noun? And if it can be a verb, why on Earth did the manufacturer use a long one when a short one will do? After all, the read-it-without-thinking refer to would be accessible to a wider range of consumers than the more ponderous reference. (For brevity's sake, let's not even get started on what's wrong with always in this context.)

I feel like a fuddy-duddy before my time when I react this way to language evolution. Whether I like it or not, the fact is that reference as a verb has come into common use. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see or hear it somewhere. People wouldn't use it that way if they didn't find it, well, usable. Useful.

I wondered whether my revulsion toward reference had any basis in linguistic fact, so I checked (referred to, if you will) my two favorite sources, Chicago Manual of Style and AP Stylebook. Neither makes any notation on the subject at all. I looked in a few dictionaries instead and was surprised. Clearly the English speakers of the world are divided on this one. Here is the contrast evident in just two of the most recent print dictionaries I checked:

Webster's New World Dictionary, Fourth Edition (2003): 1 entry with 5 major definitions, all nouns

but...

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (2005): 3 entries: 1 noun (4 major definitions), 1 adjective (1 definition), 1 transitive verb (2 major definitions)

But for me, the real shocker is in the etymological note Merriam-Webster gives. It indicates the first noted use of reference as noun was in 1891. Yes, that's right: Here I thought I had been witnessing language evolution before my eyes, when in fact the usage in question is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

And somehow, that leaves me with a renewed sense of wonder at the endearing oddities of our language.

So here's your head-scratcher for the week, readers: To your ear, are reference and refer to interchangeable as verbs? Do you prefer one over the other, and why? Does it run counter to the evolution of English to feel revulsion to reference and other changing usages, or is it just our reflexive protectiveness of our language? And while we're on the subject, what modern or changed usages that are considered acceptable by other English users grate on your ear? All opinions welcome!

Usage tip: extended vs. extensive and the like

2011-05-27T01:35:00.000-04:00

Thanks to reader and English teacher Ryan for this topic suggestion. It's a good one!

All adjectives are not equal. Well, you knew that already. But sometimes two adjectives appear to be interchangeable because they have the same root and have endings that clearly indicate they are both adjectives--yet they have two different correct usages. The -ed and -ive endings sometimes create this kind of look-alike confusion. Here are three examples of fine shades of difference between similar words. (Note: In all three cases, the -ed word can also be used as a verb, but those usages don't give most English users as much trouble. Therefore, I've only dealt below with the more commonly confused adjective usages.)

extended/extensive

extended: having been made longer or broader
extensive: thorough

Ex: Originally scheduled for two hours, the Wilderness Explorers' extended examination of the marsh stretched to a full day. Their extensive observation revealed half a dozen potentially new or unrecognized species.

exhausted/exhaustive

exhausted: extremely fatigued
exhaustive: absolute; complete

Ex: Already exhausted by the long international flight, we were physically unprepared upon landing to conduct an exhaustive search for our missing luggage.

adopted/adoptive*

adopted: having been legally accepted into a family other than the one to which one was born
adoptive: having legally accepted someone into one's family

Ex: The adopted child was four months old when his birth parents gave him up; his adoptive parents are the only ones he has ever known.

*Note that in many cases adopted is considered acceptable for both halves of the relationship, but adoptive is traditionally applied only to the guardian, not the child.

Certainly there are other examples of this type. Readers, use the comments section to add to the list, share hints or tips for remembering the differences, or ask questions. I look forward to your input!

Don't do what I did: An object lesson

2011-05-27T01:32:00.000-04:00

I've been of two minds about posting this little anecdote for several weeks. Frankly, it's extremely embarrassing to me. But maybe, just maybe my example will be a gentle reminder that helps someone, somewhere avoid making the same costly mistake.

I worked on an exciting new project recently. The client was someone I had known for several years, and her enthusiasm was catching. I had no doubt her product would be informative and marketable, and I was eager to be a part of it. When it arrived in my inbox, I delved in happily and spent a portion of each of six days working on the project.
At the end of the project, though, the come-down was abrupt and painful. The client sent me a series of messages about mistakes she noticed that I did not correct in the proofing process. Not just one or two little errors, either, but dozens.

Worse yet, some of these mistakes were pointed out to the client by customers who had bought the product.
There can hardly be a worse blow to a proofreader's reputation--not to mention the client's--than that.

At first I was in total disbelief, maybe even outright denial. I mean, I have such a hard time turning off the proofreader in my head that I can be hard to live with sometimes. Sure, I had been working later hours than normal during that project, but fatigue alone could not explain this huge number of uncorrected problems. I asked for details about the errors, then read and reread the client's responses, searching for anything that might make this make sense. Were they cases where there's no clear right and wrong word choice? Differences in stylebook preference? Unconventional usages? Debatable grammar? Specialized vocabulary?

In fact, they were not. When I quit examining my emails and pulled myself together enough to look again at the final document I'd sent her, I was stunned. These were rather obvious mistakes. How could I possibly have missed them?

I do not exaggerate when I say, I began to doubt my sanity. For several days, my thoughts were consumed with not just the embarrassment of the situation, but the question of what was wrong with me. It wasn't just that my pride was hurt; in particular, my mind kept coming back to one very specific error, one which was just far too familiar to ignore. I knew with not a grain of uncertainty that I had seen and corrected that mistake. And yet there it was, glaring at me in the final document. Was I actually becoming delusional?

I realized I would not be able to rest easily until I did something. It was too late to save this project and my reputation with this client. But for my own peace of mind, I had to know what went wrong. There was only one way I could think of to do that: I retrieved the original file the client had sent me, and I started proofing again from scratch. At the very least, I figured I would gain an (apparently much-needed) extensive brush-up session. And I admit, I hoped to find a bit of absolution from the guilt of messing up so badly by putting in some extra hours of sweat.

I'm still not done with the re-proofing since I can only looking at it when I'm not buried in something more immediate. But it has been worthwhile just the same because while saving one night, I scanned the list of file names, and the "what happened" light bulb finally came on.

My first reaction was relief that I was not losing my grasp of reality. There it was in black and white: I really had made those corrections, even the specific one that had been nagging me. I was not losing it. But my relief was tempered quickly with round upon round of mental repetitions of "what a stupid, stupid mistake." And I had made it right at the beginning of the project.

Most of my regular clients use .doc files, but I have Word 2007. So every time I start a job, I have to use "Save as..." to change from the default .docx to .doc when I rename an edited file. I've been doing this since I installed Word 2007; switching files to .doc is a deeply ingrained habit. This client's original file, however, was a .docx. After the first session of proofing, I saved as I always do, making it a .doc without even thinking. Then the next day, I realized that wasn't right for this job. But I also knew full well that simply changing the file type back to .docx would likely result in formatting changes, odd characters, etc. (been there before!), so I turned off my time-tracker and resigned myself to manually re-entering all the changes into a fresh copy of the file, in the right format.

Tedious? Yes. So much so, apparently, that my mind shut off to the task. And I did it badly. And I forfeited an invoice. And I screwed up a project I believed in, all while annoying a client.

Since this episode, I've wondered how else I could have fixed that initial mistake. I've been reading more about Word's ability to merge documents, but what I've found thus far is not encouraging. I had not attempted to merge the .doc and .docx files (instead of manually re-entering changes) because I've had only spotty luck with this feature in the past. Even between matching file types, it's a notoriously inconsistent operation. I still would have had to compare the document line by line to be assured they were the same--which means, I probably still would have made this drastic set of errors.

If I had only paid attention to the file type to begin with, I would have saved myself--and my client--a world of trouble.

Readers, I will NOT ask you to use today's Comments to confess your worst, most professionally damaging mistakes. I'm not going to ask a question at all. Just please, please take a lesson from what I did wrong, and check, double-check, triple-check what you're doing every time you save your work. THAT kind of proofing is priceless.

Headlines: Breaking the news, not the message

2011-04-25T23:25:00.000-04:00

Titles and headlines can drive you crazy.

If you're the person charged with creating a title or headline, the task can be onerous. Your space is limited, so you have to cut to the chase. Include the most important idea, but hold back enough so that the reader will be encouraged to read farther than just that title. Be intriguing, but don't be vague. Be accurate, but also (sometimes) be witty.

Late-night comics love headlines that don't quite say what they should. When I was in college, I came very close to sending Jay Leno a clip from our campus newspaper. A columnist had interviewed a student who, though he was blind, was involved in all sorts of diverse activities every semester. The student had the unlikely name Jack Daniels. Yep, you guessed it. The piece was titled "Jack Daniels frequently seen around campus." Oops. Not exactly the image a Protestant college wants to promote.

Writing articles is one thing, but I confess, I struggle with choosing titles or headlines once my work is complete. I wish I had a magic formula that would produce just the right words every time. But, absent such wizardry, I can at least share some tips about the surface considerations associated with titles and headlines.

What's the best way to capitalize titles?
There are two methods. Headline case capitalizes all words except prepositions and articles. Title case, on the other hand, capitalizes only the first word and proper nouns. For example,

Roosevelt High sweeps first round of state championship
vs.
Roosevelt High Sweeps First Round of State Championship

Neither method is wrong, but most media tend to choose one and use it exclusively. In long printed works, it may be the custom to use title case on major headings and headline case further down the organization hierarchy. Rule of thumb: Follow the standard that's already established.

Should numbers in titles be in Arabic numerals or spelled out?
Go with the numeral. Space is limited. So is the amount of time you have to capture a potential reader's undivided attention. Notice how much easier to read, shorter, and more eye-catching the second example is:

Seven tips for creating winning investments
vs.
7 tips for creating winning investments

Do questions make acceptable titles?
They are acceptable, but phrase them thoughtfully. Yes-or-no questions are poor invitations to read on. Also, use questions sparingly. Think about how headlines will look in a row or right next to each other. Include too many questions and the reading will come across as an interrogation.

If a title is a full sentence, what about end punctuation?
Popular wisdom says that a period is like a communications stop sign. It discourages further reading, which is exactly what a title shouldn't do. Most editors will therefore delete periods from headlines.

I admit, I look a bit askance at that rule. To my eye, a full sentence that lacks a period is just plain sloppy. So rather than add a period that could decrease the title's effectiveness, or delete a period that is already there, I prefer to condense, rearrange, or otherwise shorten the headline so it's no longer a sentence. That's more space-efficient anyway. Here's an example:

Mineral supplements manufactured by XYZ Corp. are recalled due to salmonella concerns.
vs.
Salmonella scare: Some XYZ Corp. products recalled

Your turn, readers. Do you have a favorite blooper headline? If you write titles or headlines, what tips would you offer? What other questions about headlines might we explore? The comments section is open; join in!

Usage tip: its vs. it's, Part II

2011-04-07T08:04:00.000-04:00

Ready to test your it's vs. its knowledge? Here are two quizzes.

One note before you begin: Even when you get the answer right, you'll notice some of these sentences are far from ideal. The repetition of it is so frequent as to render a few of them confusing or just plain trite. I wrote them this way to maximize practice with the words, but in actual application, some rephrasing would definitely be in order to make the worst of these sentences tolerable.

That said, grab yourself a scrap of paper and pencil, and fill each numbered set of parentheses with either it's or its. The answers appear at the end of this post.

Quiz A: Isolated sentences

(1) hard to get anything done with a broken E key.
"(2) time once again to evaluate the project’s efficiency and weigh (3) effect on our overall business plan," the manage intoned, opening the committee meeting with another of (4) usual yawn-inducing 40-slide PowerPoint presentations.
She struggled to read the letter as (5) writer had smudged (6) ink with tears.
The cat licked (7) wounded leg until it developed a bald patch.
(8) a shame to cave to three loud, whiny customers, but for the sake of (9) continued reputation of flawless service, the company must redesign this product.
(10) unusual for this climate, but in fact (11) been more than a month since the last rain.
(12) energy used up, the dog stopped chasing (13) tail, quenched (14) thirst with a long drink from the toilet, then curled up in (15) favorite sleeping spot, the open clothes dryer.
"(16) a sad when a guy has to beg to get the paycheck he earned fair and square," the worker told his boss.

Quiz B: In context

Of the four tiny creatures, one nestling was noticeably smaller and weaker than the others. (1) gentle cries for food were drowned out by the bolder squawking of (2) nestmates. Though the mother bird delivered food to each chick in turn, the stronger nestlings poked their heads forward, grabbing the food from the mother’s beak before the tiniest chick could extend (3) scrawny neck to accept it.

For ten minutes the child watched silently, tears streaming down her face.

“(4) not fair,” she whispered. “(5) just like when Sammy takes my lunch money at school.”

___________________________________________

Answers

Quiz A: Isolated sentences

It's hard to get anything done with a broken E key.
"It's time once again to evaluate the project’s efficiency and weigh its effect on our overall business plan," the manage intoned, opening the committee meeting with another of its customary yawn-inducing 40-slide PowerPoint presentation.
She struggled to read the letter as its writer had smudged its ink with tears.
The cat licked its wounded leg until it developed a bald patch.
It's a shame to cave to three loud, whiny customers, but for the sake of its continued reputation of flawless service, the company must redesign this product.
It's [it is] unusual for this climate, but in fact it's [it has] been more than a month since the last rain.
Its energy used up, the dog stopped chasing its tail, quenched its thirst with a long drink from the toilet, then curled up in its favorite sleeping spot, the open clothes dryer.
"It's a sad day when a guy has to beg to get the paycheck he earned fair and square," the worker told his boss.

Quiz B: In context

Of the four tiny creatures, one nestling was noticeably smaller and weaker than the others. Its gentle cries for food were drowned out by the bolder squawking of its nestmates. Though the mother bird delivered food to each chick in turn, the stronger nestlings poked their heads forward, grabbing the food from the mother’s beak before the tiniest chick could extend its scrawny neck to accept it.

For ten minutes the child watched silently, tears streaming down her face.

"It's not fair,” she whispered. “It's just like when Sammy takes my lunch money at school.”

__________________________________________

Have you noticed any patterns in it's vs. its usage in any of the examples above? (Hint: Recognizing the parts of speech of surrounding words can help!)

All it's vs. its questions, tips, or comments are welcome, readers!

Usage tip: its vs. it's, Part I

2011-03-31T08:34:00.000-04:00

Its vs. it's is easily one of the top five written English errors of our time. If you've read Word-wise for a while, you know its/it's confusion is a topic I've addressed before. But it has been a few years, and if my proofing experience is any indication, this usage pair merits an occasional brush-up lesson.

its: (poss. pro./poss. adj.) of or belonging to it. This form is ALWAYS used to indicate possession.
Ex: The dog chased its tail.

it's: (pro. + v.) it + is OR it + has. This form is ALWAYS a contraction. (If you're not sure, read more about contractions.)
Ex: It's [It is] a joy to see you leave, Penelope.
OR
Ex: It's [It has] been torture meeting you, Penelope.

Why is this seemingly simple error so persistent?

While its/it's misuse is sometimes caused by actual misunderstanding of the difference, it is more often a typo, a mistake that happens when fatigue creeps in at the end of a long writing session. It also slides in when a writer is typing so fast, s/he doesn't notice when that right-hand little finger reaches for an apostrophe and misses. Those slip-ups are just human error. And they are forgivable assuming they are corrected--all it takes is a couple minutes of proofing before hitting "Send" or "Print."

But I suspect there's another reason. This is an error we see so frequently that we're becoming desensitized to it. Witness enough instances of it's where its belongs, and pretty soon the mind stops noticing the problem at first glance. Repeatedly not noticing an error is only one step away from adopting it. Furthermore, sometimes people make the substitution on purpose. Think about it: Do you know someone who, by design, never uses punctuation of any kind in short, quick messages? That person just sent another its (or should that be it's?) under the radar.

Far be it from me to make excuses for lazy writing. Very, very far! I just don't think there's any point in berating those who let its/it's slide. Instead, let's do our part to stamp out the problem by refreshing our collective understanding of their differences and modeling the right usage in our own writing. And of course, feel free to point your its/it's-challenged acquaintances in the direction of this blog.

In short, just remember one tip to keep the words straight:

Other possessive pronouns (my/mine, your/yours, her/hers...) do not have apostrophes; neither, then, does its. If you see the word with one, it must be a contraction, not a simple possessive.

Tune in next week for a little hands-on (keyboards-on?) its/it's practice.

In the meantime, what's your take on its/it's, readers? Share your questions, theories, anecdotes, or tips in the comments section.

Subject-verb agreement error--or is it?

2011-03-17T08:30:00.002-04:00

Sometimes branding practices can make for strange grammar. This photo shows a perfect example. Take a look at the snack box pictured here.

No, you didn't read it wrong. The brand name ends in s and appears to be plural, yet the verb to have is conjugated has, the form that matches a singular usage. It might make grammar-aware readers stop and think, "Shouldn't that say "Blocked-outs Have...?"

Believe it or not, this example is not technically incorrect.

When a word or phrase is trademarked, it is essentially untouchable. In print, it must exist in the form that its owner approved during the trademarking process. If, as in this case, the trademarked name happens to be plural, it is not up to any of us to remove that s on the end when it is used in circumstances that call for a singular.

Avoiding apparent (but not actual) subject-verb agreement hiccups like this is a reason you might sometimes see a product referred to as "XYZ brand crackers" instead of just "XYZ." Because the word crackers is not trademarked, it can be manipulated in all the ordinary ways, including changing its number.

And it's a good thing we have that option. After all, in English, how do you create a plural? You add s at the end, right? Well, sometimes, but there are an awful lot of exceptions like children, alumni, and men.

Who's to say what would constitute a plural of a brand name? My dad once had a colleague who jokingly asked, "How do you make Kleenex two? Kleenices?" He had a point. After all, index, when multiplied, becomes indices.

Don't forget, too, that a trademark is a little bit like a copyright. In theory, anyone who misuses a trademark can be sued. It usually takes egregious misuse for an owner to bother with that, but it's a risk nonetheless.

Let's not go there, pleads The Associated Press Stylebook: "In general, use a generic equivalent unless the trademark name is essential to the story." The Chicago Manual of Style agrees: "...substitute a generic term when available."

If you're having a hard time identifying an appropriate "generic equivalent," the International Trademark Association offers a listing describing 3000 of the world's most-used trademarks. Many dictionaries will also have entries for very common brands; a simple definition may work instead.

What are you impressions, stories, questions, and observations about trademarks or brand names? Join in using the comments section!

What savings! (in words, that is)

2011-03-10T07:56:00.002-05:00

I confess, I am a coupon clipper. But forgive me putting away my scissors when I'm confronted with a deal like the one at left.

No company that takes itself seriously offers a slightly-more-than-one-third-of-a-cent discount on purpose. Clearly this coupon was a victim of bad editing. I think I have an idea of what went wrong. Whoever set this up forgot to go back and take out the decimal point once s/he figured out how to insert the ¢.

This (very) little example got me thinking about a larger editing problem: redundancy. That is, the decimal point and the cents symbol say the same thing.

Fortunately, in most non-numbers cases, being redundant doesn't change meaning as it does in the coupon example. But it is still a problem that a good editor should work to eliminate. Minor redundancy can be vaguely annoying, but written material loaded with repetitious phrases is just plain hard to endure. Here are a few common examples of redundancy that can be cut down with very little effort.

reason/why/because
All three words indicate the same relationship, so choose just one per sentence.

The reason why I was late was because of a 15-car accident on the freeway.
vs.
I was late because of 15-car accident on the freeway.

