Critically Scarce"?

Can something be "scarce" but NOT "critically scarce"?

From New York Times (June 7, 2008):

"... housing was critically scarce along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina."

?

This is like saying "the house was painted green in color." Green is the color, and what's scarce is by definition "critically" so.

It's enough and more proper to say something is painted green, period; or that the housing is scarce. Full stop.

Non-Parallel Construction

Even important publications like NYT or WSJ are not immune to generating weak prose, constructed with non-parallel clauses.

Here is one from New York Times (June 7, 2008):

"The hunger strike is meant to pressure federal officials, and comes as Congress is debating an expansion of the guest worker program..."

There's nothing "wrong" with this sentence except a passive-voice clause is followed by an active-voice one.

This is how I'd edit it:

"The hunger strike aims to put pressure on the federal officials, and comes as Congress is debating an expansion of the guest worker program..."

Watch Your Personal Pronouns

Me, Myself and I
By COLLIN LEVY
The Wall Street Journal
January 14, 2008; Page A13

After months of presidential primary debates, town-hall meetings and cable talkathons, I hate myself. And I mean that in the most old-fashioned way.

For all the rhetorical flourish on display, many of the presidential candidates still don't have a grip on the King's English. That great American personal pronoun, the first person singular, which adorns nearly every sentence of candidate discourse, is still too slippery for many of this year's White House aspirants.

Speaking on Social Security, Democrat hopeful Barack Obama boasted that "here's an area where John (Edwards) and myself were actually quite specific." A few minutes later, Bill Richardson wondered, "What is wrong with having been like myself -- 14 years in the Congress, two Cabinet positions?"

Campaigning is certainly exhausting in a primary homestretch, which may explain this gem from Mitt Romney: "It is going to take a person who is himself an innovator like myself who has the experience to bring change to Washington." Republican contender Ron Paul noted proudly that "We have a lot of similarities . . . Barack Obama and myself, because our campaigns are made up of young people."

The new verbal tic is part trend and part defensive posture. Since the Me Generation, "I" and "me" have become increasingly tangled up as Americans have looked for ways around tricky constructions. As sportswriter Red Smith once put it, "Myself is the foxhole of ignorance, where cowards take refuge, because they were taught that me is vulgar and I is egotistical." In the same spirit, "myself" has become the campaign's de rigueur grammar cop-out, substituted for I or me when the candidate isn't sure which is accurate -- or worse, assumes Americans will see proper English as elitist.

Yet grammar still matters to a lot of Americans. Potential employers often report they are put off by job applicants who display bad spelling or grammar -- taking it as a sign of sloppiness, inattention to detail or lack of IQ. Why shouldn't voters hold the next leader of the free world to similar standards? Especially since, as Richard Lederer, former usage editor of the Random House Dictionary points out, when candidates "chicken out and use 'myself'" in place of I or me, "it shows an inability to take a stand" -- and isn't that something voters should care about?

The stakes are high, and the wrong pronoun can even change the meaning of a sentence. In his New Hampshire victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, John McCain told a cheering crowd, "Enjoy this. You have earned it more than me." (When he presumably meant, you have earned it more than I have.)

The misuse of "I" took its own toll on Bill Clinton in 1992. Running against then incumbent President George H. W. Bush, Gov. Clinton famously said: "If you want a spring in your step and a song in your heart, give Al Gore and I a chance to bring America back." The mistake spawned a pretty good media lashing, as it should have. New York Times columnist William Safire wrote in his language column, "Between you and me -- never you and I . . . the best answer is 'Give I a break.'"

By the time the 1996 debates came around, the president learned his lesson and dumbed it down. At the podium, Mr. Clinton remarked on the "big differences between Sen. Dole and myself."

Not that the 2008 candidates can't find support from the more flexible sort of grammarian for their innovative usage of "myself." One school of lexicographer holds that proper English is however people use it. So, though the classically-approved usage of "myself" is as an intensive ("I myself feel that way") or reflexive ("I hurt myself"), several dictionaries approve its "informal use" as an all-purpose substitute for "I" or "me." What's next, ketchup on hot dogs?

