You're Wrong, And You Should Feel Bad

Not to pick on Political Animal, because the wonderful Digby is bad about this, too, but C'MON, MAN!

The Obama administration continues it’s progress on the Clemency Initiative.

The grammatical translation of that sentence is "The Obama administration continues it is progress on the Clemency Initiative."

"It's" is the only apostrophe s spelling that does NOT indicate possession.  "It's" always - ALWAYS - means "it is."

To state the possessive of it, add s.  No apostrophe.

"... continues its progress ..."

Grammar Snobs RULE

Erik Loomis, you are WRONG. Correct grammar is the only thing standing between us and the end of human civilization.  It is entirely possible that a return to the strict grammar rules that nourished and sustained our ancestors would reverse the course of global warming and save us all.

Not. Even. Kidding.

It’s time to declare war on grammar snobs. They are both annoying and wrong:

The grammatical rules invoked by pedants aren’t real rules of grammar at all. They are, at best, just stylistic conventions: An example would be the use of a double negative (I can’t get no satisfaction). It makes complete grammatical sense, as an intensifier. It’s just a convention that we don’t use double negatives of that form in Standard English. [So is saying please and thank you a convention. Must we rid ourselves of all polite conventions?]

Some other pedantic stipulations are destructive pieces of folklore, like the belief that it is wrong to split an infinitive or to end a sentence with a preposition. We should be entirely relaxed about that sort of choice. Why worry, as some pedants do, about whether to write “firstly” or “first” when you begin a list of points? Either is correct. [No, they are not both correct.]

The range of legitimate variation is wider than you would imagine. Yes, you may use “hopefully” as an adverb modifying an entire sentence [NO, you may NOT];  and you may use “they” as a singular generic pronoun [NO, you may NOT]; and you may say “between you and I.” [NO, you may NOT] The pedants’ prohibitions on constructions like these are not supported by the evidence of general usage. [General usage is proof of nothing but general usage; is the fact that every driver speeds proof that speeding should be legal?]

Pedantry is poor manners, certainly, but also poor scholarship. If someone tells you that you “can’t” write something, ask them why not. [Grammarians never say "can't." We say "literate, educated people don't.] Rarely will they have an answer that makes grammatical sense; it is probably just a superstition that they have carried around with them for years.[Grammar is not superstition; the idea that popular illiteracy should govern speech is superstition.]

This is followed with a history of grammar snobbery that should make any grammar snob think twice about the “rules” they believe in.

 I "believe" in fuck all, Erik. I follow grammar rules because they make sense and hold the English language together. Shame on you; from your own writing I know you know better.

Your Grammar Nazi

Ed Kilgore, who knows better:

" ...a magical incantation that had an affect the opposite of that intended by Congress."

Many highly educated people who know better get this wrong, because it's tricky.

Both affect and effect are both verbs and nouns, but they are not interchangeable. They have four different meanings.  Yeah, English sucks.

From Dictionary.com:

Affect

In order to understand the correct situation in which to use the word affect or effect, the first thing one must do is have a clear understanding of what each word means. The word affect means to produce a change in something.

Effect

The word effect has a different meaning. Effect is defined as a result of something or the ability to bring about a result.

Grammar Rules for Affect and Effect

Now that we have the two definitions, how do we know which word to use? Here are a few suggestions to keep in mind:
1. If you are talking about a resrammult, then use the word "effect."

• Example: What effect did the loss have on the team?

2. It is appropriate to use the word "effect" if one of these words is used immediately before the word: into, on, take, the, any, an, or and.

• Example: The prescribed medication had an effect on the patient's symptoms.
• Example: In analyzing a situation, it is important to take the concepts of cause and effect into consideration.

3. If you want to describe something that was caused or brought about, the right word to use is effect.

• Example: The new manager effected some positive changes in the office. (This means that the new manager caused some positive changes to take place in the office.)

4. Affect can be used as a noun to describe facial expression.

• Example: The young man with schizophrenia had a flat affect.
• Example: The woman took the news of her husband's sudden death with little affect.

5. Affect can also be used as a verb. Use it when trying to describe influencing someone or something rather than causing it.

• Example: How does the crime rate affect hiring levels by local police forces?
• Example: The weather conditions will affect the number of people who come to the county fair this year.