Both sentences state the same fact, but those extra words make the first one sound like hedging. It's a clear case of "less is more."

whether/or not
Or not is implied as soon as a whether proposition hits the page. Leave it out to save a few keystrokes without changing the message.

Melody's acceptance of the promotion will depend on whether or not it requires a move to Detroit.
vs.
Melody's acceptance of the promotion will depend on whether it requires a move to Detroit.

using pronouns too sparingly
In cases in which whole phrases are the subjects (assuming the players have already been introduced and specified by their full names or descriptions), pronouns are far preferable to repetition.

...The female fox attacked the male dog, leaving multiple puncture wounds on the male dog's legs and neck. The male dog's wounds would require six weeks of treatment before the male dog could be adopted out. Dr. Hans Hundmann wrote a thesis describing Dr. Hundmann's innovative treatment method. Dr. Hundmann won the respect of veterinary peers internationally.
vs.
...She attacked him, leaving multiple puncture wounds on his legs and neck. His wounds would require six weeks of treatment before he could be adopted out. Dr. Hans Hundmann wrote a thesis describing his innovative treatment method. He won the respect of veterinary peers internationally.

Painful? Yes, that example is extreme, but believe it or not, I've seen writing that was similarly overburdened. Just because pronouns are simpler, does not meant they're wrong. By all means, use them.

Readers, what's your best (or worst) example of redundant phrasing? Have you seen a tiny misprint that vastly changed the intended message? Share any and all related anecdotes in the comments section.

Requests? Bring 'em on!

2011-02-22T22:32:00.000-05:00

Word-wise will return in two weeks with the first of a short series of posts using real examples of common--or uncommon and just plain funny--errors. This is very much a departure from the norm, but I hope it will be both instructive and entertaining. I will also be posting a few new usage/word confusion tips in the coming weeks as well as revisit some oldies-but-goodies that come up again and again. Stay tuned!

After those posts, I'm not quite sure. I have lots of ideas, but between its former ezine format and the current blog, Word-wise has been around for almost five years. The readership has changed a lot in that time: For example, when I checked my stats last week, I found that a significant portion of my traffic now comes from readers in Netherlands and Russia.

No matter where you are, I want to Word-wise to meet your expectations. You are cordially invited to send your topic requests. What English language, writing, grammar, punctuation, or editing questions would you like to see addressed--or addressed again--on this blog?

Post your questions or requests in the Comments section below, or, if you prefer, contact me by email or phone. I will do my best to answer every question in a future post. Bring 'em on!

The befuddling quotation mark, Part IV

2011-02-15T07:30:00.001-05:00

Several months ago, I received a summons for jury duty. Not only did it bear my locality's seal and messages from several people with official-sounding titles, but the summons was hand-delivered to my front door by a sheriff's deputy. Clearly jury duty is meant to be taken seriously around here.

But all that formality was turned humorous by the erroneous use of quotation marks. This picture shows the door-knocker bag in which my summons was enclosed. Note how the very first word is printed on it. The question practically begs to be asked: Are these documents important or not?

There are several accepted reasons to use quotation marks:

to indicate verbatim phrasing (i.e., these exact words)
The witness looked directly at the judge and said, "I saw the defendant verbally abuse Ms. Hughes on a daily basis. That's no exaggeration."
to suggest irony or humor by implying a questionable accuracy to the words they surround
Tony introduced us to his new "secretary," a curvy redhead whose perfectly manicured hands had never touched a file cabinet.
to indicate the title of a creative work
The grad student won top honors for her thesis examining symbolism in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner."

Notice that emphasis is mentioned nowhere on that list. If simply choosing the right words doesn't lend the desired emphasis, key ideas are properly highlighted with bold or italic type. In the case of the door-knocker bag, a somewhat larger font size would have emphasized the word Important nicely. Instead, the quotation marks turned jury duty into a joke.

Unfortunately, you don't have to look very far to find quotation marks misused in exactly this manner. There's even an entire blog dedicated to exposing examples of quotation mark abuse.

One more comment about quotation marks in general: If you read or write in a language other than English, what we've covered here is just the beginning. Quotation marks are even more complex when they undergo translation! Thanks to my cousin and fellow Wordie, ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher Ryan Sitzman, for sharing this eye-opening link: Angular Quotation Marks.

Back to you, readers. Do you have questions, observations, or even a theory about the excessive quotation-mark phenomenon? What are some examples of an extra set of quotation marks that changed, confused, or reversed a message? And if you have any remaining questions about quotation marks, please do post them here.

The befuddling quotation mark, Part III

2011-02-08T07:30:00.003-05:00

Thanks to Pastor Ben for asking, in response to last week's post, some important questions about how quotation marks should be used with titles. This subject merits a whole separate post. Here goes!

Many English rules can be clarified by consulting a style manual. But some rules are not cut and dried because not everyone uses the same manual. And one area in which these manuals differ is--you guessed it--using quotation marks for distinguishing titles.

Let's take a look at how The Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, the two stylebooks you'll most often see used in American English, treat titles. AP states

Use quotation marks to highlight "...book titles, computer game titles, movie titles, opera titles, play titles, poem titles, song titles, television program titles, and the titles of lectures, speeches and works of art"

BUT

do not use quotation marks for "the Bible and books that are primarily catalogs of reference material. In addition to catalogs, this category includes almanacs, directories, dictionaries, encyclopedias, gazetteers, handbooks and similar publications."

The AP manual also notes that italic type is not used at all because "type face cannot be sent through AP computers." Contrast that to Chicago's standard:

"When quoted in text or listed in a bibliography, titles of books, journals, plays, and other freestanding works are italicized; titles of articles, chapters, and other shorter works are set in roman and enclosed in quotation marks."

So, to address Ben's questions directly,

Q: For titles of books/plays/music, etc., my understanding was that quotation marks took the place of italics. Is this still true?
A: Yes, if you adhere to AP standards. For Chicago standards, quotation marks and italics are used for different kinds of titles. Freestanding works require italics while very short works, or works that are components of something larger, require quotation marks. For example, a play (or script) is a freestanding work, but a single musical number from that play is a component. Thus,
In this critic's opinion, Christopher Plummer's delivery of "Edelweiss" comprises the single most moving scene in the 1965 production of The Sound of Music.
Q: When I am able to use italic font, do titular quotation marks go away?
A: In short, no.
The long answer: In AP circles, italic font does not exist; for Chicago devotees, italics and quotation marks are not equal and therefore not interchangeable.

Clear as mud, right? That's in part because many of us handle materials that are written to BOTH standards on a daily basis. You may start your morning reading a newspaper (either print or online) which follows AP's rules, and later you wind down your evening reading a novel edited to Chicago standards. In between, you read closely, refer to, or unconsciously take in information from a dozen or more other sources as well, likely seeing both standards repeatedly. Because we have numerous exposures to both styles, they both look--and in their own arenas, both are--correct.

Naturally, readers, one of your questions now is whether Chicago's or AP's standards are the ones you should be following in your own field. This is a frequent question among my clients and associates, and I promise I will address the subject some time this spring. For the moment, my advice is to be consistent. Choose either the AP or the Chicago rule, then adhere to it without fail, and no instance of it will look out of place.

The Comments section is open. All quotation mark-related questions, stories, discussion, and even expressions of frustration are welcome!

The befuddling quotation mark, Part II

2011-02-01T10:12:00.004-05:00

In my last post, I promised to address when and whether to use the double or single quotation mark. As with quotation marks in general, the double-vs.-single question can't be answered without first addressing two other questions.

Is the writing in American or British dialect?
The American standard is the double-quote (") while British writers and publishers often default to the single-quote (').

American: I recognize that song. It's "Opus 125" from Beethoven's Symphony in D minor.
British: I recognize that song. It's 'Opus 125' from Beethoven's Symphony in D minor.

Is only one thing being quoted, or are there quotes within quotes?
When quoted material is used within a larger quote, the separate quotations are distinguished by differing quotation marks.

American
The outermost quotation is signaled with double quotes while a quote that falls within it is enclosed with single quotes.
"The boss told Melvin to 'shape up or ship out,' but she didn't give him any clue what he'd done wrong," Jane whispered to me at the water cooler.
In instances where three or more quotes fall concentrically within each other, the alternating double-single pattern is repeated as often as necessary.
"Jane just said to the new girl at the water cooler, 'The boss told Herman to "shape up or ship out," but she didn't give him any clue what he'd done wrong.' That Jane is poisoning the new girl with gossip already!" Marie complained to Ozzie.
British
The procedure for marking concentric quotes is the same as the American version except that it begins with the single-quote:
'Jane just said to the new girl at the water cooler, "The boss told Herman to 'shape up or ship out', but she didn't give him any clue what he'd done wrong." That Jane is poisoning the new girl with gossip already!' Marie complained to Ozzie.

Confused? Don't be. It's not often you'll find it absolutely necessary to use more than one set of inner marks. When they would be required, it will often prove clearer to rephrase the sentence than to laboriously plot out which type of mark belongs where.

~~Next week~~ In two weeks, I'll address a common misuse of quotation marks that can lead to unintentionally funny interpretations. But for now, it's your turn, readers. Tell your quotation mark war stories. Do you have a simple memory trick that for remembering how to use quotes correctly? Any and all quotation mark discussion is welcome!

The befuddling quotation mark, Part I

2011-01-25T09:00:00.005-05:00

The subject of this post is one I've meant to approach for a long, long time but kept shuffling aside in favor of addressing something else first. Reader Lezly brought it to my attention again about a year ago when she asked whether quotation marks should fall inside or outside other marks of punctuation. Finally, Lezly, this one's for you!

The short answer is "It depends." The long answer begins with two other questions:

1) Which English style is being used?
The rules for using quotation marks are not the same in the two biggest English dialects, British and American. My natural default on any rule is the American preference. But don't misunderstand me. The American standard is not necessarily "better"; it's simply the one that is consistent and appropriate in most cases given the material I work with. If you're writing for an audience that defaults to the British standard, be aware adjustments are in order.

The first difference is that in American English, the double-quote (") is the primary quotation mark used. In British English, the single-quote (') is usually considered primary. (Note: I will address when to use both single- and double-quotes in a separate post.)

American: A new recording of "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing"

British: A new recording of 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing'

2) What other type of punctuation is being used with the quotation mark?
Periods, commas, semicolons, colons, question marks, and exclamation points are not necessarily treated the same when used with quotation marks.

American
1) Commas and periods fall INSIDE quotation marks.
Although I watched "Wheel of Fortune," I did not catch the winner's name.
I took Marian's advice and "looked before I leapt."
2) Semicolons and colons fall OUTSIDE quotation marks.
Melinda and Phil read "Tuesdays with Morrie"; Summer, Joseph, and Melissa tackled "War and Peace."
3) Question marks and exclamation points fall INSIDE quotation marks when they are part of the quoted material; they fall OUTSIDE when the surrounding statement is a question or exclamation.
Tom asked, "Is this consultant's recommendation the only reason we are downsizing?"
BUT
Good gracious, this consultant recommends we downsize "by at least half"!
British
As summed up in The Chicago Manual of Style, the British system holds that "only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks." Therefore,
'That man ran the red light', Donna told the traffic cop.
Darryl asserted that he would 'never trust a mid-level manager again'.
There are three ways to address 'How to conduct a job search': the easy way, the hard way, and the right way.
BUT
Herman asserted that the best movie ever made is 'Is Paris Burning?'

More on quotation marks next week! But for the moment, readers, please use the Comments section to post quotation mark examples that have made you stop and think. And do let me know if you'd like to see further clarification, specific cases, or a quiz on the above rules. I'll try to include as many reader-requested subjects in this series as I can.

In the news

2011-01-21T11:16:00.001-05:00

Since I'm no longer spending loads of time fielding misdirected phone calls, I've been working on a couple of series of posts that will be both informative (questions and rules regarding quotation marks) and entertaining (language goofs gone public). Those posts will begin appearing next week. In the meantime, two things have come up in the news in the past few weeks that seem to be appropriate for discussion with you, my fellow Wordies.

Linguists vote 'app' Word of the Year by Joe Mandak, AP (Jan. 7, 2011)

The article notes that a number of its "short-list" terms were tech-related, as they have been for the past dozen years. That's no surprise. Computer technology has found its way into just about every aspect of American life. Political or current events-related terms are also popular choices from year to year.

The article above reports on the Word of the Year as selected by the Linguistic Society of America. Other notable, as well as infamous, groups and organizations also do Word of the Year selections. Here are a few of their lists. I find their similarities as interesting as their differences.
from The Oxford University Press
from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (This list was determined not by a committee or vote but by how many people searched the terms in 2010.)
from Urban Dictionary (Decided slangy in comparison with the academic lists above)

Municipal math: City counts its services, gives each a score by Dave Forster, Virginian-Pilot (Jan. 16, 2011)
I appreciate that budgets are not unlimited and in crunch times, it's necessary to find places to cut. Ratings such as these can be helpful in getting conversation about how to do that going. But I would argue that on this rating scale, the city's public libraries should receive an additional point. Although they do not earn a point for directly "providing economic benefit," they do have a strong potential to prevent economic loss. Every resume updated, job found, career-related class taken, or business started with the help of library resources is a testament to that economic value.

And although I can't conjure up yet another extra point for this, I would further argue that an informed public is a more upwardly-mobile one. Reading is probably the best way to combat ignorance.

Chime in with your thoughts and impressions on both news items, readers. Differing opinions are welcome!

The cost of failing to proofread

2010-12-02T08:55:00.001-05:00

For the past several weeks, I have been paying for someone else's proofreading--or rather, lack of proofreading--mistake.

A major health insurance provider sent out a letter to hundreds of Medicare Part D Supplemental customers with a "please call" message. Right in the center of the letter, in large bold print, is my phone number instead of theirs.

When I got the first phone call, it sounded like just another case of the caller misdialing. When the second, third, and fourth call followed, it became crystal clear that someone somewhere had made a tiny error with enormous implications. So far, I've received calls from Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Washington D.C., Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and Arizona.

Of course, I contacted the insurance provider and reported the mistake, but the damage is already done. Until all of the insurance customers receive the correction letter, I will continue to get calls not intended for me.

The first few calls were funny, but it didn't take long before I started to worry. This is more than just an annoyance. It has the potential to be very expensive. I have a toll-free number. Every time someone calls me, I get charged. The longer the caller stays on the line, the more it costs.

I have managed to minimize the cost by changing my voice mail message. It now begins with a message to XYZ Insurance customers, giving the correct phone number and asking them to hang up immediately. This way, I only get charged for each individual dial-in, not voice mails as well. Unfortunately, not all people have honored my plea not to leave a message if it's about XYZ Insurance, doubling or tripling my bill for that individual call.

The cost of this kind of mistake is more than dollars and cents. I don't have a lot of work hours per week available. Every minute counts. Answering phone calls that are not for me adds up to lost productivity. It also is a complete waste of time for the customers caught in the middle. But perhaps the biggest cost is in embarrassment for the company who made the mistake. I won't name the company, but I assure you you've heard of this health-care giant.

And that's what really is so inexcusable about the error. It was only a single phone number misprinted, but I can't imagine how such an error could have happened in a company of this size. Surely there's someone among all that staff--maybe even more than one person--whose job is to proofread written communications. I'm a microbusiness, and I would be ashamed to have made that mistake. I imagine a nationwide giant with a long-standing reputation to protect (not to mention the bucks to pay for quality editing) would be nothing short of humiliated.

Readers, when have you seen bad proofreading come home to roost? Do you know of instances in which less than accurate editing resulted in negative consequences? Share your examples in the Comments section, and maybe we'll all learn something from others' mistakes. (Note: Please use general descriptions rather than identifying by name the companies or individuals who made the mistakes.)

And now for some NaNo boasting

2010-12-02T08:51:00.000-05:00

November is over, and so is the insanity of National Novel Writing Month, or NaNoWriMo for short. I participated in the annual contest again this year, and I'm pleased to report that I crossed the finish line more than a full day early.

NaNo isn't likely to produce good writing, and I admit the so-called novel I produced this month is pretty rough in its best sections, completely ridiculous in its worst. And I'm fairly certain that other than finishing the telling of the story (which I did not manage to accomplish in only 50,000 words), I probably won't bother to go back to it and fix everything that's wrong. At this point, the book is what it is.

So why bother? Why drive myself crazy for a full month--one of the busiest and wackiest months of the year, to boot--in order to "win" a contest that pays off in nothing more than bragging rights and a few extra bags under the eyes from all the late nights of typing?

Because it's such great mental exercise and a whole lot of fun. The entire remainder of the year, I work on other people's writing. Whether I'm writing a freelance news article, editing promotional material written by an entrepreneur, fine-tuning the language on someone's Web site, or ghosting from the ground up, there are always a few restrictions when you write or edit for someone else. What's more, I almost never have the opportunity to work with fiction. NaNo is a chance to explore the world of creative writing, to work within the usual bounds or experiment if I want to.

It's also a chance to be part of something bigger. I'm not the only one writing during NaNoWriMo; there's a worldwide community of people sharing the experience, frustrations and rewards alike.

Readers, what about you? When and what do you write for fun? And beyond writing, under what circumstances do YOUR "work" activities become fun ones?

Search engines: A good reason for bad word choice

2010-11-22T08:43:00.001-05:00

In my last post, I stated that many people either don't realize healthful is a word at all, or they mistakenly believe it to be equal to the word healthy and use the two interchangeably.

There are countless commonly-confused word pairs out there that have a similar story. That's why the world needs proofreading. But in some cases--depending on the particular usage pair and where the writing in question will be used--it's better not to correct when the wrong word is used.

We live in the age of search engines. If Joe Schmoe goes to Google to look up practices that will contribute to his overall wellness, he is more likely use the word healthy in his search than the word healthful. Joe is not likely to think about the fact that's not the precise meaning he intends; he will type the more common word, the one most people would choose.

This is something I keep in mind when I edit the writing done by my holistic health practitioner client. She markets herself online via health articles, and her marketing success depends on these articles being informative and helpful but also search-engine friendly. If this client were to use the word healthy where healthful is really the more accurate choice, and I corrected it, I would run the risk of eliminating her articles from Joe's search engine results.This is definitely NOT what a person is looking to accomplish by hiring an editor!

And so, we arrive at a larger lesson, one I've brought up before. There are times when it's not wise to edit with too hard a nose. This seems to be true even more often of Web material than in print. The Web reaches a larger audience than printed material does, and that audience includes people from all walks of life. Not all of them will use the absolutely right word all the time. Insisting that they do does not create more literate readers, but it often creates alienation.

Search engine considerations are not the only reason not to overedit. Readers, chime in. What situations have you encountered in which the correct word was not the best one to apply?

Usage tip: healthful vs. healthy

2010-11-16T07:39:00.000-05:00

Are you surprised that the word healthful even exists? If so, don't beat yourself up. Plenty of people don't know that.

healthful (adj.) that which contributes to or bestows good health
healthy (adj.) that which enjoys good health

People, plants, fungi, alligators--in short, all living things--can be healthy. That is, they can be in favorable physical and biological condition, free of illness, malnutrition, or disability.

Yoga, on the other hand, is not healthy. Eating leafy green vegetables is not healthy. Having access to water is not healthy. For plants, Miracle-Gro is not healthy. For hamsters, running on an exercise wheel is not healthy. What these things actually are is healthful; that is, they have a hand in creating well-being for some living thing or another. See the difference?