Defenders of heterodoxy say the casual usage has been around for centuries, finding mention in dusty old texts of Chaucer and other reputable English and American writers. But its growing use is intensely controversial among grammarians. "People who are shaky in their grammar think of "myself" as a safe usage," says Bryan Garner, former editor of Oxford's Dictionary of Modern American Usage, "but to a real snoot, it's bothersome."

To handle the skirmish, dictionaries now include tortured "Usage notes" on the casual version. The 2006 American Heritage Dictionary, referring to its in-house advisers, points out that "a large majority of the Usage Panel disapproves of the use of -self pronouns when they do not refer to the subject of the sentence."

One imagines a lot of furniture being broken up by American Heritage's more liberal experts. The dictionary goes on to say, "Seventy-three percent (of panel members) reject the sentence 'He was an enthusiastic fisherman like myself.'" The Panel is even less tolerant of compound usages. Eighty-eight percent find this sentence unacceptable: 'The boss asked John and myself to give a brief presentation.'"

Ahem, candidates.

Despite the excessive presence of "myself" in the current race, its emergence in political campaigning is not recent. John F. Kennedy used "myself" awkwardly once in his debate with Richard Nixon on Oct. 7, 1960, remarking on "the issue between Mr. Nixon and myself." Jimmy Carter used "myself" once in his October 1976 debate with President Gerald Ford, noting that "I think that we'll have good results on November the second for myself and I hope for the country."

Presidential campaigns have been dotted with stories of candidates maligned for misspellings and malapropisms memorable enough to define a political career. (See former Vice President Dan Quayle, whose misspelling of potato(e) in the days before spell-checkers turned him into a national punch line.) The most notorious of these has probably been President George W. Bush. So in the pronoun sweepstakes, he must be the worst offender of all, right?

He's not. Referring to his own grammatical quirks in a debate with Al Gore, the then Texas governor's usage was impeccable. "Well, we all make mistakes," he said, "I've been known to mangle a syllable or two myself."

Ms. Levy is a senior editorial writer at the Journal, based in Washington.

Shuttle's Name Misspelled On NASA Launch Pad Sign

(What an incredible story!)

local6.com

Shuttle's Name Misspelled On NASA Launch Pad Sign
Someone Called Kennedy Space Center NASA To Fix Typo

POSTED: 7:38 am EDT July 13, 2007
UPDATED: 9:25 am EDT July 13, 2007

The first NASA sign at launch pad 39A encouraging the next launch of space shuttle Endeavour at Kennedy Space Center was misspelled and noticed by someone looking at the craft.

When the shuttle rolled out from the Vehicle Assembly Building Wednesday, a giant "Go Endeavour" sign was put on a fence in front of the craft.

However, one item was missing from the sign: the "u" in Endeavour.

Someone spotted the mistake and called KSC to fix it, WKMG-TV reported.

NASA scrambled someone out to pad 39A with a new sign that has orbiter Endeavour's name spelled correctly.

A photo with the correct spelling was also posted on the Kennedy Space Center's Web site.

The orbiter is named after HM Bark Endeavour, the ship commanded by 18th century explorer James Cook; the name also honored Endeavour, the Command Module of Apollo 15. This is why the name is spelled in the British English manner, according to Answers.com.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

USPS: "Is The Correct English On Their Sign?"

I stopped by at the U.S. Post Office this morning and saw this big sign on the wall:

"Metered Mail Customers: IS THE CORRECT DATE ON YOUR METERED MAIL?"

This sentence would've been grammatically correct only if someone was asking if the "correct date" actually read "ON YOUR METERED MAIL".

An analogous sentence would be "Is the apple green?", or "Is the world round?"

I guess someone was trying to say:

1) "Metered Mail Customers: DO YOU HAVE THE CORRECT DATE ON YOUR METERED MAIL?"

or

2) "Metered Mail Customers: IS THE DATE ON YOUR METERED MAIL CORRECT?"

or

3) "Metered Mail Customers: DOES YOUR METERED MAIL HAVE THE CORRECT DATE?"

How did they find the only sentence combination that was not correct and display it prominently where everyone can see it?