So,  Kilgore obviously meant to say

" ...a magical incantation that had an effect the opposite of that intended by Congress."

But he was writing about the stupidity of the Halbig decision and congressional repugs, so he wasn't in a grammatical frame of mind.

Your Grammar Nazi

Too many people seem to think "unique" is just a steroidal version of "special." It's not. Unique means one of a kind. Period.

 

The word "unique" is actually itself unique, in that it unlike any other adjective in the English language, it cannot be modified by an adverb. 

 

There is no such thing as "really unique" or "somewhat unique" or "almost unique" or any other adverb modification.

 

PZ Myers, who I'm sure knows better, writes:

"... they have a unique history of persecution (becoming increasingly less unique, unfortunately) ...."

Unique is a an either-or proposition. Something is one of a kind or it's not.  Nothing can be more or less unique.

It's not even that difficult to re-cast the sentence:

"... they have a unique history of persecution (that may soon no longer be unique, unfortunately) ..."

Time

If you don't get this, stop reading this blog immediately.

ummagumma.co:

(Source: londons365)

Your Grammar Nazi

No disrespect to the Rude Pundit, because I've seen this several places recently, but I think this says the opposite of what he meant to say:

Really, is there anyone who didn't think that TV chef and restauranteur Paula Deen didn't say "nigger" at some point in her life?

The double negative means the two "didn't"s cancel each other out so the questions asks if anyone thought she DID say it.

If you want to ask if anyone thought she did NOT say it, you'd phrase it this way:

"Really, is there anyone who thought that TV chef and restauranteur Paula Deen didn't say "nigger" at some point in here life."

In other words, no one thinks she did not say it; everyone thinks she did.

Count your "not"s; if it's an even number, they cancel each other out.

Your Grammar Nazi

I may be the last holdout on this one, but I don't care: "comprised of" is illiterate nonsense.

Firedoglake:

10% of Jordan’s population is now comprised of Syrian refugees.

No. Wrong.

"Syrian refugees now comprise 10 percent of Jordan's population."

The parts comprise the whole.  The whole is never "comprised of" its parts.

Your Grammar Nazi

"Try to," or do not; there is no "try and"

Holly Case in The Nation:

"These include proceedings of the same postwar military tribunals that had set out to try and punish several individuals who had taken part in the genocide"

No.  It's "try to," not "try and."  

Although “try and” is common in colloquial speech and will usually pass unremarked there, in writing try to remember to use “try to” instead of “try and.”

"Try and" is illiterate.

Your Grammar Nazi - "Quality"

For years, language mavens have been telling me this is a lost cause, but I refuse to give up.

The word "quality" is a noun, not an adjective. It cannot modify another noun unless it is itself modified by an adjective, making it part of  an adjectival phrase.

From Firedoglake:

43% of Republicans think the Olive Garden is a “quality source of authentic ethnic food”;  41% of Democrats did not.

Haha, dumb rubes. But that phrase "quality source of authentic ethnic food" does not mean what you think it means.  In fact, it means nothing.

"Quality" is a neutral noun until and unless it is modified by an adjective like "high" or "low" or "poor" or "good."

Do 43 percent of repugs think the Olive Garden is a high-quality source of authentic ethnic food or do they think it is a low-quality source of authentic ethnic food?  Without the modifier, the noun "quality" means nothing.

Wrong: "We need more quality schools."

Correct: "We need to improve the quality of schools." Or: "We need more high-quality schools." Or:  "We need fewer poor-quality schools."

I blame the misuse of  "quality" on poor-quality schools that fail to teach students how to diagram sentences. Yes, diagramming sentences is tedious and time-consuming - I myself diagrammed thousands of sentences in seventh grade - but it's the only way to ensure that students understand how the parts of speech fit together in a sentence.  No one who has diagrammed sentences could mistake the noun "quality" for an adjective.

Olive Garden, of course, is not a source of authentic ethnic food of any quality; it is a source of genetically-modified, high-fructose-corn-syrup-infused, factory-farmed, industrialized, corporatized glop.

And its quality is poor.

Your Grammar Nazi

This is actually a problem of innumeracy, but it's extremely common today, especially in political writing. And I'm sorry to say the latest example I saw comes from Kevin Drum, who absolutely knows better:

And especially young women voters: in the last two elections, they've voted for Obama by whopping margins of 69 and 66 percent.