Test your understanding by completing each practice sentence with either healthful or healthy.

Dr. Herriot examined the stray cat and proclaimed it "a --, perfectly adoptable animal."
After switching from martinis and crumpets to more -- lunchtime fare, Lisa found it simple to stay awake during staff meetings.
"Well, you've got a -- crop of of mildew eating away at this wall," the moisture specialist said.
The brochure began, "It's not selfish to take time to establish sound exercise and nutrition habits. It's --."
Whole wheat flour is more -- than refined flour because its nutrition isn't removed before it's processed.

Answers:
1. healthy; 2. healthful; 3. healthy; 4. healthful; 5. healthful

Expect more to hear about healthful/healthy again later this week when I address when NOT to choose the correct one. (No, that's not a misprint!) In the meantime, Readers, chime in below with your comments, questions, and observations about this commonly-confused pair.

Word-wise potpourri

2010-10-20T16:01:00.000-04:00

I've been back at work for more than three weeks, but with more pressing deadlines to take care of, Word-wise has been on the back burner. I expect new posts here to be rather slim for a while yet.

That said, even if I didn't have the time to address it in a post, plenty worthy of mention here has crossed my radar in the past few weeks. It's time to throw a few of those items out to you.

National Punctuation Day was September 24. Wrong punctuation, especially when it's all too prevalent in a piece of writing, annoys me. But I don't see the occasional extra comma or misplaced colon as reason to blow a blood vessel in righteous anger. Rather than bash those who happen to be punctuation-impaired--which is what some peevologists are inspired to do on this "holiday"--I prefer straight-up instruction. Better yet is the playful approach. Here's an example of such Punctuation Day fun from the op-ed page of my local newspaper, The Virginian-Pilot: Its - er, it's a grammarganza! It's worth a read!
September--the entire month--is also Be Kind to Writers and Editors Month. I'm not sure how to go about celebrating such a thing, or even why I should. I guess I'll leave it at "Yay, harmless and worthy of kindness Us!"
Think a single missing word is the kind of editing error that doesn't matter? The following headline appeared this week on my local Freecycle network's listing forum: "offer: 2 boxes of misc. kids." It's anyone's guess what word ought to have appeared after the (also missing) apostrophe. I assume, anyway, that actual children (or goats) were not really up for grabs.

Back to you, readers! Any and all commentary related to any or all of these bits is welcome.

Guest post: Myriad things

2010-09-26T16:49:00.000-04:00

Myriad Things by Mary H. Ruth

Among the multiple abuses of the English language in various publications that daily shiver the nerves of every educated reader, one of the saddest testimonies to our loss of poetry is evident in the havoc people play with myriad things.

It's a lovely sounding word. Myriad. Strikes a chord, like music, which is probably why it's so liberally sprinkled around, and also so often insensitively applied.

There are myriad stars, because we can't count them all. Please note that there are not a myriad of stars. Although the latter is technically not incorrect, please consider the loss of poetry that results from that ugly 'of' wedged in-between the awesome uncountable number and the marvelous thing that defies counting. Myriad stars. A thing in itself.

The designation of myriad denotes wonder, the mystery of the unknown, an unfathomable amount. Very few phenomena should be described as myriad. Butterflies, fish, evils of the world, sparkles in fireworks: such things may be myriad. Tasks you must perform this morning, members of your family, paintings in a gallery, kinds of doughnuts: such as these should not be characterized as myriad for any reason. Krispy Kreme offers hundreds of doughnut types, or a vast array of them, or every-kind-of-doughnut-you-can-think-of; it does not, however, produce myriad doughnuts. The two words exist on entirely different planes.

Myriad has company in its miserable misuse, for we also commonly abuse the force and poetry of the word 'plethora.' Both words suggest huge numbers, but they are opposites in that 'myriad' has positive connotations and 'plethora' has negative ones.

Plethora implies superfluity and waste. It is the grasshopper blight. It's too much of something, resulting in crisis. So it should be used to describe only items you wish to be recognized as exceedingly negative. There may be a plethora of crime or a plethora of threats to those at-risk; but you'd be unwise to refer to a plethora of new styles or products, or a plethora of benefits for your clientele.

Unlike myriad, 'plethora' is followed by 'of:' a plethora of damaging storms, a plethora of enemy attacks. Listen to the contrasting sounds of the words 'plethora of' and 'myriad.' Out loud, the former sounds like a pest, the latter like a miracle.

The poetics of language are myriad; let us not defeat their beauty with a plethora of careless writers.

Mary H. Ruth is a virtual assistant and certified social media marketing specialist. She has over 30 years' experience in administration and marketing in both non-profit and business sectors, having earned a degree in English Literature from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1975. A resident of Snow Camp, NC, she's been working online since 2007. Please visit her websites: http://writingVA.com and http://inboundmarketingassistant.com.

Guest post: What does 'literature' mean?

2010-09-24T13:53:00.000-04:00

Guest post: What does 'Literature' Mean? by Diana Thurbon

Lately I have become more and more aware of a perceived line between commercial/genre/pop/whatever you want to call it and "literature." Until now, I have always been more inclined to look at fiction as bad, good, and better; than to draw a distinction between "pop" and "literary." So, intrigued by this I have been searching--Google of course, plus a little help from books and my memory.

As best as I can tell, somewhere between the 1950's and the 1970's the term literary fiction came into common use. There is some suggestion that University funding may have had something to do with this. The push may have been to make fiction more "worthy."

Looking through the Internet and even in a couple of books I have found numerous explanations of the differences between these 'two forms' of writing (Genre/Lit)and I've been swayed back and forth between these definitions. One definition which seems popular has to do with the amount of scene versus exposition and vice versa. I agree that all scene and no exposition is awful. In fact I just threw a novel in the bin that was just that. I struggled through 2 chapters. Unreadable! Likewise fiction that is all exposition puts me to sleep. I would suggest that these 2 extremes of story telling are just bad writing.

I think it boils down to something like this--

I have a story to tell. I can just tell the nuts and bolts--what happened to who and when.

Or I can tell more about the characters it happened to--maybe include some interesting personal quirks--perhaps tell you about a person you may really come to care about.

Then, I could describe where it happened. I could make the place come alive with the smell of blood, or stale beer, or roses. I can describe the pub or the house or the snow gently falling on the mountain; so that you can really imagine the where, of the story.

I could talk about the way people felt when my story happened.

I could even use a clever metaphor, or remind you something similar happened to Puck.

The thing is--where, at what point, did the writing move from bad to good? Or where did it move from Pop to Lit? Interesting isn't it?

Once upon a time (long long ago) the writer did not decide either in advance, or even after a story was written, that it was literature. That was left for the critics and readers and usually time to decide--eg Dickens, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Bronte, Hardy, etc.

Then came the 60s--70s and people decided they would write 'literature' for the kudos--mainly, if not exclusively, academic university types. There was funding money and prizes like the Booker--now instead of good, bad and average writers, we had people deciding, in advance, that they were going to write 'literature.' Of course they studied what most people considered to be great literature--distilled the essences and tried to write in that manner.

The result has been some good writing and some simply appalling writing. But these university types were pretty happy with their version of literature.

The water gets muddy though, because real people still decide for themselves what is literature and what is not. Now we have a situation where there are as many definitions of literature as there are ways to make a stew. There will always be people who want to write 'literature' and who have the kind of education which encourages them to believe they can.

I think though, the majority of writers want to be published and want to write as well as they are able and if time and critics hail them as great literary writers that is a big plus, but mostly they want to tell a good story well.

A story, even a mystery or romance that has depth and some subtlety, will do much better than a story without this.

Writing has always been part of who Diana Thurbon is. Diana is post-60, with grown-up children and some grown and almost grown grandchildren. She lives in the 'burbs of Keysborough, Australia, with her flying instructor/pilot/writer husband, her cocker spaniel, Anakin, and her two hens. Diana practices as a medical herbalist/naturopath and teaches meditation, and lately she has been very involved with Soi Dog, an animal rescue organization based in Thailand.

Usage tip: farther vs. further

2010-09-16T17:39:00.000-04:00

Farther vs. further: They sound so alike that when spoken, you might not even notice the difference. But in the written form, a usage error may be a bit more obvious--and permanent--so it's worth knowing which is which.

Both words indicate distance. They represent varying types of distance, however. Farther is used with literal distances, actual physical spaces that may be measured.

Shelly's commute to her new job is 15 miles farther than her previous commute, but the added benefits make it worthwhile.

Further, on the other hand, tells of figurative distance. When things are said to be apart but their separateness is not measurable, as in, for example, philosophy, opinion, or degrees of emotion, further is the correct word to use.

"Your political views could not be further from mine," Rob said coldly to Janice.

Paying attention to the spelling of the words can help you determine which to use. Farther begins with the measurement-oriented word "far." In a nonliteral sense, further also begins with a clue: "Fur" is a fuzzy material; things that are said to be "further" might also be said to have "fuzzy" (that is, nonspecific) measurements.

Try your hand at distinguishing whether farther or further is the correct word for each sentence.

There have been so many contractor delays on the Rodman project that we're now -- from done than we were last week.
Though she's doing well physically, Stella has much -- to go psychologically before she will be fully recovered from the accident.
"The -- the divide between your clients' motivations, the harder it will be to mediate this decision fairly," the judge reminded the attorneys as the trial entered its ninth week.
The time required for the conference is longer now that it has been moved to a -- venue.
"How much -- till we get to Grandma's?" the child repeated while kicking the back of his father's seat.

Answers:
1) further; 2) further; 3) further; 4) farther; 5) farther

Guest post: A noun like Alice

2010-09-01T18:21:00.000-04:00

A Noun like Alice by Jax

AN ELDERLY LADY AND HER MIDDLEAGED DAUGHTER ARE HAVING COFFEE.

DORA: But I don't want to hurt Alice's feelings, dear.
SARAH: Mum--
DORA Well, you know what Alice is like--and she says her talent is a gift from God.
SARAH: (Laughs) He's been a bit stingy then.
DORA: Her publisher said she's got creative genius.
SARAH: And he's not just saying that because she's paying him, of course.
DORA: She just doesn't see it, though.
SARAH: Surely deep down inside she must suspect--
DORA: Actually, she thinks William rather fancies her.
SARAH: (Laughs) He fancies her money, that's all!
DORA: I had hoped her first book, 'Poetry and Prose to Feed the Senses' would be a one-off, and I bought a copy.
SARAH: But it wasn't a one-off, was it? Seven books later, and there's no sign of Alice stopping.
DORA: Yes, that's the problem. I've kept humouring her and buying a copy, hoping it'll be the last--but it never is.
SARAH: Sorry, Mum, but as long as idiots like you will keep on buying her 'efforts', she'll keep on churning books out.
DORA: I know.
SARAH: Have you tried sitting her down over a coffee and telling her tactfully--
DORA: Didn't you try that when she brought out Book Number Four, dear?
SARAH: Yes, well, I had a lot on my mind. Tony was being bullied at school and--
DORA: And you ended up buying copies of all her books, including her latest.
SARAH: Okay, it isn't easy, I know.
DORA: Alice believes she is doing the world a great service by giving it her stories and poems.
SARAH: But the truth is, her friends and associates just sigh, and stump up their cash for rubbish they don't want. I bet the charity shops are full of her books.
DORA: Yes, that's it in a nutshell, dear. I really can't afford to keep buying one of Alice's books every few months--and, yes, I do give them straight to the PDSA shop.
SARAH: This self publishing can't be cheap, either. She must be made of money!
DORA: She pays £900 per title, which is cheap, she tells me.
SARAH: Her Bert would be spinning in his grave if he knew how she's wasting his nest egg.
DORA: Yes, that makes me feel all the more guilty--
SARAH: Guilty?
DORA: I know how hard Burt worked and how they scrimped and saved. I keep telling myself I won't buy the next book she brings out. I've tried ignoring Alice's hints, but she looks so hurt and I feel like I'm letting her down, and not being a good friend to her.
SARAH: It's sheer emotional blackmail!
DORA: I know, but she was so good to me when Dad died, dear. You were away at Uni and I really don't know how I would have coped without Alice.
SARAH: All the same--there is a limit to friendship, Mum.
DORA: (Nods). I suppose I've encouraged her really by telling her I liked her stories and poems.
SARAH: You didn't want to hurt her feelings, I suppose?
DORA: She says all her friends from the church tell her they enjoy her books too--no one wants to hurt her feelings (as she is such a dear) but they must all inwardly groan every time she brings out another title. Well, you've read her work -
SARAH: Don't remind me! I know Robert Frost said free verse is like tennis without nets but there's supposed to be some...thought. Alice just scribbles any old thing.
DORA: Yes, she often tells me she wrote a poem in under 5 minutes. She thinks it would take something away if she edited.
SARAH: And her stories are the same. "My name's Joan and my husband is impotent."
DORA: Yes, she writes from real life. Her hair dresser told her that her husband was having...problems, apparently.
SARAH: I read on just to see if it improved.
DORA: Yes, I remember that one. She called it 'No hard feelings'. William her publisher loved it, she said.
SARAH: (Tuts). She should try telling him she's spent all Burt's money and ask William to pay the cost of publishing, she'd soon see how much he loves her stories then.
DORA: I know.
SARAH: But, of course, she keeps on paying - and her publisher keeps on telling her she's a genius. I'd like a word with that William.
DORA: So would I, but--
SARAH: But?
DORA: I suppose in a funny sort of way, his flattery helps her cope without Burt.
SARAH: Mmmm. An expensive form of therapy, though.
DORA: Yes.

THE DOORBELL RINGS. DORA ANSWERS IT.

DORA: Hello, Alice. I wasn't expecting you. Come in, Sarah's here.
ALICE: Well, I'll just come in for a quick cup of tea, love. I haven't seen Sarah since she bought some of my books last year. Hello, Sarah, you're looking well--are you pregnant again?
SARAH: (Grits teeth). No, it's just the cut of this dress. Anyway, how are you?
ALICE: Oh, you know - the same. I've just had my hair done. I get all my stories from my hairdresser. William--he's my publisher - asks me where on earth I get such ideas!
SARAH: Mum tells me he says you're a genius.
DORA: I'll just put the kettle on. (Exits)
ALICE: Oh, total flannel, of course. He thinks I don't know he's only after my money.
SARAH: You don't believe it then?
ALICE: Oh, good Lord, no. Between you, me and the gatepost, I did to start with--your mother and people I know at the church so looked forward to my stories and poems, but they're very easily pleased. (laughs).
DORA: (Returns). (Smiles uneasily and passes her a cup of tea). Is that too strong, dear?
ALICE: You know me--I like a cup of bark. (sips noisily). Ahhhh. Where was I? Oh, yes, I was just telling Sarah I'm not going to write any more books, love. I know you'll be disappointed, of course -
DORA: Oh, what a shame.
SARAH: (gives her a 'look') Yes, Mum was just saying how she...rates your work.
ALICE: Well, you'll be pleased to hear that my final book will be available soon, Dora. I'll put you down for a copy, shall I?
DORA: Yes, okay, dear. Lovely.
ALICE: And you, too, Sarah? I remember how much you said you enjoyed reading my books.
DORA: (gives Sarah a 'look').
SARAH: (coughs) Yes, super. (drinks her coffee)
ALICE: I joined a creative writing class at the church hall and the tutor there pointed out so many faults in my writing that I decided to call it a day.
DORA: Oh, dear. Really?
ALICE: Yes, she wasn't tactful at all. I said, "I don't remember hearing that you've written any best sellers, Mavis." That shut her up! She's only a shelf-filler in the Pound shop. Jumped up little madam!
SARAH: So, what now? Will you play Bingo with Mum?
ALICE: Oh, no. Sorry, Dora, love, but you know how moronic I find all that sort of thing.
DORA: Yes.
ALICE: No, I'm painting now, Sarah, my love.
DORA: Painting? I didn't know you could paint.
ALICE: Neither did I till a few weeks ago, but I've met a nice chap who sells canvases and he says I'm a natural.

SARAH AND DORA EXCHANGE GLANCES

DORA: What sort of painting, Alice, dear?
ALICE: Oils.
SARAH: Landscapes and things?
ALICE: Modern art. You must call round at my studio--it's my spare bedroom--and have a look. There's bound to be something you both like and they're all for sale.

A resident of Plymouth, England, Jax works at a theater for a living but spends his free time on creative writing. He dabbles in an impressive range of forms and genres. In the past several years Jax has won short story and poetry competitions and penned a novel. Most recently, he has completed a creative writing course and had many short pieces, including fictional pieces not unlike "A Noun like Alice," published.

Good marketing or wordy confusion?

2010-08-10T09:09:00.000-04:00

Deciding how to name and describe products is no small part of a marketer's job, and it's unquestionably an important one if a product is to survive. I'm no master of marketing, but sometimes even I spot promotional brilliance when just the right words are involved.

Sometimes marketing types hit the nail right on the head. A handful of years ago, for example, the treat that used to be called "Plain M&Ms" suddenly became "Milk Chocolate M&Ms." While the average consumer may not have noticed the small change, the intent as studied from a marketing--and verbal--standpoint was obvious. Plain in the former M&Ms parlance meant "pure and unembellished" or perhaps even "unpretentious." Before 10,000 other M&M varieties appeared, it also meant "the original" and "uncomplicated" as opposed to the other version, "Peanut M&Ms."

For the chocoholic already hooked on the candies, none of these meanings were in any way a bad thing. But to grow sales, the company had to attract a new audience. Outside the context of candy-coated chocolate, the word plain has a negative connotation. For many, it's synonymous with "boring," "unexciting," or "incomplete." This isn't the sort of thing a savvy marketer wants to see on a label. One word changed to a more descriptive one--and suddenly the candy has a whole new potential.

A similar change took place at several companies that produce dried fruit. The snacks we once knew as prunes woke up one morning to discover they had become "dried plums." Once again, this was a conscious choice by marketers to get away from a word that had negative connotations. Prunes are dessicated, uninteresting, tiresome, the food choice of the old and slow. But plums are exciting, bursting with possibility: Think "a plum of an opportunity." Simply attach the word "dried" to describe its form, and voila! The humble prune becomes an exotic fruit you can talk up to a new generation of consumers.

These changes were nothing short of marketing genius. They opened those products to a previously untapped audience without alienating faithful, established consumers of candy-coated chocolates and dehydrated fruit.

Unfortunately, not all verbal choices in marketing are as wise. Sometimes, in trying to get away from some actual or imagined bad choice in words, marketers succeed only in frustrating and confusing consumers.

Case in point: I went into a store last week looking for liquid soap. This is not something I ordinarily buy, so I found myself reading and comparing labels far more than I would have if I'd already had a favorite brand in mind. So it did not escape my notice that of the many choices on the shelf, only a few bore the word soap. Many, many others were billed "foaming hand cleanser," "liquid hand wash," or some other curiously wordy phrase. Ingredient lists revealed little to no difference among the products, so I cannot fathom what advantage these companies found in using a longer, more vague term. What exactly is wrong with the simple and instantly recognizable soap?

I notice something similar these days when I visit my grocery store's freezer case. A few weeks ago I wanted to indulge my sweet tooth with ice milk--you know, ice cream's slightly lower-fat cousin. I found no such creature. Instead, most brands of ice milk are now called "light ice cream." But one brand uses instead the unfortunate term "frozen dairy dessert." As with the missing soap above, this new name is longer yet offers no better information than the straightforward old term. But "frozen dairy dessert" is worse as it's a term that could be used to describe so many things that are not ice milk: ice cream, pudding pops, frozen yogurt, Fudgsicles, a cup of chocolate milk someone stuck in the freezer.... Had I not already been a consumer with ice milk experience, I'd have had no idea what to expect under that "frozen dairy dessert" label.

