Another blog

On the blog English Fail, I saw a funny post. The blog features pictures of grammatical mistakes seen by various grammarians who submit photos. (And for those of you who are worried about me, I do not spend most of my free time looking at grammar blogs. I do not have a problem.)

This picture had a warning sign,

BEWARE!!!

BRIGHT LIGHTS

DO NOT LOOK

DIRECTLY INTO THEM!

One person left commented that it had a haiku-like cadence. As for me, it reminds me of Dylan Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night."

A near flub...

...appears in the February 23 edition of The Economist, in an article that addresses the split in Hamas' leadership:

"Yet even the pragmatists, currently seeking a deal with Israel that would comprise a ceasefire, an exchange of prisoners and a formula for opening the border crossing to Egypt, shy from the kind of concessions--such as recognising Israel--that might convince the world to grant them legitimacy."

I had to read this sentence several times when I first came upon it. The sentence is best understood by realizing that the word comprise is followed by a list of three things. There is no comma between the second and third things in the list (i.e., the Oxford comma is missing), an act I don't approve of but will not condemn.

Hence, the subject of the sentence, pragmatists, is paired with the verb, shy.

Notice also the correct use of the word comprise. Individual parts compose a whole. A whole is composed of its parts. More eloquently, a whole comprises its parts. The Economist knows that the verb to comprise should be used in the active voice.

This post is sponsored by Hamas and the verbs to comprise and to shy.

Today's analogy

I had this realization recently about some words that are occasionally confused. It's not entirely precise, but perhaps generally true:

Flaunt is to blatant as flout is to flagrant.

A Little Pizzazz

The art of capturing the audience with the title and subtitle

I've never heard formal teaching on this topic, but I've noticed how newspapers and magazines often make use of both a title and a subtitle. As a result, I've developed an intuitive sense of how most writers use these features. It seems that a title is used to catch the eye. (In the case of this entry: "A Little Pizzazz.") Anything to spark the reader's interest. Commonly, the subtitle goes on to clarify, especially when the title scintillates to the degree of obscuring what the article is really about. An example of title/subtitle from a recent issue of The Economist:

Taming Leviathan: These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby.

The article is accompanied by a dapper illustration of a sea monster tossing about rowboats filled with men in dark suits. This fits the paradigm nicely: the subtitle should not bore the reader, but rather encourage her* to read on.

Perhaps better to have no subtitle, however, when the subtitle in mind is about as sexy as oatmeal. Case in point, from the same issue of The Economist:

What price carbon?: Britain and the EU have learnt from some green-policy mistakes, but not from others.

Tantalize, this subtitle does not. It reeks of balance and fairness. It bores in its stated attempt to see both sides of the issue. And whereas the title should at least provide a little spice for the eyes, the question form serves only to confuse the reader. Thumbs down.

---------------------------------------
* Usually I'd revert to classic English rules and use "him" when referring to a person whose gender is unknown. "The doctor said to his patient..."; "The pilot made his announcement..."; "The principal asked the student to step into his office." However, I thought I'd mix it up sometimes and try "her" on for size. "The nurse picked up her uniform from the cleaners."; "The flight attendant enjoys her job." Feedback in this area would be appreciated.

This is good to know

I knew that ever since beginning to read a British news source which I will not name here, I've become increasingly confused about placing my periods and commas with relationship to the quotation marks. It used to seem black and white (The comma always goes inside), but more and more these days, logic tells me to place it outside.

For clarification, see this article, apparently written by a teacher of grammar. Grammartips.com has to be reputable! Apparently the British and Americans differ with respect to the placement. The American convention has interesting historical roots, but you'll have to read the article to find out more!

Return of the comma

From the February 24, 2007 edition of The Economist, in an article about "off-shore" financial centres, er, centers like Dubai and Bermuda:

"Those that [become tax havens], they found, are overwhelmingly small, wealthy and, especially, well governed, with sound legal institutions, low levels of corruption and check and balances on government."

I count seven commas. I'm told that standard English is moving toward less and less punctuation; if this example is any indication, however, I'd have to disagree. On the other hand, I do note that in the constructions of a series with a first, second and third item in the list, the comma has been omitted after the second.

My grammar soapbox

For those of you who didn't love diagramming sentences in high school English, now is the time to stop reading. I've always enjoyed grammar, especially learning it in different languages, as it helps me understand English better. Understanding grammar, in my opinion, leads to more clarity in communication.

I had the idea for this post when I heard this phrase in a presentation today, "This is a stigmata which indicates poor prognosis." It seemed ironic that the speaker would choose a relatively obscure and erudite plural form (stigmata, similiar to how data is the plural of datum), but then proceed to egregiously mismatch the singular indefinite article, a.

Did I call him down in the middle of the presentation? No, though such an action may be justified given the blatant offense. One error which I have, of late, begun to gently correct is the pronunciation of height with a "th" at the end. "Width" and "breadth," but "height."

And for the richness of colloquial diction, I fully support the term, "the sugar diabetes," especially when the word diabetes ends with a short i vowel sound rather than a long e.

For the one reader who has continued this far, I have a question. When there are two people who possess one thing, how is this correctly indicated? Is it "Dick and Jane's dog," or "Dick's and Jane's dog"?