No, young women voters certainly did not vote for Obama by margins of 69 percent and 66 percent. Young women voters gave him 69 percent and 66 percent of their vote. They voted for him by margins of 38 and 32 points.

How much of the vote a candidate receives is expressed in a percentage: 47 percent, 51 percent, 69 percent.

The difference between the percentage of vote one candidate receives and the other candidate receives is expressed in points: two points, 10 points, 30 points. This is the margin of victory.

A candidate who received 69 percent of the vote has a 38-point margin of victory over his opponent who receives 31 percent of the vote. 69 is 38 points more than 31.

A similar mistake is to say that a winning percentage of 69 is a 2-to-1 margin of victory. No, it isn't. A 69-percent win is a 2-to-1 victory, but still just a 38-point margin.

For Obama to have a 69-point margin (the phrase "69-percent margin" is gibberish), he would have had to receive 84.5 percent of the votes of young women. 84.5 percent is 69 points more than the 15.5 percent remaining for his opponent.

In 2008 and 2012, young women really fucking hated the repug candidates, but not by more than 60 points.

Your Grammar Nazi

"As such" is not a synonym for "therefore" or "thus," although a lot of bad writers use it to try to make themselves sound sophisticated.  Trust me, you all: it makes you sound illiterate.

 

Suzy Khimm at Wonkblog:

Right now, their plan seems to be that “Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will introduce a budget that will balance in 10 years — a proposal to cut dramatically more than his spending plan last year,” my colleagues report.
As such, the House and Senate would almost certainly have to go to conference to come up with a compromise between each chamber’s budget resolution ...

Here's the rule with examples:

Increasingly, the phrase as such is misused as an all-purpose (but grammatically incorrect) transitional phrase.  Such is a pronoun that must have an identifiable antecedent, but in today’s usage it often has none.

            Example 1 (correct):

            She is the committee chair.  As such, she is responsible for scheduling the meetings.

            Explanation: Here, the antecedent of such is chair.  It can replace such:   She is the committee chair.  As chair, she is responsible for scheduling the meetings.

                                                

            Example 2 (incorrect):

            Congress intended to provide an exhaustive list of examples, and it did not mention websites.  As such, the statute does not cover websites.   

            Explanation:  Such has no antecedent here; it cannot be replaced with list or any other word in the first sentence.  The writer of example 2 incorrectly used as such as a generic transitional phrase.  “Therefore” would be a better choice.

Your Grammar Nazi

Jon Weiner at The Nation:

Even in Massachusetts, where Obama’s margin of victory was 61 percent, Romney increased the Republicans’ proportion of the white vote by four percentage points over 2008.

Wrong!

Almost every journalist is innumerate when it comes to percentages.  There's no such thing as a "margin of victory" expressed as a percentage. Obama's "margin of victory" was 22 points - the difference or "margin" between his 61 percent of the vote and Romney's 39 percent of the vote.

You can say Obama's "share of the vote" was 61 percent, or that his "winning percentage" was 61, but you cannot say his margin of victory was 61 percent.

 

You cannot even say "his margin of victory was 22 percent." His margin of victory was 22 points, not 22 percent.

 

This is fifth-grade math, people. How can you possibly follow Nate Silver intelligently if you don't get  percentages?

Your Grammar Nazi

From The Nation, which knows better: 

THE LONGEST WAR TURNS 12: As the war in Afghanistan entered its twelfth year on October 7, two Special Forces soldiers were killed in Wardak Province, bringing the US death toll in that country to 257 so far in 2012. More than 2,000 US soldiers have been killed since the war began.

This is not illiteracy as much as innumerancy. The war in Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001. That means it has turned 11 years old, not 12. Although it is true that it has entered its twelfth year.

 

On the day you are born, you enter your first year. You are not one year old. On your first birthday, you turn one year old and you enter your second year.

Your Grammar Nazi

Ed Kilgore at Political Animal, who absolutely knows better:

At TNR, Francisco Toro warns that instability in Venezuela following October elections could effect U.S. elections.

Unless he means that instability could cause the U.S. elections to take place, the word he really wants is "affect."

Among the pairs of words writers often confuse, affect and effect might be the most perplexing, perhaps because their meanings are so similar. Affect, derived from affectus, from the Latin word afficere, “to do something to, act on,” is easily conflated with effect, borrowed from Anglo-French, ultimately stemming from the Latin word effectus, from efficere, “to bring about.”