Clearly, too-wordy marketing is not an effective way to win over new buyers.

Let's hear your examples, readers. When have the right words convinced you a product was just the thing you needed? What product names do the best job of selling what's in the box without a lot of added confusion? On the other hand, what products have fallen victim to needlessly wordy names or descriptions that succeed only in confusing potential buyers? Share your examples and opinions in the Comments section.

Usage tip: fewer vs. less and other comparison words

2010-07-28T23:24:00.000-04:00

In my last tip, I discussed when to use amount vs. number. Two other commonly confused words, fewer and less, are frequently misused for the same reason as amount/number. The good news: They follow basically the same rule. Learn it once and solve both problems!

Fewer is used to compare concrete nouns, the same words that would be counted with the word number. Less is used to compare abstract nouns, the same words that would be quantified (but not directly counted) with the word amount.

The event drew fewer participants this year than last year. ["Participants" are individuals that can be counted.]
Phil loves his new job even though it offers less opportunity for advancement than his former field did. ["Opportunity," in this sense, is an abstract idea.]

As is the case with amount/number, the correct use of comparison words changes when a sentence is revised to include or exclude phrases that modify abstract terms:

As the day grew hotter, the protesters' speech became less insulting. ["Speech" is abstract.]
While still angry, the protesters spewed fewer venomous insults as they tired in the midday heat. ["Insults" is concrete.]

If you find the concrete/abstract concept confusing, don't lose heart or patience. Perhaps you can simply avoid the question of which term is correct by revising your sentence to show the opposite relationship. Note that fewer and less reflect a decreasing quantity. At least two comparison words that reflect an increasing quantity require no special handling.

"We hold in our hearts more love than hate because we believe!" shouted the pastor, spurring a frenzied chorus of "Amens!" from the enthusiastic congregation. ["Love" is abstract.]
Janet finally concluded there were more practical reasons to stay on the West Coast than to move to New England. ["Reasons" is concrete.]

greater

The seating capacity of Conference Room B is greater than that of Conference Room A. ["Capacity" is abstract idea.]
Today, it's common to have a far greater number of highly qualified applicants than available jobs--in some cases, exponentially more than ten years ago. ["Number" is concrete.]

Readers, share your ideas. Do you have a handy memory tip that helps you decide when it's appropriate to use fewer vs. less? What other comparison words present usage problems? Let's discuss it in the Comments section.

Calling all word-nerds!

2010-06-28T07:32:00.002-04:00

If you're a writer, reader, editor, English enthusiast, linguist, speaker of multiple languages, publisher, journalist, literary critic, teacher, observer of the culture behind words...in short, anyone who appreciates, studies, works with, or ponders the subtleties of English and writing,

You're Invited

to be a Guest Blogger on Word-wise!

I will be taking an extended leave during August and September. I will prepare ahead a couple of short posts, but otherwise, I won't be around to blog. Instead of letting Word-wise go dormant during this time, I'd like to open it to you, the readers, and dedicate these two months to a Guest Blogger series.

You're familiar with Word-wise's subject matter. Any topic that's English-language, writing, editing, or general verbal communications-related is fair game here. Have an area of expertise, idea, or story you'd like to showcase? Drop me a message at aminquiry [at] yahoo [dot] com to tell me a little about the post you have in mind.

The more variety of subject and blogger background, and the more different contributors, the better the Guest Blogger series will be. I've already received one interesting post from a writer among you. There's plenty of room for other voices as well, whether humorous or serious, academic or "in layman's terms," creative or straightforward, fiction or nonfiction.

The deadline for pitches is Wednesday, July 21. The deadline for complete posts is Friday, July 23.

I don't make a dime writing this blog, so I can't offer payment to my Guest Bloggers. But I can promise you full credit for your post as well as the possibility of a bit of exposure. All Guest Bloggers will be entitled to

a byline (whether your real name or a pen name) linked to your site or email, if you choose, and
a short bio (up to 150 words) at the end of the post. This bio may include up to a total of three links to your own site; LinkedIn, Facebook, My Space, or other networking profile; affiliate sites; eBay, Amazon, or similar product pages; etc.

I'm excited about all the possible paths the Word-wise conversation could take once guest posts start appearing. Let me hear from you!

Usage tip: amount vs. number

2010-06-28T06:45:00.002-04:00

The words amount and number are often used in similar context, but don't mistake them for equals. They are used with nouns of somewhat different types.

Amount indicates an unspecified mass, one that is not precisely quantifiable, or an abstract idea.
Number indicates individual, countable units of concrete things or people.

Terms such as pollution, joy, corruption, or health are abstract. They are all nouns, but they are not individual items that can be measured out in exact units. What constitutes, for example, ten parts of intrigue? In cases like that, the word amount is accurate.

The amount of water damage that resulted from a single hairline crack in the pipe was mind-boggling. [Water damage is a mass noun. Without calling in some other noun that occurs in units, it cannot be counted.]

Concrete nouns, on the other hand, represent individuals that can be quantified; that is, one can count them out and come up with an actual number. Number, then, is the right word to use with these terms.

To solve the corporation's problems, the board will have to institute a number of major operational and personnel changes. [Changes is a concrete noun. The changes the board makes can be listed and counted.]

It's important to look at each instance of amount vs. number separately. To assume that a sentence will require amount because its topic is abstract is a mistake. That's because, depending on how it's worded, the same or similar message, or a somewhat different angle of the same story, can be presented using either type of noun. The water damage scenario above, for example, can be quantified if it's looked at this way:

The water damage that resulted from a single hairline crack took a number of weeks of full-time work and $156,378 to repair.

Now it's countable time, measured in units of one week, that is indicated, not the more abstract "water damage."

Similar considerations affect the use of fewer vs. less as opposed to greater vs. more--the topic of the next Word-wise usage tip. Stay tuned! In the meantime, what are your observations, thoughts, and questions? Chime in using the Comments section below.

What makes a good editor?

2010-06-01T06:17:00.000-04:00

How do you know you are (or have) a good editor?

Some of the answers to that question are relatively obvious. A good editor is one who understands the language well, having both an accurate command of the rules (grammar, usage, and punctuation) and a rich, flexible, and ever-expanding vocabulary.

Of course that description would also fit a good proofreader. Proofreading is essential to good editing, but it isn't the whole ball of wax. You might think of an editor as a "proofreader-plus." An editor does proofread, but s/he also goes beyond whether the parts of each sentence are correct. Depending on the type of editing requested, an editor may also

examine how the words, sentences, paragraphs, etc. work together;
standardize a document to ensure that, wherever style or format choices are made, they are consistent with previous decisions or guidelines;
evaluate whether the author's intended message is the one that comes through;
recommend ways to make a dull or dense passage more descriptive, exciting, active, or clear;
determine where more information is needed (or, conversely, where excessive information should be condensed);
suggest useful sources to further research a piece of writing;
understand the subtlety of fine shades of meaning when a choice of words exists;
make suggestions for the larger presentation form, including pagination, layout, font styles, and other visual (rather than just verbal) features;
double-check overall organization of a large document;
judge when and where language rules ought to be bent or broken for the sake of a larger purpose.

What? Decide when to break rules? Yes! That may be the most important fine line between proofreading and basic editing: seeing the "big picture" and treating it with respect and flexibility.

The best editors recognize that communication is more than just a collection of rules. They know individual style is part of the equation. If we didn't have differing voices, approaches, and vocabulary preferences; if there were not separate standards and jargons from one industry or genre to another; if there were not choices to make in how to "say" an idea, choices that reflect not correct-versus-incorrect but a matter of subjectivity; then everyone's writing would look and sound the same. And that would quickly become very dry..and maybe a little creepy. We'd be a culture of Stepford writers.

Beyond that, there are times when the rules just don't fit the circumstances, and it's necessary to interpret them loosely or ignore them altogether to get an accurate, understandable, and appropriate representation of the idea behind the words.

I submit that good editors proofread accurately and value precision but also offer options rather than dictating when it comes to matters of style. A good editor does not force an author's writing to conform to a standard when doing so destroys the author's message or obliterates the author's individual voice. Two editing/proofing guidelines that sometimes are better broken than followed come to mind immediately:

Avoid repeating the same word over and over if suitable synonyms may be used instead. When there's no discernible reason to repeat, a good editor can provide rephrasing recommendations. But good editors also recognize that sometimes, repetition is a valuable verbal tool. When used intentionally and appropriately, repetition does not bore; it reinforces, and creates rhythm. Think of some of history's most famous speeches, for example. Dr. Martin Luther King's lovely "I Have a Dream" wouldn't be so easily quotable and memorable if instead of repeating the title phrase, each section of the speech began with a different phrase such as "I imagine," "I wish," "In an ideal world," etc.
Unless poetry is the author's medium, in which case anything goes, full sentences are preferable to fragments. Often fragments are the result of merely forgetting to include a word or phrase--perhaps because the fingers are given the impossible task of typing as fast as the brain thinks--or accidentally punctuating in the wrong place. Of course these fragments are hiccups that need to be corrected, and a good editor will do that. But like repetition, bits and pieces of sentences do have their place and are sometimes used intentionally. For example, in a piece of writing that has an uncharacteristic amount of dense or technical content, a writer may choose to toss in a fragment to catch or refocus the reader's attention, recapture a conversational tone, or lighten the overall mood of the writing. Suggesting that isolated phrases should never, ever be used doesn't always enforce good writing. Instead, it dictates a rigidity that can take an author's personal touch out of a piece of writing, rendering something that was inviting and approachable, bland and sterile.

I would never suggest that a good editor doesn't proofread. But the best results come from balance. Too much of anything is overkill.

What are your thoughts, readers? The Comments section is open. Add your own favorite examples of "good writing" rules that occasionally should be broken. Answer the question "What makes a good editor?" Or share your praise, gripes, or general impressions of the editors you've been, known, or considered working with.

Numerals versus words, Part IV: When to make exceptions

2010-05-21T15:56:00.001-04:00

It's time to wrap up this series with a quick look at why the rules alone are sometimes a bit insufficient. At these times, a less strict judgment is in order.

Now don't be put off by this idea. After spending three previous posts (The Basics, Context, and Names) learning the rules, we're not throwing them out the window. Those rules are enough to answer the vast majority of your questions about whether to use a word or an Arabic numeral. Just be prepared for those odd times that the nature of the content demands a little different approach.

This situation often happens when more than one figure of the same type is quoted, but some of them fall on a different side of the rule from the others. Let's use a hypothetical medical study to demonstrate:

In the first round of clinical testing, only 8 of the 200 participants responded positively to the drug. But in the second round, which differed only by a modest increase in dosage, 151 participants were completely cured of all symptoms while the remaining 49 showed markedly decreased symptoms.

In the case above, a rule is bent in order to achieve consistency, appropriate emphasis, and easy readability. If a very strict interpretation of the rule were followed instead, the numbers (8, 200, 151, and 49) would be harder to find, compare, and interpret because some of them would be lost among other words:

(according to Chicago Manual of Style's rule to spell out numbers under 100)
In the first round of clinical testing, only eight of the 200 participants responded positively to the drug. But in the second round, which differed only by a modest increase in dosage, 151 participants were completely cured of all symptoms while the remaining forty-nine showed markedly decreased symptoms.

(according to AP Stylebook's rule to spell out numbers under 10)
In the first round of clinical testing, only eight of the 200 participants responded positively to the drug. But in the second round, which differed only by a modest increase in dosage, 151 participants were completely cured of all symptoms while the remaining 49 showed markedly decreased symptoms.

Again, these kinds of judgment calls will be rare for many writers. Unless you deal with lots of numbers in text, you may not have to go beyond the rules at all. But if you find it necessary to wiggle the rules in order to create a clearer representation of your ideas, don't feel bad about it. All major style guides acknowledge the necessity for exceptions at those times.

Readers, chime in. Where have you seen exceptions to numbers rules exercised? Also, as this is the last planned installment of the numbers series, please speak up if there's a finer number question you'd like to see explained in full instead of glossed over. I will certainly revisit the topic at your request.

Rule Number 1 for editing and proofing

2010-04-19T08:33:00.000-04:00

Always, always reread what you write before you consider it finished--even when that first draft DOESN'T show up on your computer monitor with squiggly red and green underlining. Automated spelling and grammar checkers are not foolproof, and they do not take the place of human judgment.

Wow, headline news, you might be thinking while executing a dramatic sarcastic eye roll. I know it's obvious. But I'm saying this anyway because it's a fact I see proven over and over again and, somehow, a lesson that we collectively still don't learn.

An unnoticed error can be confusing. Take, for instance, one I dealt with a couple weeks ago. The writing in question included a recipe that listed this ingredient: "3/4 c. mild." A word appeared to be missing, so the question was, of course, "Mild WHAT?" As it turned out, nothing was missing. "Mild" was an error brought on by bad typing. It should have been "milk."

Uncorrected errors can also be embarrassing. Time and again, newspapers have been pilloried for spelling errors in names. These misspellings are more than just unfortunate; they can reflect badly on a publication's or writer's credibility or even be the basis of lawsuits when they occur in highly-sensitive items such as obituaries and crime reports.

Errors can contribute to lost opportunities, too, as anyone who has later discovered an inaccuracy or omission in his own resumé will attest.

Don't get me wrong. Computer software is a very good first step. It's easy to use--often built-in so you don't even have to remember to turn it on--and it does catch a significant number of errors, some of which you might not have noticed even on a second or third casual reading. And as much as I tend to be critical or even cynical of Microsoft on a few other fronts, I will hand it to the company here: Each new version of Word's built-in spelling check tool has been an improvement over earlier versions. (One caveat is in order: I speak of the built-in spell-checkers from Word 2007 and earlier here. I have not seen the very latest version in action firsthand yet.)

No automated computer program now in existence can take the place of editing done by a rational, thinking human reader. The mild/milk recipe editing example above demonstrates one important reason for that: If a word is misspelled (or mistyped) so that it creates another word that really does exist in English, an automated spelling checker will not recognize it as an error. It is not programmed to "see" words in context but instead runs each individual word against its bank of possible spellings. As expansive as our lexicon is and as frequently as we adopt new words, any spell checker's capability will be limited.

Grammar checkers don't work well for a slightly different reason. They don't comprehend your words individually; they are designed to recognize typical patterns in English sentence structure. A grammar checker will flag word strings that don't conform to those patterns. It doesn't take anything more than a change in syntax or a sentence that's more complex than usual--whether correct or not--to confuse the checker into believing you're writing exclusively in fragments, run-ons, and passive voice.

Automated writing tools are designed to assist with proofreading, i.e., catching surface errors. They don't accomplish the deeper process of editing, which means looking closely for more subtle but potentially more serious problems. For example, neither tool has the ability to judge consistency. Much of the editing process is not fixing things that are "wrong" but ensuring that specific terms, language and punctuation style choices, and formatting options are always applied uniformly throughout a piece and/or in every piece produced by the same organization. Using a spelling or grammar checker to edit for consistency would be a little like using a hammer to insert a screw. The quality of the hammer is not the issue; it's simply not the right tool for the job. In fact, even if we had such a tool at our disposal, it would need to be highly customized before it would be useful. The process still would not be strictly automatic.

All that said, I do believe automated tools are useful. Spelling checkers especially can play an important role in self-revision. (In fact, how to get the most from your spell checker is one of the topics on my "need to blog about" list. Look for that post in the coming weeks.) Just remember these tools shouldn't be charged with giving the final word of approval. At the very least, reread your own words once or twice. Reread (and update and experiment with) very important writing multiple times. And ask someone impartial to give critical items a once-over, too. You don't necessarily need an editor on staff at all times, but don't go to the other extreme and assume that if your computer didn't flag it, it must be OK.

Readers, jump right in. I'd love to see more examples of editing errors that slipped by smart software. Or, tell about your own experience with your favorite spelling, grammar, and other word-editing tools. All opinions are welcome!

Numerals versus words, Part III: Names

2010-04-16T09:02:00.004-04:00

If you've been following the Word-wise numbers discussion that began last month, you already know that there are a few general guidelines that address when to use spelled-out words to represent numbers as opposed to using Arabic numerals, or vice versa. You also know that the context of the sentence matters; that is, what type of numbers are given and how important they are may influence the choice. Today we get to a third consideration, whether the number has any connection to a proper noun or name. There are several shades of distinction among names, so we'll address each with a separate, simple rule.

Rule 1: Roman (not Arabic or verbal) numerals are used to represent leaders with the same name as a predecessor.

The people whose names follow this rule are usually royalty, dictators, or popes. Therefore, as they tend to be well-known and their names are often written (and read) over and over again, the rule is fairly familiar and not often misinterpreted. Some examples:

Henry VIII (as opposed to "Henry 8" or "Henry the Eighth" or "Henry the 8th")
Pope Benedict XI
Richard II
Louis XVI
Pope John Paul II

There are two more minor points to keep in mind on numerals in famous names. First, when a leader is generally referred to by a descriptive name that distinguishes him or her from others of the same name, that popular name takes the place of the Roman numeral. In such a case, the numeral, if mentioned at all, generally appears separately from the descriptive title:

Catherine II, more popularly known as Catherine the Great, began her storied reign of Russia in 1762.

Second, the numeral I (for "the First") is not applied to any leader's name immediately. While he's in power, Leader would never be referred to as Leader I. Until a Leader II comes along, having a numeral attached is unnecessary because there is no need for distinction among more than one.

Rule II: Roman (not Arabic or verbal) numerals are appended to the names of fathers, sons, grandsons, etc. who share the same entire name.

Personal names of ordinary people (as opposed to historical figures as in Rule I above) are not required to follow the rules absolutely, but most Seniors and Juniors do. It's a safe guideline to assume.

Let's say Joseph Thomas "Joe" Blow has several children, the first of whom is his namesake. Joe Blow's oldest son would be named Joseph Thomas Blow II. If Joe Jr. then gives the same name to his own son, Joe Blow's grandson would be named Joseph Thomas Blow III.

However, note the very end of the rule. The numeral is only added when the entire name matches. If Joe Jr. names his first son Joseph John instead of Joseph Thomas, then this newest Joseph would not be called "III" because he is not, technically, the "third" in his line to carry the same name.

Rule III: Brands, organization names, or trademarks that include numbers are written in the form prescribed by their owners, regardless whether that form matches any given stylebook rule.

This guideline demonstrates why it's sometimes better to just look up an answer than to attempt to figure out a rule. Because they are registered names, all of the following examples are correct. It does not matter that they follow different, seemingly arbitrary numeral rules.

Phillips 66
One Thousand and One Arabian Nights
Matchbox Twenty
The Big Red One
The Final Four
7-Up

I'm especially intrigued by that last rule. Readers, please use the Comment section to list your own favorite examples of registered names that include numbers which may or may not follow the rules. Or post your questions about and examples of other name/numeral examples I haven't addressed.