I guess you need a governmental committee to achieve a feat like that.

Misplaced Modifier – Even WSJ Falls For It

“Misplaced modifier” is a frequently committed logical error that even the most prominent publications fall for occasionally. Here is an example:

“Ports are especially vulnerable to pesky animals like rabbits and deer because they offer large, fenced-in areas of dirt and grass.” (Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2007)

The sentence is malformed because it suggests that “pesky animals… offer large, fenced-in areas of dirt and grass” -- which of course is not true.

That unintended implication is created because the modifier clause “because they offer large, fenced-in areas of dirt and grass” is placed right after “pesky animals like rabbits and deer” instead of the “ports,” the true subject that needs the modification.

Solution?

Move the modifier clause right next to the subject of the sentence:

“Since they offer large, fenced-in areas of dirt and grass, ports are especially vulnerable to pesky animals like rabbits and deer.”

Or

“Ports that offer large, fenced-in areas of dirt and grass are especially vulnerable to pesky animals like rabbits and deer.”

Both would work. Case closed. Confusion prevented.

Avoid Unparallel Construction

“Unparallel Construction” is the bane of commercial copy.

Sentences, and sometimes whole paragraphs of copy, lose their direction and fail to communicate their core message if they are composed with unparallel components.

Here is a current example.

As I was driving this morning I heard the following radio commercial:

First sound clip -- a pizza shop, taking orders over the phone. The customer keeps adding ingredients to his order… “pepperoni, extra cheese, anchovies, onions, mushrooms, …”

A lively sound clip with good actors. Pleasant to listen to.

Second clip – we switch to the anchor, who explains to us that there are TWO types of people in the world: those who order pizzas loaded up with multiple toppings like the customer we’ve just heard, and… those who would not put a slice of pizza into their mouths no matter what.

So far so good. We clearly understand the initial set up. TWO types of people – the pizza lovers versus pizza haters.

Okay. We are already wondering if this is some sort of pizza commercial…

But then comes the Grand Disconnect, thanks to the obviously faulty and unparallel construction of the whole copy.

We are next told that, SIMILARLY (?), there are also TWO types of HEARTBURN! And such-and-such brand of over-the-counter anti-acid medication takes care even the worst of them!

Hello?! “Two types”?

WHAT two types of heartburn? Since the whole analogy is based on the conceptual parallel established with the previous dichotomy (pizza lover vs. pizza haters) the intended parallelism breaks down.

Yes, people who order their pizzas with massive toppings may and do get a heartburn. We know that.

But why should the other group have heartburn as well if they are not eating pizza at all? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Those two dichotomies are not parallel at all since the former cannot cause the latter.

That’s why this commercial confuses the listeners rather than make an easy and obvious point.

All throughout the commercial I found myself wondering why people who avoid pizza at all cost do get a heartburn JUST LIKE (?) the hard-core pizza lovers.

The first set-up intro of the commercial is totally wasted.

Instead, the commercial could again start with that great opening sound clip of a worker taking a pizza order with mega toppings, but then would immediately switch to the PROBLEM created by that order: a massive heartburn.

SOLUTION? Our wonderful anti-acid medication of course. Okay, it's a bit boring. There is no great punch line there, I admit. But at least it makes sense and does not confuse the listener.

By setting up this Rubic Cube of unparallel dichotomies, the commercial really bites more than it can chew and listeners are the ones who get a heartburn while listening to it and trying to decipher the enigma thrown at them.

It’s great for exercising your brain while driving on the road. But probably it’s not very good for selling a whole lot of anti-acid pills.

Write Powerful Copy by Eliminating Old and Tired Expressions

You'll increase your web site traffic faster if you use clean and short sentences.

Remember: less is more.

Eliminate all hackneyed expressions from your prose for some snappy copy.

Examples:

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

Ring the bell in order to get service.

BETTER: Ring the bell to get service.

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

Truth of the matter is, there is something fishy with this deal.

BETTER: There is something fishy with this deal.

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

In a manner of speaking, he was the black sheep of the family.

BETTER: He was the black sheep of the family.

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

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't like the way things are going.