 Although there is a rare exception, the general rule to keep you off the Grammar Nazi's radar is this: when the word you want is a verb, use Affect.  When the word you want is a noun, use Effect.

Your Grammar Nazi

This is the illiteracy that makes me despair for humanity.

 

David Kurtz at TPM:

It’s narcotic effect is predicated on that ignorance because let’s face it: most people, including most elected officials, have no idea how the tax code works.

I don't think he means to say "It is narcotic effect ..." but that's what he's written there.

"It's" is a contraction and always means "It is."

The possessive - something belonging to it - is always written "Its."

CORRECT:  "Its narcotic effect is predicated ..."

Your Grammar Nazi

This one started spreading after the Boston Globe blew the lid off the Catholic Church's priests raping children scandal several years ago, and now it's ubiquitous. But still dead wrong.

Digby:

Or it will be if they just agree to throw more human sacrifices on the alter:

Sacrifices, human and otherwise, are made on altars. There is no such noun as alter. There is, however, a verb to alter that means to change.

Help Your Grammar Nazi alter this common misuse by confining your sacrifices and your worship to the altar.

Your Grammar Nazi

Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars is one of the best writers in the blogosphere, and what she's done here is so common it's on the verge of becoming acceptable. But not yet.

A team of 50 Marines is on their way to Libya.

"A team of 50 Marines is on ITS way to Libya" OR "Fifty Marines are on THEIR way to Libya."

If the subject is "team," the verb is "is" and the pronoun is "its."

If the subject is "50 Marines," the verb is "are" and the pronoun is "their."

One or the other. Half of each makes the whole thing wrong.

This has been Your Grammar Nazi.

Your Grammar Nazi

Dave Zirin, my favorite sportswriter, has a great column in The Nation about the attacks on player health and safety by the National Football League owners. A great column, except ... 

Dave! Don't do this to me! I'm just going to pretend that a brand-new Nation intern edited this groaner into your copy.

What a sign of the times that the start of the season wasn’t punctuated today with chest-thumping and military flyovers but with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s announcement that the league’s owners would be donating $30 million to the National Institute of Health to further study the affects of brain injuries.

Almost every time, the noun is Effect and the verb is Affect.  Grammar Girl explains:

It's actually pretty straightforward. The majority of the time you use affect with an a as a verb and effect with an e as a noun.

 When Should You Use Affect?

Affect with an a means "to influence," as in, "The arrows affected Ardvark," or "The rain affected Amy's hairdo." Affect can also mean, roughly, "to act in a way that you don't feel," as in, "She affected an air of superiority."

When Should You Use Effect?

Effect with an e has a lot of subtle meanings as a noun, but to me the meaning "a result" seems to be at the core of all the definitions. For example, you can say, "The effect was eye-popping," or "The sound effects were amazing," or "The rain had no effect on Amy's hairdo."

Read on for the weird exceptions and a memory trick.

Your Grammar Nazi

Jessica Valenti, in a superb post at The Nation:

It’s not based on a belief that women are deserving of human rights, but on a very specific set of rules and roles we are expected to adhere by.

It's not possible to "adhere by" anything. "Adhere" means to anchor or attach. When followed the preposition "to" it means to follow, keep, maintain, respect, observe, be true, fulfil, obey.

If you must use the preposition "by," then use the verb "abide," which when followed by "by" means comply.

"Adhere to specific roles."  "Abide by specific rules."  Never "adhere by."

Your Grammar Nazi

I don't know whether to be happy or devastated that one of my favorite blogs has handed me an opportunity to lambaste them over the misuse of "decimate."

 

Think Progress:

There’s a chance that the storm will hit New Orleans nearly seven years to the day that Hurricane Katrina decimated the city.

"Decimate" means "take away one tenth." If Katrina had destroyed one-tenth of New Orleans, the use of "decimate" would be correct.

But it's not correct. Katrina - or rather the levee breach in the hurricane's wake - physically destroyed more than 10 percent of the city physically, and far more than 10 percent of the city psychologically and culturally. New Orleans has lost more than half of its pre-Katrina population.

That's not "decimination."  That's "devastation." That's "destruction." Get it right.