The impact of "impact"

2010-04-14T08:58:00.000-04:00

Learning English, especially as a second language, can be a little like standing on dinghy in a thunderstorm, shooting soggy paper arrows at a herd of squirrels stampeding across a faraway shore shrouded in fog. In other words, it's not easy. That's in great part because the English-speaking world doesn't have an ultimate language authority guarding it, which means new usages, new spellings, and (far less commonly) newly relaxed grammar rules that are useful or necessary naturally find their way into common use. This malleability is the feature that, more than any other, makes English unique. And the verbal adoption process is valuable because it constantly makes our language richer, more flexible, more interesting, and more expressive.

I accept this. And I tend to have a somewhat tolerant attitude toward English's changing rules. However, not every "new and improved" way of speaking and writing English works for me. Some modern usages, to be perfectly cliche, rub me the wrong way. The long-time debate around the word impact is one of them. From a purist's standpoint, the word impact is to be used in one of three ways:

(v) to exist or be positioned in a manner that is obstructive. Often used in the participial form, impacted, as an adjective. Ex: Her impacted tooth caused Mrs. Downing considerable pain.
(n) an effect or the result of. Ex: A longer waiting period turned out to be the only lasting impact of the new application process.
(n) the force, jarring, or vibration caused by one object striking another. Ex: The impact of the crash broke no bones but left both drivers with months of back and neck pain.

For decades, it has been increasingly popular to apply yet another meaning to the word impact, a verb form equivalent to "to affect or influence." One might say, for example, that "the new higher speed limit on Lincoln Street impacted everyone who lived on it." Though it may be argued that this usage has become so common it must be considered established and acceptable, this usage for impact doesn't meet my standard of a "useful or necessary" adaptation.

First, it is not "useful" because impact already has three long-established definitions (those numbered above). Adding more definitions just adds a greater possibility for confusion. For example, let's say you overhear a snippet of conversation that includes "Robert impacted Claire when he told why he spent their entire savings." How should you interpret this? Do you assume the new meaning, that Robert's explanation influenced Claire's thinking? Or do you go with the older meaning and infer that Robert physically struck Claire while explaining himself? Of course, context would help a lot here. One would reasonably find out the rest of the story before advising Claire to take out a restraining order against Robert. But the fact remains that this sentence does not have optimal clarity on its own. To me, a usage that requires further explanation is not a "useful" one.

Second, the newer usage of impact is not "necessary." It doesn't solve a verbal problem. Often words enter the language because they name objects or actions that did not exist before. Words that describe brand-new discoveries, technologies, or products, for example, fall into this category. We'd have a hard time applying these new advances if we couldn't communicate about them, so coining related words is necessary. That is not the case with the newer usage of impact. We already have the words affect, influence, and a number of others that mean the same thing.

Furthermore, the three numbered definitions of impact above are accepted in all circles, including those linguists who guard English most conservatively. If a person wants to be taken seriously by everyone who hears or reads his words, he would be well advised to choose those words carefully. That includes avoiding usages that have a history of being regarded as questionable.

I admit, I get a little hot--perhaps unreasonably--over this one. Impact is a pet peeve for me. What's yours? It's your turn to air your language gripes, readers. Please use the Comment section to sound off about the usages that grate on your nerves or, on the flip side, to defend your favorite oft-criticized usage.

Usage tip: coarse vs. course

2010-04-14T08:53:00.000-04:00

The question of coarse vs. course isn't one that has been on my long-running "to address in a tip" list. But a couple weeks ago, I was horrified to discover I'd let one of these simple errors slip by uncorrected. The pair instantly moved to the list...near the top.

coarse (adj) not smooth, or consisting of large particles; common or vulgar
The use of whole barley flour made the bread dough coarse and heavy.
course (n) a plan or path; forward movement or progress; an academic program
People will argue, but you must stay the course.

Other than their sound-alike quality, these words have nothing to do with each other. It's one of those homonym pairs that just requires familiarity and, maybe, practice to learn well. Try your hand by selecting coarse or course to fill each blank:

1) Asking for an oil change and being told that her car's transmission needed repair was, in the hapless Toni's words, "just par for the ---."
2) This sand is far too --- to dye for use in our art project.
3) The applicant's manners and language were so --- that the director could not consider him despite his extensive experience.
4) Since they both take a --- in conversational Portuguese after work on Fridays, Susan and Rachel are carpooling.
5) Our best --- of action would be to determine what went wrong before implementing any changes.

Answers: 1) course; 2) coarse; 3) coarse; 4) course; 5) course

Usage tip: recur vs. reoccur

2010-04-12T09:14:00.003-04:00

Here's a not-so-common question of usage that I ran across several weeks ago. I was working on the same project with another seasoned editor, and we did not agree on which usage was correct in the context of the material at hand. Our disagreement just goes to show, there are very few hard-and-fast rules in the English language. Much is up to interpretation.

Recur and reoccur is a classic case of interpretation--not of basic definition, but of fine shades of meaning, personal preference, and what usually happens in common use. In general, the words recur and reoccur mean the same thing, "to happen again." Here are what a few sources have to say about the words:

Webster's New World Dictionary (2003 edition)
recur: to return in thought, talk, etc.
reoccur: [no definition listed. Under occur: to be found; exist]
Dictionary.com
recur: to occur again, as an event, experience, etc.
reoccur: [no definition listed. Under occur: to happen; take place; come to pass]
The Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition)
[no usage recommendation listed]
The AP Stylebook (2004 edition)
recur, recurred, recurring
Not reoccur.
The Free Online Dictionary
recur: to happen, come up, or show up again or repeatedly
reoccur: to happen, take place, or come about again

Clearly, both words have a history and are (or, at some point, were) considered to be proper usage. But the mere fact that reoccur is either not preferred or not listed at all in three of the five sources implies that recur would be the better choice, if only because it will be the one most likely to be recognized and accepted by the reader. Good editing often comes down to deference to a reader's sensibility, not grammar or what's precisely "correct."

What, then, was my fellow editor's case for the other choice, reoccur? It's a matter of fine shades of meaning. I only listed what I consider a few of the most reputable and well-known dictionaries and authorities above. Another definition she mentioned indicates that reoccur should be used when something happens again, one time, while recur may be used to indicate something that happens again once or repeatedly.The context of the material we were editing seemed to imply a single "re-happening."

While I respect my colleague's experience and opinion, I personally think that's a silly reason to initiate an argument of semantics. After all, who's to say the "again, only once" incident won't put in a third or fourth appearance later, after the more limited word has already been used? Is one to continually revise everything one ever wrote to make sure all instances of "reoccur" are changed to "recur" if appropriate? How drudging, time-consuming, and unnecessarily nit-picky. I say, let's not make things harder on ourselves than we must. Ahem--especially when the definition of the OTHER word shows a flexibility for either circumstance.

I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on this matter, though. Readers, what do you think? Do you have a preference for recur or reoccur? What's the difference, and which is more acceptable, in your opinion? Can you think of other usage choices that are often made--with acceptable results--with respect to preference rather than precision?

Numerals versus words, Part II: Context

2010-03-17T09:02:00.002-04:00

Before we dive back into numbers today, take a moment to review the general rules for when to use a figure versus spell out a number.

Notice that both of these major authorities acknowledge that the context of the material is a deciding factor. That really is the critical rule: Double-check how numbers fit into "the big picture." If, in the larger sense, a number is not terribly important but is stated only as a casual reference, it need not be highlighted through the use of Arabic numerals. But if that number is a key to understanding the larger point, it should stand out as a figure, not just another word in the passage.

Sometimes numbers are just mentioned in passing. Casual numbers don't mean much. They may not even represent actual fact. These are the kinds of numbers that would normally appear as words. This is appropriate because the rest of the sentence is made of words, and these casual numbers can fit right into the flow of the sentence without drawing undue attention to themselves.

You look like a million bucks.
He's first on my list of people I can't stand.
For the hundredth time, I don't want to serve on that committee.

When numbers are truly significant, on the other hand, you can bet they won't be stated in words. Among the numbers that nearly always appear as Arabic numerals are statistics, percentages, scores, and formal counts. The writer wants the reader to see those numbers clearly, and using Arabic figures instead of words makes them stand out.

An unprecedented 83% of the voters supported the new proposal.
The Yankees' Jeter batted an average of .334 for the season.
A vote of 14-2 made the neighbors' wishes clear to the association.

Some sentences contain a combination of Arabic numerals and spelled-out numbers. In most cases, this is not just an editorial oversight; it's intentional. As a reader, you can generally interpret that spelled-out numbers are less critical whereas the Arabic ones relate to the main point.

The two wolves' fighting in the intersection held up commuter traffic for over 90 minutes.
Of the 45 respondents, 40 answered the final six questions identically.

In the first sentence, the length of time that traffic was tied up is the major idea. The fact it was the work of two wolves (as opposed to one or three) is insignificant. Likewise, in the second sentence, the number of final questions is less important than the proportion of respondents (40 out of 45) who answered them identically.

One final note on context: Even when numbers are clearly factual and significant, it is sometimes simply unwieldy or confusing to use Arabic numerals exclusively. So sometimes numbers rules are combined or even bent in order to make for smoother reading. For example,

The budget came up more than $226 trillion short of projected costs.

Notice how much easier it is to wrap your mind around that number than this one:

The budget came up more than $226,000,000,000,000 short of projected costs.

This is especially true in passages that contain several kinds of numbers. The key to combining numbers-in-context rules successfully is consistency. Whatever pattern is established at the beginning of a passage, that pattern should be continued to the end to ensure readers are not confused.

Four out of thirty, or 13%, of the subjects in the control group marked "Agree" on all nineteen statements. In the control group, these 13% were the subjects who gave the highest overall positive score. But in the test group, twenty-two out of thirty, or 73%, marked "Strongly Agree" on all of them, resulting in much higher overall positives.

In both sentences, the pattern is thus: Raw group numbers are stated in words, percentages are stated in numerals, and the number of statements (which is apparently casual or insignificant) is not highlighted and stated only in passing. This makes for easy reading because a person who is scanning for one type of number or another will find his eye drawn directly to the numbers that are presented in a certain way.

It's your turn to talk numbers. What other numbers-in-context examples illustrate (or violate) these ideas? What questions remain? What are your pet peeves when it comes to seeing numbers in sentences?

Numerals versus words, Part I: The basics

2010-03-09T09:05:00.001-05:00

Once again, I have a reader to thank for suggesting today's subject. On the question of numbers, Pam writes, "I read to write them out if it's 1-99, and other places say write them out 1-9, with 10 going either way. I understand all the exceptions, it's just the general rule thing that I can seem to find an definitive answer."

Pam said a mouthful there. The truth is, there IS NO single, definitive rule. "It depends," while insufficient, is really the only correct answer here.

As with apostrophes (see here, here, and here), the numbers topic is perhaps best handled in a series. Today we'll look at the most basic guidelines, then follow up in the coming weeks with the most common exceptions.

According the The Chicago Manual of Style (15th Edition), the rule of thumb is this:

In nontechnical contexts, the following are spelled out: whole numbers from one through one hundred, round numbers, and any number beginning a sentence. For other numbers, numerals* are used.

This general rule is followed by an entire chapter of exceptions and clarification.

On the other end of the spectrum is The Associated Press Stylebook (2004 Edition). AP doesn't start with a rule and then enumerate (very punny?) its many exceptions. Instead, it dives right into a case-by-case listing of when to and when NOT to spell out. Here are a few select examples that, together, form a summary:

"Spell out a numeral** at the beginning of a sentence....There is one exception--a numeral that identifies a calendar year."
"Spell out casual expressions: A thousand times no!"
"Use words or numerals according to an organization's practice: 3M, Twentieth Century Fund, Big Ten."
"For ordinals...spell out first through ninth when they indicate sequence in time or location."
No equal "For cardinals" rule exists; instead, a long list of separate entries for specific cases appears. However, it is generally safe to extrapolate the rule thus: Spell out one through nine when used casually.

Clearly these authorities approach the question very differently. A reasonable first step, then, is to determine the stylebook preference of the person or organization for whom you're writing. As an editor, my default answer is to follow the Chicago rule. But if you work for the media or in one of the many industries that is closely associated with the media, such as marketing or public relations, the AP rule is the authoritative answer.

*Chicago defines "numeral" only as an Arabic figure (ex: 1, 2, 3...).
**AP defines "numeral" as "a figure, letter, word or group of words expressing a number."

Confused? We'll work on that. More on numbers is yet to come. In the meantime, please chime in with your thoughts on the subject in general using the Comments section below. I'll be sure to address your specific questions and examples in the course of the series.

How to use semicolons

2010-03-01T08:24:00.002-05:00

Several weeks ago, a reader suggested that Word-wise address semicolons. (Thanks, Ben! Readers, I'm always glad to hear your suggestions.)

I think he's right. Semicolons are certainly one of the least understood marks we use in English. And that's unfortunate. If we wanted to, we could go into lots of fine grammatical detail about when to use semicolons. But it isn't necessary. Pretty much all we need to know about semicolons boils down to two general uses:

to connect related independent clauses
in a series, to separate items that have internal punctuation

Independent clauses
An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and a verb and expresses a complete thought. In short, it's a sentence. For example,

The stray dog ran into the street.

Sometimes, a writer wants to indicate that two independent clauses are closely related to each other. The simplest way to do this is to connect the sentences with a comma and a conjunction, in this case, and:

The stray dog ran into the street, and the squeal of brakes rang out.

But sometimes, the conjunction feels like it's getting in the way. Simply using a comma without the conjunction is not a good option because it would create a type of run-on called a comma splice error. The solution is to skip the comma and the conjunction and instead use a semicolon:

The stray dog ran into the street; the squeal of brakes rang out.

This is a nice approach because the semicolon visually signals to the reader when the first thought has ended, but it doesn't interrupt the action by including an extra word.

Series
I've discussed items in a series with respect to comma use before. But when the series is composed of items that have punctuation of their own, it's beneficial to use semicolons instead to avoid confusing the reader.

Here's a simple series that effectively uses commas:

Mr. Hollingsworth's roadside stand offers fresh asparagus, tomatoes, snap peas, and strawberries.

If each of Mr. Hollingsworth's produce items is described in more detail, however, or contains other punctuation, the sentence would get hard to read with just commas between the items. The ideas are easier to follow when the items are more definitely separated using semicolons:

Mr. Hollingsworth's roadside stand offers fresh small-stalk asparagus; cherry, Roma, and beefsteak tomatoes; super sugar snap, Sugar Ann, and dwarf snap peas; and certified pesticide-free strawberries.

Sometimes a combination of the two basic rules above can result in a long and odd, but nonetheless correct, sentence such as this one:

Although Mr. Hollingsworth, whose produce stand operates alongside Route 26 every spring and summer, was familiar with the ragged old stray dog, he'd never known it to run into the street before; and he was alarmed for the pitiful creature's safety as drivers responded, the squeal of brakes ringing out for a mile in either direction down the highway.

In this case, the "and" that would normally work with a comma to connect two shorter sentences is still there, but the comma is converted into a semicolon anyway because each of the clauses contains commas of its own. Using another comma would likely confuse the reader. The semicolon eliminates that potential confusion.

Your turn, readers. All semicolon-related comments, questions, or examples are welcome!

Back, finally

2010-03-01T08:23:00.000-05:00

I owe an apology to readers who've wondered whether I dropped off the face of the earth these past few weeks. I haven't. I've been busy pulling together a bunch of business, client, and personal details that all came due at once, and I just couldn't spare any time for blogging.

A big part of that avalanche involved the re-launching of my business under a new name, complete with a new Web site and branding theme. It may not look like it used to, but you really have landed on the same Word-wise you knew before. I hope you find the colors pleasant and easy to read. A few more tweaks are forthcoming, so don't be alarmed at other changes you may notice along the way.

And with that, I have some catching up to do. You'll hear from me again soon!

Punctuation tip: Using apostrophes, Part III

2010-02-01T09:42:00.001-05:00

So far, we've addressed using apostrophes in possessives and in contractions. Those usages can be tricky at times, but generally (with the exception of its/it's, which is a perennial problem), the rules are well understood. This week, all that changes. One class of apostrophes is truly strange.

Certain Plurals
Some plural usages just don't fit into traditional categories and require special treatment. However, let's first address a group of plurals that, though we are often tempted to do so, should NOT be treated any differently: numerals and year groups. The three sentences below are correct as written.

The accountant found the problem: There were two Entry 12s.
Sandra ended her first career in the late 1980s.
The first dozen phone numbers in the database were 212s.

I repeat: These sentences are correct and DO NOT require the addition of apostrophes. But if the apostrophe-less numbers just don't look right to your eye, and you're willing to put in a little extra brainwork and finesse to work around them, you have options. One is to write the numerals out as words. This works better in some sentences than others:

Sandra ended her first career in the late nineteen-eighties. [reasonable]
The first dozen phone numbers in the database were two-one-twos. [awkward since words can't be "dialed" effectively]

There's another option also. Sometimes a sentence can be comfortably recast to avoid pluralizing at all.

The accountant found the problem: Entry 12 appeared twice.
By 1990, Sandra had ended her first career.
The first dozen phone numbers in the database were from the same area code, 212.

So what's the bottom line? Don't add an apostrophe to something just because it represents a number. Most respected style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Style Guide, agree this is the best practice. Celebrate the simplicity!

Pluralizing letters, unfortunately, isn't quite as straightforward. There are four conditions you must consider to make an accurate judgment about whether to use an apostrophe.

Rule 1: For lower-case stand-alone letters, use an apostrophe to separate the letter and its pluralizing s.

The broken keyboard resulted in documents full of unnecessary c's and x's.
His speech impediment caused him to pronounce his s's more like z's.

Rule 2: For abbreviations consisting of all capital letters, use a lower-case s and NO apostrophe to pluralize.

Susan and Philip both contributed regularly to their IRAs.
The URLs in question all belong to the same corporation.
Janie knew her ABCs by the time she was one year old.

Chicago, AP, and many other respected guides follow Rules 1 and 2 above, which means most plural-apostrophizing (Did I just coin a word?) choices are simple. For Rule 3, the authorities part ways.

Rule 3: For some capital letters, use an apostrophe before the pluralizing s.

Chicago rule: Every curriculum in this school district is based on the three Rs.
AP rule: Every curriculum in this school district is based on the three R's.

The key for correctly applying Rule 3, then, is to know whether the person or organization for whom you are writing has a style preference. If so, go with that. Otherwise, either usage is justifiable as long as you use it consistently.

And finally, as an editor, I would also add one more rule. This is my recommendation based on a combination of stated Chicago and AP standards, their underlying reasoning, and a little logic from a reader's perspective.

Rule 4: For abbreviations that consist of mixed upper- and lower-case letters and/or internal periods, use an apostrophe to separate letters and pluralizing s where reasonable. However, to avoid awkward constructions and misreading, recasting is sometimes preferable to using a plural at all.

In 2009, the university graduated forty-six M.A.'s.

This sentence would look better in print recast thus:

In 2009, the university graduated forty-six Master of Arts students.

However, in some cases, sticking to the abbreviations, even with all their clunky punctuation, is a far more efficient choice.

The university's 2009 graduating class included forty-six M.A.'s, twenty-one Ed.D.'s, and twelve Ph.D's.

The slim sentence above is certainly preferable to this wordy mess:

Among the university's 2009 graduating class were forty-six recipients of Masters degrees, twenty-one doctorates in education, and twelve doctorates in philosophy.

As this is the final post in my apostrophes series, I'm especially interested in any questions you have about examples or exceptions that I have not specifically addressed. But, as always, all other comments are welcome also. Have at it!