BETTER: I don't like the way things are going.

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

To be perfectly frank about it, I wish I had another option but I don't.

BETTER: I wish I had another option but I don't.

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

The long and the short of it is, Frank has to pay that hundred dollars back.

BETTER: Frank has to pay that hundred dollars dollars back.

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

Well, what do you think?

BETTER: What do you think?

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

Worrying about the past does not make any sense and you know that.

BETTER: Worrying about the past does not make any sense.

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

Needless to say, Hawaii is a gorgeous place to live.

BETTER: Hawaii is a gorgeous place to live.

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

You will be able to leave on Sunday.

BETTER: You can leave on Sunday.

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

You have the ability to learn.

BETTER: You can learn.

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

The brigade was not enabled to deploy.

BETTER: The brigade could not deploy.

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

Make sure to click the Start button.

BETTER: Click the Start button.

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

Ideas in themselves cannot be copyrighted.

BETTER: Ideas cannot be copyrighted.

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

Doctors recommend taking calcium in conjunction with vitamin D.

BETTER: Doctors recommend taking calcium together with vitamin D.

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

The information in this document is considered the property of ABC Corporation.

BETTER: The information in this document is the property of ABC Corporation.

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

In the event that your roof leaks, call a roofer.

BETTER: If your roof leaks, call a roofer.

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

It simply works.

BETTER: It works.

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

We were totally amazed

BETTER: We were amazed.

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

He was really lost.

BETTER: He was lost.

“Fewer” or “Less”?

FEWER should be used when one can count the items/subjects in question. It is usually used with a following “THAN”.

For example:

1) Today I had fewer than ten phone calls.
2) Fewer awards than advertised were distributed at the Honors Ceremony.

LESS is used for items/subjects that cannot be measured.

For example:

1) You should work less to be healthy.
2) Since we had less snowfall this year, we decided not buy that snowblower.

Unparallel Construction

Here is a grammar rule that I like and try to follow: “In a compound sentence with multiple clauses, the clauses should be parallel in structure.”

It’s called the “Parallel Construction” rule and I try to adhere to it in my own writing because it increases comprehension.

Complicated sentences that do not have parallel clauses are usually hard to read and comprehend. Usually there is something “not quite right” with them even if you cannot always put a finger on it.

Here is a recent example from an Associated Press news story:

“PARIS, France (AP) -- France's defeated Socialists called for an end to post-election violence Tuesday after anti-Sarkozy protestors took to the streets for a second night, leaving cars burned and store windows smashed in Paris as well as unrest elsewhere.”

“Leaving cars burned and store windows smashed in Paris” is a clause that describes what was “left behind in Paris” by the protestors after they took it to the streets.

But the conjunctive clause that follows it “as well as unrest everywhere” sounds off because it violates the “parallel construction” principle.

A true re-construction of that phrase would read “as well as leaving unrest elsewhere” ! Perhaps now the problem is more clear because in English “leaving unrest” is not a grammatically acceptable phrase.

However, a condition can “lead to unrest” or a person can “cause unrest.”

Therefore, one way to correct this malformed sentence would be:

“PARIS, France (AP) -- France's defeated Socialists called for an end to post-election violence Tuesday after anti-Sarkozy protestors took to the streets for a second night, leaving cars burned and store windows smashed in Paris as well as causing unrest elsewhere.”

To me, this new sentence reads better and is easier to understand. Don’t you agree?

Watch out for those tricky "Misplaced Modifiers"

Even the most polished publications are not immune to that dreaded mistake committed frequently in English -- the "misplaced modifier."

Here is a current example from the august Wall Street Journal, an excellent publication to which I'm a subscriber:

"Mr. Zagorsky studied data from 7,403 Americans who participated in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a representative sample of Americans funded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics." (May 5-6, 2007, p. B4)

Here it reads as though the Bureau of Labor Statistics has funded the "Americans" who were in the "representative sample"!

But of course that's not true. We know that the study itself was the entity that was funded by the BLS.

That's why the correct sentence should read:

"Mr. Zagorsky studied data from a representative sample of 7,403 Americans who participated in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth funded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics."