Resolutions for Word Nerds
The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation
Resolutions for Word Nerds
Below you’ll find ten New Year’s resolutions for self-appointed guardians of the English language. We are a group that needs its own code of ethics to protect us from ourselves and shield others from our self-righteousness. So let’s get right to …
The Stickler’s Ten Commandments
1) No using big words to intimidate. You can’t beat a polysyllabic onslaught for sounding authoritative. But laying big words on someone who may not be as educated as you are is just shabby.
2) No correcting someone’s English in an argument. It’s the wrong time to do it. When someone makes a valid point, picking on that person’s language is a cop-out, and a contemptible way of gaining the upper hand.
3) Do it in private. If a person you care about says “irregardless,” it can be a thoughtful gesture to gently advise that there is no such word—but don’t do this when others are within earshot.
4) No condescending preambles. If you have some wisdom to impart, don’t start with “Didn’t you know,” or “I can’t believe you just said,” or “How can someone from your background …” Such statements sound uncomfortably close to “I’m smart and you’re not.”
5) Casual conversation gets a lot of leeway. Public figures are rightly under scrutiny when they’re speaking or writing on the record. Even private citizens may be held accountable, not just for what they say but for how they say it, in a meeting or serious discussion. However, the language police ought to back way off in settings where people are just relaxing and making small talk. At such times, perfect grammar is probably the last thing anyone should worry about. No one ever mistook a Super Bowl party for a summit conference.
6) … And no correcting playful correspondence, either. If you get an email that says, “I didn’t mean nuttin’ by it,” your correspondent is kidding around. What is friendship without informality and levity? And what kind of a sourpuss would point out that “nothing”was misspelled and that double negatives are bad grammar?
7) Know what you’re talking about. Before you correct someone, how do you know you’re right? There are many myths about “proper” English floating around. Here are three discredited rules that a lot of people think are true: Never end a sentence with a preposition. (Yes you can.) It’s wrong to split an infinitive. (No it’s not.) The relative pronoun that cannot refer to a human, so always say “the person who called,” never “the person that called.” (Utter nonsense.) If you believe even one of these superstitions, you see the problem.
8) Look it up. Good writers choose their words with utmost care. So you can’t go wrong with a dictionary nearby. Many people believe they needn’t look up a strange word. They are deluding themselves. Suppose a critic you respect refers to a book’s “meretricious manifestation of sophism.” The word meretricious sounds a lot like meritorious; and sophism brings to mind sophisticated. Having seen the review, you are eager to purchase and read this admirable, stylish work—not realizing that the critic has denounced the book as lurid and devious rubbish.
9) No excuses when you slip. Two can play this game, professor. We all make mistakes. If someone busts you, don’t try to wiggle out of it.
10) No correcting strangers. Keep it to yourself; it’s the Wild West out there.
—Tom Stern
If the article or the existing discussions do not address a thought or question you have on the subject, please use the "Comment" box at the bottom of this page.
In re: the quiz on the above:
Anyone who would use one of these locutions, except in casual conversation, is in need of (private) correction:
1. I like people [that] WHO know what they’re doing.
2. Be sure to [carefully] read the instructions CAREFULLY.
3. [What have you come here for?] WHY have you come here?
The first: suggests lazy attention to the sound of words in context. It also sounds “low class.”
The second: simply sounds/reads better with the adverb at the end. Of course, you can split infinitives; it’s important, though, to thoughtfully determine when to split them.
The third: a) ignores the more proper replacement of ‘what for’ with ‘why’ (like replacing “The reason is because…” with “The reason is (that)…”
Putting these quibbles aside, I have a grammar question to pose; perhaps you can help me:
Paradigm:
She served her guests lunch.
DO=lunch IO=her guests.
Now, what if:
She served her guests.
Does “her guests” remain an IO, with an implied DO (lunch)? But: is there such a thing as an “implied DO”?
OR: Does “her guests” become a DO in itself, permitting, say, She served the crocodiles her guests. (!?)
Try it with, say:
She fed the horses hay.
She fed the horses. (if IO–>She fed the crocodiles horses?)
She asked Sam a question.
She asked Sam.
Whither Sam–IO (still) or DO?
Favoring the retention of her guests/the horses/Sam as Indirect Objects: pure logic because the meaning is as in the original sentences.
Favoring the latter, the sentence makes sense if we understand guests and horses as DOs and I find no references to “implied direct object” in English.
What say you? And why?
Thank you so *very* much,
Miriam Birnbaum
The teaching of direct objects and indirect objects is not as nuanced as your approach to it. It seems to us that the absence of an indirect object in each of your examples subtly changes the verb’s meaning, allowing the formerly indirect object to become a direct object. If this were not so, “She fed her horses” would actually mean “She fed to her horses,” which is not standard English.
#3 isn’t accurate:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
ir·re·gard·less
adverb \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Definition of IRREGARDLESS
nonstandard
: regardless
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Please see our comment of November 18, 2014, in our “Regardless vs. Irregardless …” blog.
Oh Tom…you have just removed all the fun of being superior!
EXCELLENT! I’m considering making this my New Year’s resolution.