Remembering Robert B. Parker

2010-01-21T09:57:00.000-05:00

Eulogies are a little beyond Word-wise's usual range of topics, but in this man's case, I'll make an exception.

I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around the idea that Robert B. Parker has died. (Here's Publishers Weekly's story.) Yes, he was over 70, and if his hard-living characters are even the merest reflection of himself, his body took some abuse. So in one way, perhaps it isn't unexpected.

But this is Parker. Spenser embodied. The same Spenser who time after time looked certain death right in the eye, quoted Freud and Proust, and then delivered a crippling uppercut.

Parker was an incredible writer. Prolific? There's no question. He was indefatigable. He died, in fact, while sitting at his desk, working on his latest creation. But his novels aren't repeated spewings of the same predetermined formula. He was not just abundant; he was skilled. He created odd, yet stunningly human conflicts with characters we got to know gradually. That has always been Parker's biggest draw: his characters. They all start out as life-sized cardboard cutouts, caricatures defined only by their obvious outstanding features. But with each conversation, each chapter, each new novel, their personalities emerge a little more. Each challenge exposes new vulnerabilities and new strengths. Over the three decades Parker extended the Spenser series, the presence of the cast--Spenser, Hawk, Susan, Vinnie, Gino, Rita, Tedy, Quirk and Belson, Paul, and all the rest--may have been predictable. But the characters individually never stop developing. Like real people, they have flaws. They have bad habits. Emotion occasionally tricks them out of good decisions. They have special interests and talents. They have families and friends. Their relationships deepen and change. They wax and wane just like real people.

Parker always impressed me with his ability to portray multi-faceted people, to hint at layers of plot, and to suggest far more than what the actual words say through a single device: dialog. Students of literature have often dubbed Ernest Hemingway the master of dialog. Parker, in my opinion, is the modern owner of that title. A single two-page conversation between Parker's characters might result in development of plot, exposure of motivation, deepening of character, creation of suspense, humor, drama, and more, simultaneously.

A book club friend of mine called Parker's writing "efficient." It's the perfect term to describe Parker's dialog, but it applies to his body of work in the larger sense as well. While he wrote practically without ceasing, turning out 60+ novels over a 35-year period, Parker never resorted to merely filling pages with words. There was a period during the late 1980s and early 90s when the Spenser series became a little too pat, too predictable. Parker knew this and didn't tolerate it for long. He took a break from Spenser.

The dry spell evolved into Parker's richest period of all. Parker developed two new characters, each of which later spun into successful series, the Jesse Stone and Sunny Randall novels. This period also saw the resuscitation of Spenser as well as a number of stand-alone novels that included Westerns and crime dramas featuring fictionalized versions of real historical figures.

In the past five years, while continuing the established series, Parker also embarked on a new genre: young adult literature. This pleases me to no end: Now I can share Parker's world with my kids sooner than I would have been able to.

I will miss Parker immensely. But what a vast legacy he has left behind.

Punctuation tip: Using apostrophes, Part II

2010-01-18T09:09:00.002-05:00

Sorry about the delay in continuing this series, folks. Last week turned out to be busier than I anticipated it would be.

Last week I discussed using apostrophes to create possessives. I think we can all agree possessives are so common that we often insert apostrophes into them correctly even without really thinking about it. In that way, this second use, for English speakers anyway, is just as automatic.

Contractions

Some words are used together so frequently that, over time, they phonetically blend ("contract" or "elide") into a single word. In the process, some of those words' individual sounds are ignored. In English, these ignored sounds/letters are represented graphically with an apostrophe. Usually (but not always), the apostrophe is written in the spot where the ignored letters would have been.

Our most common contractions are blends of modals (or "helping verbs") and the adverb not. For example,

do not --> don't
could not --> couldn't
must not --> mustn't
is not --> isn't

Some modal contractions don't quite follow the rules. Yet they are still so common that most people who use English regularly will easily recognize and write them correctly.

will not --> won't
am not --> "Ain't" is the contracted form, but it is not considered appropriate English. Instead, its verb am is contracted into its subject, I. Therefore,
I am not --> I'm not

The last example demonstrates that contractions are not limited to the word not. Here are a few other not-less phrases that have found their way, with varying degrees of acceptance, into written English as contractions:

they are --> they're
would have --> would've
let us --> let's
you all --> y'all
Jack of the lantern --> Jack-o'-lantern

Some single words in English get contracted, too. Unlike the multi-word contractions above, they are not elisions. These words follow the same apostrophe rule, but because they are not blended with other words, some manuals may define these forms not as contractions but as abbreviations.

madam --> ma'am
forecastle --> fo'c'sle

Two final but very important notes on apostrophes and contractions:

Pay attention to the word it's. It's is always a contraction, either of "it is" or "it has." Unlike other words, it does not adopt an apostrophe anywhere when it is converted into a possessive. This is probably the single most notorious error I see in all the proofreading I do.
Contractions are not the same as portmanteau words. A contraction is simply a shortened version, and the use of the apostrophe clarifies where letters have been eliminated to get there. A portmanteau word is also a blend. But unlike a contraction, a portmanteau word is regarded as a new word with its own meaning, distinct from the meaning of the two words it came from. A portmanteau word does not contain apostrophes that would draw attention to its origin; it just looks like the unique word it is. Therefore, "sm'og" and "smo'g" are wrong where smog is perfectly fine.

Let's hear your side now: Do certain contraction or apostrophe usages give you a headache? What common contractions that I haven't addressed ought to be noted here, and why? Under what circumstances would you opt to spell out in full rather than use a contraction? (Yes, there are guidelines for this, but the decision tends to be subjective.) All opinions and observations are welcome.

Fun for readers and writers

2010-01-11T10:54:00.002-05:00

I will return to my apostrophes series later this week, but first I wanted to share an event I attended over the weekend.

My former VWC classmate, Amy Clipston, has gone on to become a published novelist. To promote her third book, which will be in stores in April, she was in town (well, a nearby town) on Saturday for a signing of her first book.

Believe it or not, I'd never been to a book signing before. But when I heard about Amy's, I was too excited to even consider passing it up. So I invited a handful of fellow reader-friends to meet for lunch, during which we talked about--what else?--books. Then we all went on to the bookstore together.

As it turns out, the signing was a double pleasure. I got to see Amy AND meet another author, Judi McCoy, a novelist who was signing the same day to promote her "dogwalker mystery" series. Of course I bought her books, too. Who doesn't love a mystery? Both authors are absolutely delightful women, as you can see from the pictures.

My friends and I had a fantastic time. And I learned two interesting things which might be useful for you to know if you've ever dreamed of becoming a published author yourself.

On book marketing
As I mentioned, Amy has three books either out or about to be released, but it was only the first novel that she was signing on Saturday. That's because Amy writes in two very different genres, under two very different publishers. Book #1 and 3 are related, the first two of an eight-book series, while Book #2 is entirely separate. One publisher sells through a variety of bookstores and small sellers; the other only sells directly through certain bookstores and libraries. So the strategies Amy uses to market her books have to be pretty well diversified if she's going to actively promote all of her books. The time and effort she's putting in to make her books successful make my head spin--and that doesn't even take into account the time she'd already spent writing, editing, and exchanging material with editors and publishers before she got to this point.

On writing clubs
Turns out Judi and Amy are old friends who first met years ago through the same local writer's club. They both had a lot to say about the importance of participating in such a writing group, stressing that it's critical to have other people's input on your writing. As an editor, that didn't surprise. But here's the part that I didn't expect to hear: Don't wait until the draft is finished to seek opinions and assistance. Amy and Judi both talked about how much it helped everyone in their group to discuss their writing early on, when they are still in the drafting or even planning stages of a work. Sometimes these discussions were useful even when participants didn't yet realize they needed help. Judi mentioned sessions where the group set aside all discussion except one specific area, plotting or characterization, for example. Can you imagine how productive and inspiring this would be early on in a long work, not to mention how many headaches might be avoided by using a good process from the beginning?

Let's hear your take on any of these subjects. Have you met a published author? What did you learn? Are you in the midst of marketing something you wrote? What strategies work best? And do you participate in a writing group? What makes the group valuable to you?

Punctuation tip: Using apostrophes, Part I

2010-01-06T07:39:00.002-05:00

Having seen once again an unfortunate and misleading use of apostrophes in my local grocery circular, I think this is something Word-wise could stand to address in detail. I've touched on apostrophe use before, but it's a lesson that bears repeating. Better yet, let's take this slowly and carefully and do it as several lessons over the next few weeks. First up:

Possessives
An apostrophe is commonly used to turn a noun into a possessive adjective. In most cases, that means simply attaching 's to a noun.

dog --> dog's
car --> car's
people --> people's

The advantage of possessive adjectives is, they're far more efficient than the phrases they replace. Using an apostrophe to form a possessive allows us to sidestep the kind of clunky phrasing that just doesn't sound natural in native English.

the leash of the dog --> the dog's leash
the paint job on the car --> the car's paint job
the choice of the people --> the people's choice

Notice there are two different kinds of nouns in use above. Dog and car are both simple singulars. People, however, is a plural. But because it's an irregular plural--that is, one that doesn't end in s--it follows the same rule as the singulars. Plurals that do end in s follow a slightly different apostrophe rule: add ' after the existing s.

dogs --> dogs'
cars --> cars'
boys --> boys'

Still pretty simple, right? The tricky part comes with singulars that end in s such as

dais
bass
Carlos

Here, you have a choice. Some style books recommend writing the possessive forms of s-singular words so that the their spellings have s written as many times as s is pronounced. That is, add 's. Other guides insist that any s-ending word, regardless whether it's singular or plural, only requires an apostrophe, not another s. Depending on which authority you consult, either may be right:

dais --> dais's OR dais'
bass --> bass's OR bass'
Carlos --> Carlos's OR Carlos'

You can see how problems soon arise. If you follow the first rule, you're graphically reproducing a pronunciation that not every speaker follows. After all, whether one pronounces one or two s sounds on an s-ending singular possessive is a regional, dialectal distinction. On the other hand, using only an apostrophe appears to indicate that these words are plurals. Depending on the context of the sentence, this can be quite confusing, especially since some words (including bass, above, when it means a type of fish) are spelled exactly the same whether singular or plural.

I prefer the first option myself because, at least on paper, it tends to be less ambiguous. But there are other opinions on the matter, too. In general, the key for s-ending singulars seems to be consistency. If you have a preference, use it boldly and steadfastly. If you have no particular preference, find out which rule the organization you're writing for usually practices, and stick to that pattern.

Next week, we'll look at using apostrophes to form contractions. But for now, chime in on apostrophes and possessives: preferences, anecdotes, questions, comments, opinions?

Tricky words

2009-12-22T09:14:00.004-05:00

With vacation just a couple days away--and deadlines both personal and professional looming in the in-between--I think we can all stand to keep things light here today. I thought I'd share a funny verbal hiccup that caught me by surprise yesterday.

While I'm fascinated with the power of Facebook for promoting a business, I don't find it the most intuitive interface to use. So I went to one of my favorite online forums yesterday for help with setting up my Facebook business pages. A wonderfully responsive person answered my post within the hour, passing along tips that were right on target for my initial question. This person is a known social marketing guru, and in the context of her answer, she touched on not just Facebook pages but also LinkedIn and Twitter for promoting business.

I was so pleased to get exactly the answer I needed and then some, practically instantly, that I guess I got a little overexcited and careless when I worded my next post. In it, I thanked her for her response and asked a second, related question. Along the way, I used the phrase "I think I'm not following you when...."

I should have known better. I don't use Twitter myself, but even I know that "Follow" means something different in an online context than it does traditionally. But I didn't realize I'd been unclear until I saw the poster's response. In it, she did not clarify the process but instead thanked me and posted links to her profile pages.

I was at first confused. I had to read the response three times before I understood what I had done to derail the conversation. When it hit me, I just had to laugh. (I LOLed, in fact. )

See, I thought I had been asking for clarification. But in the context of our social marketing subject matter, saying "I don't follow" didn't mean "I'm slow; please explain." Instead, it indicated I wanted to exchange promotional/contact information.

Oops.

I've mentally added a new editing category to my repertoire: Verbal Context 2.0.

Got a technology, Web, or gadget terminology story of your own? Chime in using the Comments section below. What are some of the terms we need to be careful to use in the right context these days?

Got style?

2009-12-15T09:26:00.001-05:00

I've been very busy in the last few weeks--and will continue to be swamped for the next three--with a major overhaul to my own business on top of project work with several clients. And there's the usual rush in the run-up to holidays, too. I know full well that I've overscheduled myself, and I know I'll be grateful for a little break come mid-January, when things are back to a normal level again. (Not that I'm complaining. In this economy, watching up-close my family, friends, and former colleagues struggling to get and keep employment, I also know I'd be a fool to turn away the work.)

Yet despite the juggling, I'm finding that things are running fairly smoothly. And that's mostly because I know not just my own, but each of my clients' standards and preferences. Whether the assignment I'm working on involves research, ghostwriting, full editing, or just final proofreading, I have a good idea what kinds of details to watch for from the ground up.

That's because I have established a style guide for each client. For some clients, it's simply a list I keep of common problems to look for, topics/fields of interest for research, and spelling or usage rules particular to that company's preferences.

With several clients, though, I've gone through the process of creating a formal in-house style document. This is especially useful in organizations in which several different individuals produce separate written documents. With the guide in place, each person approaches the written work from the same stated standards and mindset. This results in documents that require much less editing (and much less third-party editing expense) and that have a firm level of uniformity of appearance.

The finished style guide is just a small document, usually two to five pages total. But it represents an absolute wealth of information. The difference in documents that follow an established guide, and documents that are merely edited on a stand-alone basis, is significant. In fact, I've found it so helpful to have an in-house style manual that I've started offering style guide creation as a specialty service. I just love getting my fingers into those nit-picky details and helping an organization get down to its most basic expectations for written material.

These are some of the concerns I may address in a style guide, whether it's to become a formal document or just a simple checklist I keep for my own proofing double-check.

Page set-up: What standard margin, typeface, header and footer, pagination, and page organization preferences do you apply to most documents? When/under what circumstances/for which specific documents do you intentionally stray from those standards?
Branding, identification, and contact info: What is the organization's full name, address, and general-use phone number? When and where do you use the full name versus a shortened version? Is there any unusual spacing, hyphenation, use of diacritical marks, use of symbols, or capitalization associated with your organization's name? When and how do your logo and/or tag line appear in written documents? What is your mission statement, and when should phrasing that echoes that statement appear in your documents?
Spelling: What are the correct spellings of the names of your principals, investors, benefactors, product lines, industry software, institutions, or any other proper nouns that regularly arise in written documents? Which, if any, of these should never appear with a trademark or service mark symbol?
Established standards: Do you have a style book or documentation manual preference? (I generally suggest The Chicago Manual of Style, but depending on the organization itself and the field within which it works, Associated Press, Gregg Reference, Turabian, APA, Blue Book, or any number of other standard guides may be more appropriate.)
Field-level standards: What are the terms or processes you commonly use in your field that an outsider (me) would need to be familiar with to effectively edit your writing?
Organization-level standards: Even with an established reference in place, there will be some amount of interpretation involved. Not all punctuation, usage, and grammar rules are set in stone. What are the ones that have historically come up again and again in your documents? Here are a just few common examples:

When an unnamed individual is referred to, does your organization prefer to use the "he/she" construction, the so-called "common-sex he," or a recasting to pluralize the entire sentence as "they"?
Do you prefer to use a final serial comma or eliminate it?
Do you typically abbreviate United States as "US" or "U.S."?
Do you prefer "e-mail" or "email"? What about "Web site," "web site," or "website"?

Dictionary: Do you have a default dictionary choice? (Again, this may vary by field.)

What do you think? Do you have a company/personal/organization style guide? If so, what kinds of specific details does it include? If not, what would be among your first concerns if you put one together? Weigh in with any style guide-related thoughts in the Comments section.

Usage tip: track vs. tract

2009-12-01T08:04:00.000-05:00

The confusion of track and tract is is not the most common usage error, but I see it often enough, it bears addressing here. It's simple enough to fix if you're aware of it.

The problem can be traced to pronunciation. We tend to lazily under-enunciate the t at the end of tract, making the two words sound alike when they shouldn't. This pair is a case of not-quite homonym confusion. Being aware of the correct pronunciation, and spelling the word accordingly, can help you to avoid the problem:

track /trak/ (n.) a path or route; (v.) to trace or follow
Ex: The runner made his way around the track fifteen times before calling it a day.

tract /trakt/ (n.) a specific parcel or portion
Ex: The town council approved rezoning of the northeastern tract for development.

The difficulty of "s"

2009-12-01T08:03:00.002-05:00

Even those of us to whom it is a first language realize that English is not easy. Its verb conjugation is finicky, comprising almost as many exceptions as hard rules among the verbs we use most often. Its spelling is often unpredictable. Its vocabulary is constantly changing and growing.

But it's not just those larger concepts that are hard. Single letters can present big problems all on their own. S, in my opinion, is the toughest of all. I didn't begin to fully grasp how hard s can be until I heard my older toddler's first few attempts at speaking full sentences a year ago. It's no wonder kids talk funny, as they would put it. They have an absolute verbal minefield to navigate, and the letter s is not an insignificant part of that.

To demonstrate, here's a question: What does the letter s do when it's added to a word?

Probably your first answer is "It makes a singular noun into a plural." That's absolutely true...sometimes. Of course, there are numerous exceptions to that rule. More than one bus are not "buss." More than one ox are not "oxs." More than one man are not "mans." More than one child are not "childs." And so forth.

S is still a confusing phoneme apart from plurals. Consider what it does when it's attached to a verb instead of a noun. All of a sudden, the reverse happens. Where -s nouns are often plural, -s verbs, in present tense, are usually paired with singular subjects. Here's what our grammar would look like if nouns and verbs were forced to follow the same -s rule:

The dogs eats their kibble noisily.
A car screech to a halt as the boys walks across the street without looking.

In other words, nouns and verbs are expected to agree grammatically, but that does not mean they are expected to look like they match, at least in terms of spelling.

As if that's not enough, the s presents special problems in oral and aural language. It's not an easy sound to master. To top it off, the sound you get when you do it right is harsh. It's really no surprise that some languages do not have the s sound at all! Imagine you want to teach someone how to pronounce s. The lecture might go something like this:

Flatten your tongue in your mouth. Yes, but don't let it poke past your front teeth. Keep it surrounded by your teeth. Good start! Now just flatten it in back a bit more so it isn't touching your palate at all. If that happens, you'll get sh instead. There, now you've got it! Now bring your jaws close together. No, not that close. They shouldn't actually touch. Great! Now project some air up and out so it hisses across your tongue, like this: ssssss....

But we're not done. Now imagine you're teaching the same person to read aloud. How will you explain when the s sound is pronounced using the complicated maneuver above, as opposed to applying a slightly different maneuver, the sound of z? Consider the word sizes, for example. Its initial s makes an s sound, but its final s actually is pronounced as a voiced z.

And finally, there's the aural s to tackle. When a person hears the s pronounced at the end of a noun, he has to interpret what it means. The sound can indicate either that the noun is plural, or it can turn the noun into a possessive. Apostrophes help with this interpretation when the s ending word is written, but when it's spoken, the brain has to rely entirely on context clues to mentally insert that apostrophe.

I can think of no other letter that presents so many challenges. Readers, chime in with your thoughts, opinions, examples, or questions about s or other problem single letters/phonemes.

A brief NaNo brag

2009-12-01T08:03:00.000-05:00

NaNoWriMo 2009 is over. After a month of frenetic writing (or, as the organizers put it, "thirty days of literary abandon"), keyboards everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief. And I'm very pleased to report that I made it to the goal. Yes, I wrote a book! And it's a fiction book at that. 100% of the writing and 90+% of the editing I do in my business is nonfiction, so NaNo was a new and different ball game for me. That makes it feel like an even bigger achievement. (Mind you, I didn't say it's a good book. It may even be awful. I just am proud to have finished the task.)

It turns out that, this year, a whole lot of people won. The contest numbers are not final yet, but as of this morning, a whopping 19% of the hundreds of thousands of worldwide participants scribbled furiously right to the bitter end, each cranking out 50,000 words or more. If I remember correctly, the completion average of previous years was under 10%. I wonder what made the difference this year. Is it related to the poor economy, the larger non-earning time we have available to write? Has something in our world culture changed, making writing a more important goal than before? Or is it something less significant, like maybe fewer people who really didn't intend to finish signed up in the first place?

I suppose the "why" will never be answered. But that's just fine. One way or another, the number is impressive. Congratulations to everyone who had the guts to try, and a double "good for you" to those who crossed the 50K finish line.

Usage tip: "conversate" and "orientate"

2009-11-23T22:14:00.000-05:00

Both "conversate" and "orientate" are nonstandard usages that have become so widespread that, in some contexts, they have started to look acceptable. But neither is deemed advisable in any major stylebook, and many dictionaries don't even list the words as secondary variants.

It's easy to see where these forms come from if you look at the logic behind them. It goes something like this: The words rotation, complication, pagination, and dozens of others are all nouns. If you want to use the verb form of each word, you simply remove the -ion ending and replace it with an -e.

(n.) rotation ---> (v.) rotate
(n.) complication ---> (v.) complicate
(n.) pagination ---> (v.) paginate

Ergo, to get the verb form of conversation and orientation, you follow the same process, right?

(n.) conversation ---> (v.) conversate
(n.) orientation ---> (v.) orientate

It's logical, but nonetheless, in this case, it doesn't work. The correct verb from conversation is converse. The verb from orientation is orient.

"Conversate" and "orientate" are known to language experts as back-formations. A back-formation is a new word (generally considered incorrect, at least when it's new) that results from taking a known word and attempting to derive another form using a method that may work for other words but is misplaced. "Conversate" and "orientate" result from the removal of a suffix. Other back-formations come from the erroneous removal of letters that appear to be prefixes but are not. For example, couth (meaning "refined") is a back-formation of the word uncouth. Although its appearance was first recorded more than a hundred years ago, couth still isn't strictly acceptable and is used very infrequently. It is regarded as somewhat of a joke. In some dictionaries, couth is listed primarily as a back-formation or with a notation "used facetiously," and in others, it isn't listed at all.

If you're interested in delving deeper, here are a few interesting links that discuss back-formation.

Chime in with your favorite (or least favorite) back-formed words in Comments.

Tip: Capitalization and the colon

2009-11-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

I'm working on a long-term writing and editing project that involves short promo pieces that are distributed to my client's clients periodically. It so happens that one of those client-clients is an editor. When she got a recent promo piece, she responded with a list of suggestions which my client then passed along to me for review.

Most of the comments were style recommendations that were simply a matter of preference. But one was not and, to me, stood out like a sore thumb. It said, "Generally we cap a full sentence after a colon, but not everyone does that."

I did my due diligence and checked my sources. I sent the following response back to my client:

This just goes to show that we never know it all. I've never, ever seen that done anywhere unless the sentence following is an indirect quote or some sort of semi-formal declaration. (Ex: I promise you this: You haven't heard the last of me!) So I checked Chicago Manual of Style, which is generally considered to be the "gold standard" of editing. It says to cap when a full sentence follows a colon and gives three example sentences. However, one of the examples given is not, indeed, capitalized when the material after the colon is clearly a full sentence! Confusing at best. So I also checked Associated Press Stylebook. Often AP is loosey-goosey about the rules Chicago insists upon. But in this case, AP is crystal clear: do it. I'm thinking this little-known rule should be the tip for my next Word-wise post. Thanks for the inspiration!

Of course there are several lessons to be learned here. The first one is the actual capitalization-after-colon rule. It's certainly a rule that was new to me, but you can believe I won't mistake it again.

Second, as I said in my response, we never know it all. That's doubly true when the medium you work in is as fickle and malleable as English/language is.

Third, this is a reminder that it's advisable to have more than one reference source on hand. Even when you have adopted one as your primary style guide, there will be the occasional question that isn't covered there or that requires further explanation.

And finally, I'm reminded once again that ALL of us, editors and proofreaders included, would benefit from having another person looking over our shoulders now and then. Even when one knows all the rules (it pains me to admit that was not the case here), it's sometimes hard to see whether they're applied correctly in one's own work--a "can't see the forest for the trees" phenomenon.

What do you think? Whether your subject is colons, capitalization, reference material, or life lessons, I look forward to your comments.

How NOT to be clear and concise

2009-11-16T08:59:00.002-05:00

As many of you know from my post several weeks ago, I am participating in this year’s NaNoWriMo madness. I am finding it to be a constant challenge—not because I can’t come up with enough words to fulfill my 1,766 per day quota, but because I’m an editor, both by trade and by nature. I can write those words, but I find it virtually impossible to leave them on the page once I stick them there unless I add to, delete from, rearrange, expand, contract, synonymize, and otherwise dicker with them.

I know what I need to do in order to be declared a winner in this contest. After all, NaNo is not supposed to result in world-class literature. It’s just for fun. NaNo’s organizers and supporters have emphasized many times that making it to the end of the challenge and actually producing 50,000 words in this short time means that sometimes, you just have to write words. Not good words, but many words. Quality has nothing to do with it. The editing can wait until later, if, indeed, it is ever done at all. For now, it is much more important to grind out letter after letter, page after page.

So, as much as it hurts me to do it, I’m chucking the editor’s persona for a few minutes. Here are a few tips I’ve compiled, as wordily as possible, for all of my fellow WriMos. They are, naturally, tips I’d advise directly against at any other time except that, hey, it’s just about mid-November, and I have a long way to go, both in my novel's word count and on the calendar.

Flashbacks are convenient page-fillers. So what if you never made any mention before of your character’s traumatic childhood, secret superhero identity, or alien abduction. What are you waiting for? Tell that juicy bit now! Melodrama and unbelievable fantasy are the stuff of loquacity.
Very is a valid intensifier and should be used often. Nay, make that very, very, very often.
Calling a character by his full name, including honorifics, degrees, military rank, and, if possible, pedigree, every time you mention him is good. It eliminates, without a shadow of a doubt, any chance that your reader (if ever you have one) will confuse that character with any other person, living, dead, or undead.
Pronouns are far too efficient, and efficiency is bad. For details, see number 3 above.
Really is a valid intensifier and should be used often. Nay, make that really, really, really often.
When very (very, very, very) desperate, open your novel in progress, then invoke the use of this magical incantation: copy and paste. If you’re clever and just a little devious, you can double your word count in mere seconds.
Apostrophes can be deadly to word count. They are especially lethal when they are used in combination with the complete ignorance of number 3, above. Why call a champion racehorse “Sugarlips” when he could instead be “Sugarlips Magnificent of Sugarpie Honeysuckle from Cloudy Sky Stables, the horse of the vaunted mother of the eastward neighbor of Sally Jo Higgenbottam, Ph. D.”?
If you try, you can find a way to work just, still, lots, again, many, much, simply, or clearly into practically any sentence. In fact, if you really (really, really, really) try, you can work ALL of them into any sentence.
Add yourself as a character. Then skip the Twitter and let your character journal throughout the day. 140 characters at a time add up to a lot of words.
Practice premeditated irrelevance. Inadvertent arbitrary verbal wanderings are nice, too. Like Mario “Toddy Man” Nichmuckerberg. Did I ever tell you about him? He was my great great great uncle, by marriage, divorce, and remarriage to the ex’s cousin. (Come to think of it, no. The divorce and remarriage transformed Mario from my ex-great great great uncle into my current first cousin thrice removed…I think.) I may have mentioned Mario before. He was that fellow that was married briefly to Elizabeth Taylor somewhere between the years of that guy, you know the one who later became governor of Virginia, and Larry Fortensky. In my family tree, that translates to the year between his marriages to Great-Great-Great Aunt Matilda and Cousin Gertrude. Anyhow, Mario made the best hot toddies you’ve ever tasted.
Donot’ poofread no mater wat you do. its a hugh thyme waster that that sucks up minites yu could be ussin the just right more words .

Feel free to use the Comments section to add your own tips. In the spirit of NaNoWriMo, silliness is not just permitted but encouraged.

Usage tip: "historic" vs. "historical"

2009-11-09T21:25:00.000-05:00

A language of English's size and complexity bursts with interesting applications--and the potential for misuse. Today's usage tip is one of those less-known possible pitfalls: the difference between historic and historical is not just one of preference. While both words are derived from the noun history, and both are adjectives, they are used in completely difference circumstances.

Historic is used to indicate something that is significant, groundbreaking, or otherwise important. Something that is truly historic will have an impact that can't be overlooked by anyone involved.

The governor was on hand to deliver an address about the historic new memorial.
This historic measure will change the way we do business at Billings-Houseman Microtech.

Calling something historical, on the other hand, is not necessarily the same as calling it significant. That which is historical is simply recognized as a matter of precedent or known fact.

The researchers spent years combing historical documents and archaeological sites for clues to the legendary event; alas, they found no indication it had ever happened.
Historical evidence suggests that the prosecutor will go to extreme lengths in a case like yours.

One thing to keep in mind is that only historical can be converted into an adverb. Historically--meaning roughly the same as "usually"--is in most contexts more commonly used than its -ly-less form.

The doctor will order tests to rule out other conditions historically associated with chest pain.

Comments, questions, and further discussion are all welcome. Jump right in!

Choosing the right word: "Good Samaritan"

2009-11-03T08:47:00.002-05:00

It's always important to weigh words carefully in our writing. But be doubly careful of accuracy when your writing contains cultural, religious, or otherwise sensitive references. I can think of no Christian reference that is more misused than the term "good Samaritan."

In the book of Luke in the Bible, the parable goes like this:

(25) One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” (26) Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?” (27) The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (28) “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

(29) The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (30) Jesus then replied with a story: “A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. (31) By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. (32) A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. (33) Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. (34) Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. (35) The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

(36) “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. (37) The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

This is not a story of ordinary kindness. Several details put the Samaritan's actions far beyond simply "doing good." In the religious and cultural context of the day, the Samaritan is a cultural outcast who would have been regarded repulsive by the Jewish audience of the time. It is deliberately shocking to see the hated Samaritan doing what respectable, powerful, and able men (the priest and temple official) do not, opening both his heart and his wallet and spending a significant amount of his time to help the beaten man. Furthermore, the savage nature of the crime demonstrates that this road is a dangerous place to hang around. In stopping to help, the Samaritan has likely put his personal safety at stake as well.

"Good Samaritan" references certainly have their place in modern language. Just remember that the term is not simply a synonym for "do-gooder." It is an extraordinarily unlikely, surprising person, often someone who lives on the fringes of society, who risks his own safety in kindness toward someone else.

This is not the only religious reference in common use, either in news media or commercial contexts. In the Comments section, share other examples of terms that have a place but should be handled with extra sensitivity.

Do you NaNo?

2009-10-26T08:06:00.000-04:00

November, National Novel Writing Month, is less than one week away. That means thousands upon thousands of fun-loving wannabe novelists are flexing their digits in preparation for a month-long typefest of bad prose. NaNoWriMo, of course!

If you've never heard of NaNoWriMo, this probably sounds like a literary train wreck. In some ways, it is. But I'm pleased to say this year I've actually signed up in time to participate, and I have every intention of grinding away in pursuit of the 50,000 words it takes to be officially declared a winner.

I love the NaNoWriMo concept for so many reasons. As the NaNo Web site makes abundantly clear, this is all in good fun. No one expects to turn out a polished novel (or even, really, a slightly reasonable one) within a single frantic thirty-day time limit. Instead, it's about exploration. It's about taking on a verbal challenge that seems impossible. It's about freely exercising the creative part of our minds without worrying about pedantic concerns. It's about getting a tiny little glimpse of the world of a novelist, from inside said novelist's shoes. It's about playing with words: here's a great time to give all those unused entries in your personal vocabulary a dress rehearsal before debuting them before an actual audience. It's about community, too, as regional events all over the world invite like-minded WriMos to meet, commiserate with, bounce ideas off, and otherwise support each other.

And despite all these feel-good reasons, I believe occasions like NaNoWriMo can lead to better writing. While it's unlikely anything any of us writes for this contest will see the light of day, the intensity and focus it requires is almost certain to be good mental exercise. And any kind of practice advances a person another step toward competency. Not competence, but competency--a concept Sean D'Souza articulately explained in this post not too long ago.

Jump in, readers: are you signed up to be a WriMo this year? Why or why not?

Usage tip: later vs. latter

2009-10-19T09:13:00.001-04:00

Ah, the difference an extra t can make! Later is an adverb that describes the time of an action. Latter is an adjective that identifies the last of two or more items listed previously.

We will do our shopping later, after these crowds have thinned.
The restaurant served shrimp fried and broiled. Susan preferred the latter. [That is, Susan preferred broiled.]

Rote memorization may be the best bet in this case. But if you like a challenge, here are two other techniques you can use to determine logically which word is the one you need.

1) Remember your phonics lessons.
You would immediately recognize the difference between the words if you heard them aloud, so let the word's spelling guide you to its pronunciation, then its meaning.

In English, the vowel before a single consonant is typically given a long pronunciation. Thus later, with only one t, is preceded by a long -a sound. On the other hand, the vowel before a double consonant in English is typically a short sound. Thus latter, with two t's, is preceded by a short -a sound.

2) Use the spelling of the word's antonym to lead you to the right choice.

late/early...thus later/earlier (Adding the comparative -er does not affect the consonants.)
latter/former (Former is clearly a reference to order, not time. For this pair, remember the spelling by recalling that both words in the pair have six letters. If one of yours has only five, you'll need to add the missing t.

As I said, those are nice if you like a challenge. But they are rather cumbersome rules for everyday use. If you have a great way to remember how to use later vs. latter, other than memorization, please share in the Comments.

Options, options, options: Making a comment

2009-10-19T09:13:00.000-04:00

A reader emailed me asking for help with all the identity options in the Comments section. She suggested I post my answer here as others of you may wonder the same thing. Thank you for the wise suggestion! You're helping make this a better place for us all.

When you click into the message field under "Post a Comment," nothing particularly special happens right away. The cursor appears, and you type. But before you click "Post Comment" to submit your message, you should choose an identity. Between the message field and the "Post Comment" button, you'll find the words "Comment as:" followed by a drop-down menu. Click the arrow next to the field, and you'll see something like this:

If you already have any of the accounts listed here, and you are currently logged in, your browser may select that identity as your default "Comment as:" choice. You may leave the default in place if you like. Note: The platform that delivers Word-wise is Blogger, a Google property, so naturally the Google Account option is the first one on the list. But, contrary to some myths you may read online, you don't have to have a Google account to make a comment on a Blogger blog.

If you don't have any of those accounts, that's not a problem. You may still post your comment. You just have to take a few extra seconds to give yourself an identity since nothing will be selected by default. It's sort of like filling out one of those "Hello My Name Is" name tags when you're a guest at some event where everyone else is a member. At the bottom of the drop-down menu, "Name/URL" and "Anonymous" are listed. One of these will be appropriate for your situation.

"Name/URL" is actually two options in one:

If you want to sign your name and have it link back to your own blog or Web site, fill in both fields with the appropriate information.
If you want to identify yourself within the Word-wise community but not be trackable from elsewhere by search engines, fill in the Name field with just a first name, nickname, or handle, but leave the URL field blank.

Here's an example of Number 2 above. Let's say John Smith is a stickler for correct English. One day I write a post about a particular phrase, XYZ. John might see that post and submit a comment like this: "My boss used to say XYZ regularly. It drove me crazy until I shared this rule with him: ABC. It's easy to remember and works!"

This is the kind of comment that will make Word-wise valuable as a blog. John's rule may be just the one that helps another reader understand how to fix XYZ. But if John's boss is defensive or retaliatory, John probably doesn't want the comment to hit the 'Net under his real name. Instead, John can use Name/URL option. Let's say John calls himself "Grammar General" and leaves the URL field blank every time he comments here. Regular readers of Word-wise will recognize any comment from Grammar General as one written by the guy with the grammar-impaired boss. But unless he calls himself Grammar General somewhere else, John will remain completely without identity outside this blog.

"Anonymous," by contrast, is truly anonymous. If you choose this option, your comment will appear under the name "anonymous," period.

There are some bloggers that feel very strongly about anonymous comments and argue that there's absolutely no aboveboard reason to use them. They cite flaming and spam as the only things anonymous comments are good for.

I disagree. The "anonymous" option is handy for people who want to remain under the radar for valid personal reasons. Maybe they are just shy. Maybe they fear lack of security on the Internet. Maybe they have a vengeful ex who watches everything they do online. Maybe they just want to have an iota of privacy while still contributing to the conversation. Someone who is a button-down professional in a conservative industry by day and an avid gamer by night has good reason to keep his interests separate. On the other hand, if language is a big part of what you do and you share good tips with readers here, maybe you want your name to be associated with this site. That's great for everyone involved. The point is, you have a choice.

Say what?

2009-10-12T08:30:00.000-04:00

Once again I'm noticing some new language usages that have not been standard before. I list them here just for the sake of sharing a few harmless curmudgeonly grumbles with my fellow language guardians.

busted
It has become quite common in my local newspaper and local television newscasts to find busted used in place of "broken." For example, in telling of a robbery, a reporter said that "the vehicle's window was busted out and the driver's purse taken." There's no question this usage was a no-no in the past (and frankly still is in my book). Many style manuals specify that bust is a noun, not a verb. But I've heard and seen its usage as a verb so frequently lately, I can't help but think it will eventually be acknowledged even among linguistic authorities.

locked up
Again, this is one I've observed a lot in recent local TV news. The trend may or may not be more widespread; nonetheless, I find it curious and somewhat disturbing. When a suspect is taken into custody, he is likely to be described as locked up in the newscast. Not "arrested" or "incarcerated" or "jailed pending bond" or another neutral, report-the-facts term. To my ear, the use of "locked up" implies that the suspect has been victimized somehow, yet it is used equally with minor and egregious crimes.

impactful
For sheer weirdness, this one takes the cake. I've only witnessed it myself in one place, but that's not to say it doesn't exist elsewhere. Here's the quote:

It's easy to start a blog, but it's another to create an environment that's engaging enough to be an impactful part of your business," confirmed Bill Rielly, SMB Marketing Director for Microsoft. (Here's the full story.)

I thought this might simply be a word I didn't know rather than one that's new, so I tried looking it up in half a dozen dictionaries. I only found it listed in two, and both are newer editions. That leads me to conclude that "impactful" is a recent phenomenon.

Personally, I would have used a word like "effective," "critical," or perhaps even "lucrative" instead, but
maybe that's just because new usages tend not to be immediately impactful on my traditional verbiage.

Join in: share your pet new usages (or pet peeves about them) in the Comments below.

What makes a good writing contest?

2009-10-05T08:43:00.001-04:00

Over the past few months, I've stumbled across a staggering number of articles and blog posts that promote writing contests as a way to "break into" writing. The writers of these articles claim that building a portfolio or making extra income is "easy" if you enter contests frequently. (I'm not willing to provide it an incoming link, but if you copy and paste this address, you'll find an example of one of those posts: http://www.articlesbase.com/writing-articles/easiest-way-to-make-money-writing-890923.html .)

I like writing contests myself. I'm heartened by the image of dozens of people seeing a contest prompt, finding inspiration, and exercising their brains with some eager composition. I also know people who make practically a second job of entering writing contests, and they enjoy every minute of it whether they win or not. There are so many contest lovers out there, in fact, I provide a listing of updated contest links on the writer resources page of my Web site.

But the notion that contests are the easy solution to beginning a writing career is fallacy. First of all, I view any notion of "easy" with suspicion. What's easy to one person is a heavy burden to another, and writing is no exception. Like painting, teaching, welding, driving, skydiving, cooking, or any other skill, writing comes naturally to some while to others it's a torture and toil. But I doubt anyone who does it well, even a bestselling author with millions of fans, finds it effortless.

And merely winning a contest is not likely to be career-changing. Sure, the occasional lucky writer will gain fame, clips, a big check, and/or critical acclaim through a contest entry. But for the rest of us, the advice that contest entry is a ticket to Stephen King-land falls solidly into the category of "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

So what DOES makes a good contest? The answer to that question is largely personal. Here are a few
common-sense questions to ask yourself before you spend any time or mental energy preparing contest entries.

Have I read every last word of the contest rules?
Yes, it's terribly obvious, but it's also terribly important. Somewhere in the fine print may be a detail that makes you ineligible or unwilling to enter. Make it your mission to root out those details before you spend a single minute preparing your entry.

Does the contest fit my writing goals?
Different contests are for different writers. If your goal is just to have fun, don't torture yourself entering a contest that will require blood, sweat, and tears. If you make money for your writing (i.e. as a freelancer), don't waste time entering amateur contests for which you are ineligible. If you dream of fame and fortune, don't bother with small regional contests sponsored by little-known organizations. If you want to establish a reputation as a serious, respected literary artist, don't enter jingle-writing contests that only promote some other guy's product. And if you're attached to a piece of writing, don't enter it in a contest that requires signing over your editorial or future publication rights.

Who's judging?
If your goal is pure entertainment, maybe you don't care about this. That's perfectly okay. But if you're looking to publish in the big leagues one day, the names you see on the judging panel could be future contacts or references. For this reason, keep a running record of which agent, author, or publisher has seen and judged which of your works.

Who's sponsoring?
Again, those who write for the sheer fun of it may not care about impressing any particular audience, and there's nothing wrong with that. Entertainment is a legitimate goal in itself. But if you have a very specific goal--to land a book publishing contract, for example, or to gain exposure for your graduate thesis--it's not an efficient use of your time to send your writing to contests that don't attract the people who can help with those goals.

Also keep in mind that, in almost all cases, your name will forever be associated with the sponsor's name if you win. Just as actors get typecast, writers can be pigeonholed. A sponsor whose product or audience is associated with technical writing, horror, academia, romance, politics, children's lit, hard journalism, or any other specialized interest or genre may not be one you wish to be afiliated with if your goals change later.

Is there an entry fee?
Use careful judgment here. Having to pay a reading fee does not necessarily mean a contest is a scam. There are sometimes good reasons for entry or reading fees. Legitimate contests sometimes charge fees in order to provide a stipend, transportation costs, etc. to the contest's judges. Contests whose purpose is to raise funds for a nonprofit may do so by charging a fee. (If this is the reason for a fee, though, you should be able to find mention of the nonprofit's 501(c)(3) status somewhere in the contest material.) It's up to you to decide whether any one fee requirement is outside your comfort zone, and listen if your gut tells you something about a fee is amiss.

Also be aware that "free to enter" does not necessarily mean a contest is 100% safe. A contest that costs $0 to enter but forces you to waive rights to your work is NOT free. A contest that requires a fee grossly disproportionate to the total amount paid out to winners is suspect. It is not reasonable for a contest sponsor to require a $20 entry fee for a contest that only awards $50 to one winner. Also suspect are contests that offer a prize only if X or more people enter (i.e., only if X entry fees have been collected).

Is written critique offered?
If you're a committed self-editor who appreciates thoughtful criticism, this can be a great prize in itself. But beware: only thick-skinned entrants should opt for this extra. Judges' comments can run a wide range. Some are too brief to be helpful. Others may be so sugary they are not credible. Or you might fall prey to the rare judge who takes demonic pleasure in scathing diatribes, assuming the soapbox on everything from the relevant (your language, plot development, or imagery) to the incidental (the ethnic spelling of your legal name).

What's the prize? And do I really want it?
If you get an electrical thrill just from the announcement you've won, the "First Place" title may be the only prize you want. If you love to see your name in print, publication may be the ultimate joy. If cold, hard cash is the only thing that makes you smile, don't enter a contest that doesn't offer it. But be doubly careful about non-cash prizes. Some contests may make your status as winner contingent on your accepting delivery of and writing a favorable review on a promotional product, or agreeing to having your name placed on a subscription or mailing list. Others may require you to pay the cost of having material prizes shipped to you--a potentially high "winner's fee" if it's an international contest.

If your only desire is to be named "winner" but a contest also awards a material prize you don't care to possess (ex: an electronic gadget that's fun but incompatible with your current hardware), think twice about entering. Unless the item will be easy for you to pass along to someone else, it could wind up being more of a burden than a prize.

There are countless other details contest entrants should consider also, but the bottom line is this: be cautious. No contest is appropriate for every writer, and a handful are nothing more than scams that aren't good for anyone. Your words, and the time you spend crafting them, are too precious to fritter away on contests that aren't the right fit for you.

Usage tip: cite vs. sight vs. site

2009-09-29T08:56:00.001-04:00

With so-called words like "nite" and "lite" proliferating in advertising, it's no wonder we get confused when confronted by real words that happen to look like those made-up spellings. The three /sīt/ words, cite, sight, and site, have very different, distinct uses. Aside from their grouping as homonyms, they are not related. In other words, none is a Madison Avenue stand-in for another.

cite (v) to acknowledge or recognize; to issue a formal notice of award OR violation
sight (n) the visual sense; something which is seen; an instrument used to aid one's vision, or
(v) to see or spot
site (n) a location

To determine which word to use, try using the spellings of related words as a guide.

cite: to award a citation
sight: vision requires light
site: a Web site is a location of sorts

Test your knowledge by choosing the right word for these sentences.

The hunter quietly centered the buck in his ---.
Please don't --- me for speeding to the hospital, officer. I'm having chest pains.
Resplendent in her silk gown, the bride was a --- to behold.
The new building --- is being cleared for construction as we speak.
The soldier was --- for his heroic efforts during the skirmish. [Hint: You'll need the past tense form.]

Answers: 1) sight 2) cite 3) sight 4) site 5) cited

How ARE you?

2009-09-19T23:06:00.005-04:00

Ask two articulate people "How are you?" and there's a chance they'll give the same answer in different grammar. Ask them within each other's hearing, and maybe you'll get a debate instead of the simple statement of general good health you expected.

Anyone with a good grasp of grammar would agree with one "How are you?" detail. Are is the be verb, conjugated to its second person, present tense form. But that little word causes so much trouble.

One side of the argument goes like this: a basic English rule is that verbs cannot be described (modified) by
adjectives; they must take on adverbs. Since good is an adjective, it does not apply. But its denotative equal, well, is an adverb. Hence, it is the appropriate choice.

The other argument is this: am does the same thing here as any version of be does in most sentences: it acts as a linking verb. Linking verbs are the exceptions to the adjective-adverb rule because, while they are grammatically necessary, they lend no meaning whatsoever to a sentence. Their only function is to act as an equal sign connecting a sentence's subject and its predicate nominative.

Let's dust off the old grammar manual for a moment. A predicate nominative is a name or descriptor that resides in a sentence's predicate (the verb-controlled portion of the sentence) but refers to or describes the subject. For example, in each of these sentences, the italicized word is a linking verb. It connects a subject (in blue) and a nominative (in red).

Aunt Sue is a world-class ice skater.
Marty is Jeanne's fiancé.
Homework is the bane of every schoolboy's existence.
Bella feels stifled by the regulations in her new job.
Some snakes look more dangerous than they are.
That veal piccata smells delectable.
English grammar certainly is tricky.

These examples show that nominatives come in two types. In 1-3, they are nouns renaming the subject. In 4-7, they are adjectives describing the subject. There are no nominative adverbs. Ergo, if are is a linking verb, the appropriate response to "How are you?" cannot be an adverb like well. But it can be an adjective like good.

So which argument are we poor mortals to believe?

Some authorities that are far more respected than I am espouse the first view, so I'll stop short of declaring once and for all that the second argument is the correct one. But I'll also share the reasoning that convinces me "How are you?" contains a linking verb.

If am is an action verb, precisely what action does it describe? How does one "am"? That's hard to answer because one does not act on "am." In a sentence that uses a linking verb, the action is unimportant or doesn't exist at all. The verb is only there because, without one, the sentence would be incomplete. The descriptor, not the verb, is the sentence's focus. Therefore, the verb here is a linking verb.
Perform a simple test: replace the be verb with an equal verb. Find that hard? Most linking verbs can occasionally be used as action verbs, but I can't thing of any exclusively-action verb that can be used in "How are you?" without changing the question's meaning. This again suggests that be is a linking verb.
Here's another test to try: apply universal reasoning. Whatever rule the response to the question follows, that same rule must be able to apply regardless the nature of the response. So let's say the respondent has recently suffered a terrible illness. According to the first argument, his answer should be "I am badly." On the other hand, applying the linking verb-adjective rule results in "I am bad" or the less dramatic "I am not good." Clearly both are better choices than "I am badly." Once again, this suggests the sentence contains a linking verb.

Of course, one could avoid the grammatical argument by saying "It's a great day," "I feel awful," or "I am in good health." But those seem rather overblown responses to a simple greeting.

Weigh in on the debate. Do you see the be in "How are you?" as an action verb or a linking verb? What's the best way to respond? Share your ideas in the Comments section.

Usage tip: every one vs. everyone

2009-09-19T22:50:00.002-04:00

The difference between every one and everyone is fine. Everyone is a genderless pronoun used to name nonspecific people. Every one is a phrase that functions as a pronoun. The one part of the phrase is genderless and can apply to any person, but the addition of the adjective every makes the phrase far more specific.

To refer to "everyone" is to imply no specific person. To refer to "every one" is quite the opposite: it emphasizes that each individual is a distinct entity. It is often followed by other words that further define those individuals.

Consider these sentences:

Phyllis was angry with everyone after the practical joke was revealed.
Phyllis was angry with every one of her friends after the practical joke was revealed.

In the first, Phyllis's anger is widespread. In the second one, she's not angrier, but her anger is more personally directed toward the individuals involved.

There's a simple test that can help determine which usage is correct. Substitute the term each one in the sentence. If the two-word each one works, then the two-word every one is the correct choice. But if each one makes no sense, use the one-word everyone instead.*

The principal shook hands with each one of the graduates.
OR
The principal shook hands with every one of the graduates.

The one-word, two-word test works for every sentence. But in some sentences, there's a rule that can also help you differentiate: everyone can stand in place of a person only. Every one, on the other hand, can refer to any noun--that is, a person, place, or thing. Example:

Every one of the cookies was burned. (Cookies are not people, so they can't be everyone.)

Test your understanding. Complete each sentence with either every one or everyone.

Give an application to --- interested in management training.
--- who wants to take vacation between now and December needs special approval.
I wish to thank --- of you for your assistance during my recent illness.
Keeping our waterways clean is ---'s responsibility.
The storm left --- of the screens with gaping holes.

Answers: 1) everyone; 2) everyone; 3) every one; 4) everyone; 5) every one

*If the one-word, two-word test sounds familiar, it should: it's the same one mentioned in the every day/everyday tip from the November 30, 2008 issue of Word-wise, the ezine. The test likewise works for any one vs. anyone.

Welcome to the new Word-wise!

2009-09-18T09:34:00.005-04:00

Thank you for visiting Word-wise! I hope you'll return often.

I love the world of blogging and have followed a number of favorite blogs for several years. But if you're not familiar to blogging, I realize Word-wise's new medium might look a little overwhelming at first. Don't worry; you'll catch on quickly.

I deliberated for nearly a year over whether to convert from ezine to blog. The pros that swayed me were these: first, most blog platforms are designed to be fast and easy. Because I won't have to spend loads of time formatting the text, creating RSS updates, or uploading to the distribution service as I did with the ezine, new material can appear in Word-wise more frequently. Second, because I'm no longer using a predetermined distribution schedule, Word-wise can now include timely language news items while they are still fresh and relevant. That lack of schedule also means I don't have to produce an entire finished publication at once--one tip or article at a time means less madness and easier editing. Finally, blogs are interactive. Readers can become part of the conversation rather than just be "talked at." I think this is the most exciting change of all. I look forward to reading all of your responses.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. If you're new to blogging, a little blog background is in order, beginning with a quick language lesson. (This is Word-wise, after all!)

The word blog is a contraction of the term "Web log." In its earliest form, a blog was simply a personal journal stored online. Being online made complete journals easy for their writers to access from any location practically worldwide. It was also a great way of keeping up with friends: click on a link to the journal to see what your buddy is up to.

While most modern blogs are still personal and somewhat random, blogging has also evolved into wider, more targeted audiences. You'll find blogs that cater to interests in hobbies, travel, nonprofit organizations, sports, religious groups, political causes, arts, humanitarian projects, celebrity news, humor--you name it.

Blogging has even gone commercial. Some corporations use blogs to promote new products, answer customer questions, and publish access to owner's manuals and troubleshooting guides.

Though every blog is different, some blog characteristics and terminology are nearly uniform across the board. Here are a few of the most common.

Naming conventions
The complete publication is a blog; a single entry in that work is a post. For example: Word-wise is my blog; "Welcome to the new Word-wise" is this particular post.

Organization
Many blogs use labels or tags to organize posts. These are key words that identify the topic of each post. Usually tags are indicated at the end of a post. (Scroll to the bottom of this post, and you'll see it's tagged "general.")

Many blogs feature a tag list somewhere in the sidebar (a narrow column to the right or left of the main text). Sometimes each tag in a tag list will be followed by a number. That number tells how many posts within the blog are designated with that tag.

Other times tags are listed in the form of a tag cloud. This is visual representation of the blog's topical emphasis. The tags appear alphabetically but in varying sizes. The tags most common to that blog appear in the largest font. Since common tags seems to pop off the page, it's easy to see them at a glance. (You won't see a tag cloud here--it's just a my fussy personal preference not to have a thousand font sizes on a single page.)

Tags make finding older favorite posts easy, too. If you click on a tag, you'll get a complete listing of all posts within the blog that have that tag.

Many of the tags you'll see here at Word-wise will be modeled after the sections of the former ezine: News Notes (now "news"), Language Corner (now "language"), Business Beat (now "business"), "tips," etc.

Return reading options
If you surf the Internet and read blogs randomly, you'll find blogs you like and blogs that make you question the writer's sanity. It's easy enough to click away from the strange ones. But it's also easy to return to the good ones later. Often there are several ways to do this.

Bookmark/name as favorite/save the blog's main URL just as you would any Web page.
Click on a button or link with the term "RSS" or "feed." At the very top of the sidebar, see the orange symbol next to "Subscribe to Word-wise by RSS"? This is the most common RSS button. Clicking it enables your browser or feed reader to display a list the blog's latest posts. This makes it easy to see when a blog has new entries. See something new in the list? Click to read. Nothing unfamiliar? Check again another time.
Look for a "subscribe by email" option. This option lets you keep up with a blog without even going online. When new material is posted, you automatically receive it as an email. NOTE: If you were an email subscriber to Word-wise before, I recommend continuing with that method now. You'll find the subscription form near the top of the sidebar. As before, Word-wise's email list will never used for marketing purposes. It will also never be shared with any third party unless a subpoena or court order so demands.

Comments
The ability to have two-way conversation is one of the primary distinctions of a blog. In most blogs, the Comments feature works like this: scroll down to the bottom of the post to find the comment area. If people have already commented, you'll find their messages there, usually listed in the order they were sent.

Each post has its own comment area. Normally, only comments related to that post will appear below it. Comments on other posts within the blog are not included. On active blogs with lots of readers, you can see at a glance that a post is particularly interesting or controversial by checking the number of comments attached to it.

At the very end of the listing of comments, you'll find a simple form you can fill out to submit a comment of your own. Go ahead and try it now if you like, even if your only contribution is "Test" or "hi there." To read more about the Comments feature here at Word-wise, please click this link.

Toss in your two cents

2009-09-18T09:34:00.002-04:00

One of the great advantages to converting Word-wise to a blog is that you, the reader, will now be able to add to the discussion through the use of the Comments area below each post. So if I take a stand on a language or grammar controversy, you can jump in and tell the other side. If you have found information that helps further clarify a topic, share the link. If you don't understand a concept, ask a question. Even better, this conversation doesn't have to end with you and me. You can exchange ideas with other readers who leave comments also.

When it comes to blog comments, the basic idea is the more, the merrier. But like every other medium on the Internet, this blog is vulnerable to general no-goodery such as

spamming: We know it best as annoying advertising emails, but spam exists in the blog world also. Here it takes the form of useless comments attributed to fictional writers. These comments are usually mass-distributed to multiple blogs. Sometimes these comments contain junk links. (See below.) Just as in the email version of spam, these links can be merely annoying or offensive, or they can be potentially harmful.
flaming: Flaming is using flagrantly rude or ugly judgments or name-calling. It's one thing to disagree and explain why; it's quite another to skip all reasoning and instead fling ad hominem remarks. Not everyone who has a differing opinion deserves to be called a brainless, no good, immoral...you get the idea. But that's how flamers operate.
junk linking: The links you find in spam are junk links. Sometimes they lead to index sites that attempt to dupe search engines or are just dead ends. Sometimes they are used to deliver unsolicited advertising or offensive material. But occasionally junk links are dangerous because when you click on them, you open your computer to viruses and other malware.

I don't want any of that here, and I know Word-wise readers don't care to see it, either. So here are a few ground rules.

You are welcome to post relevant comments under your own name, a nickname or handle, or anonymously. Unless junk comments become a problem I can't control easily, I will continue to leave that "anonymous" option wide open. I hope this will allow people to ask questions and express opposing opinions without embarrassment.
You are welcome to further identify yourself by linking your comment sign-in name or handle to your own site.
I don't want to block your ability to share good, relevant information, so the body of your comment may include links as well. However, because this is a feature spammers love, I reserve the right to later enable comment moderation if links become a problem.
Though Word-wise's primary purpose is discourse about language, it is still part of the my business brand. In an effort to keep Admin Maven's reputation clean, I reserve the right to delete any comment that, in my sole discretion, could be detrimental. That doesn't mean you shouldn't speak up if you disagree with me or anyone else in the conversation. Just remember that diplomacy is much appreciated.

With all the ugliness out of the way, let me be clear: the more people participate, the more interesting the conversation here will be. Please comment whenever the whim strikes.