Donner or Donder

What is the name of Santa's seventh Reindeer? I always thought it was Donner, because, as I learned when I studied German, Donner and Blitzen are German for thunder and lightning. It bothers me to hear that Reindeer called Donder. Today I googled Donner and Blitzen and found out that I'm right and wrong -- if you believe Snopes (www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/donner.asp).

The earliest version of "A Visit from Saint Nicholas" (1823) named those reindeer for the Dutch words for thunder and lightning: Dunder and Blixem. Someone later changed it to the German versions, but that dunderhead misspelled Donner as Donder, so that's how it appears in the 1844 version. The 1844 version became a standard, so everybody who says Donder does have a leg to stand on.

Subsequent publishers have used both versions -- some sticking with the 1844 Donder and some reasoning that the author must have meant Donner. 

In 1949, when I was 8 years old, the newly minted "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" became a wildly popular Christmas song. In those days, everyone listened to the radio, and every radio station played Christmas songs from Thanksgiving through Christmas. I must have heard that song hundreds of times since then. It uses Donner -- another reason why that version sounds so natural to me.

So go ahead and say Donder if you must, but I'll continue to regard it as a typo.

Each

"Each" is grammatically singular. It represents multiple items, but one at a time.

You can argue the logic of it, but until the rule changes, don't say "Each of them want to do a good job."   Each . . . wants . . .

The same applies to "either" and "neither." They are grammatically singular too. Also "everybody," "everyone," "nobody," and "no one."

Sink, sank, sunk

I sink (present), I sank (past), I have sunk (present perfect).

Don't, as someone did on the news today, say "The navy sunk the pirate ship."   They sank the ship.

Similarly, "Honey, I shrunk the kids" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "shrank" or "I've shrunk."

Uncharted waters

I saw a Chevron ad the other day in which they talked about searching for oil in unchartered waters. 

Of course they meant uncharted waters.

Charter (vt): establish or convey by charter; certify (Brit)

Chart (vt): make a map of

Adverse

Today on a list I follow, someone said, "I am not adverse to that."

That should be "averse."  

Averse: against

Adverse: harmful

Disinterested

I often hear people say that they are disinterested in something when they mean that they find it boring. Technically, this is correct, but careful writers and speakers try to maintain the following distinction:

Disinterested in: impartial in the matter of

Uninterested in: not curious about

For example, jurors should be disinterested in -- but not uninterested in -- the outcome of the trial.

But if not, then what?

On Fresh Air today, Terry Gross said, as she often does, "If you're just joining us, I'm talking with so and so."  But the "if" part is irrelevant.  She's talking with so and so, whether you just joined or not.

A similar phrase I hear a lot is "In case you don't know me, I'm so and so." Same logical problem.

A more accurate statement would be "For the benefit of those just joining us (or those who weren't paying attention), I'm going to say where we got to in today's program before we broke for a message from your local station. We're talking with so and so." 

Or, "For the benefit of those who don't know me, I'll say my name: so and so."

I can see why they use the short, illogical forms.

And more and

While I'm picking on "and" -- the number 125 is spelled out as one hundred twenty-five, not one hundred and twenty-five. If you like, you can hyphenate one-hundred, but it's not necessary.

One of my old school teachers said, "Don't say 'and' until you get to the decimal point."

Try and

Q: Why do people say "try and make me do it" when they mean "try to make me do it"?

A: I have no idea.

Cynical

I heard an interview in which Herb Needleman, the man who discovered the bad effects of lead on children, described the vicious attack that the lead industry mounted against him. They falsely accused him of scientific misconduct.

Describing witnesses at his hearing, Needleman said that it became clear that they didn't know what they were talking about -- or more likely were cynical.

By cynical, he meant dishonest, but those words are not synonyms. A cynical person  is one who habitually distrusts the motives of others. A person who merits this distrust is dishonest, not cynical.

Login vs log in

A firm I do business with sent email that said, "Login to view your account information." I logged in, and when I had logged out again, it said, "You have logged out." If they wanted to be consistent, thy would have said, "You have logouted."

For understandable reasons we use the term "login" as a noun that means the action and consequences of logging in. The verb, however, remains two words. Thus, they should have said, "Log in to view your account information." 

You and your

A recent letter from STC asks me to renew my membership. It says, "We look forward to you renewing your membership." 

STC is a fine organization. It diligently advances the profession of technical communication. Even in good times it helps us sharpen our professional saw. In hard economic times like these, it provides essential networking and support. Sentences like the one in the renewal solicitation, however, leave careful writers shaking their heads.

Some consider the use of possessive case in such sentences arcane -- a sign that the distinction may be on the way out. For now, though, the letter should say, "We look forward to your renewing your membership."

Sadly, hopefully

A couple of posts ago I began a sentence with "Sadly, I hear . . .."  Like similar sentences that start with "hopefully," this seemingly incorrect use of an adverb is not going away. I won't say it's correct, but hopefully, people will stop arguing about it.

Both . . .

Listening to the radio today, I heard an actor discussing two roles he has played. "Both characters are similar," he said.

The plural construction is correct, but to my ear, "both" suggests that they are doing something similarly, not that they are similar. 

I would have been happier if the actor had said, "The two characters are similar."

A similar example comes up in descriptions of negotiations. For example, "Both sides have conflicting objectives . . ." would sound better as "The two sides . . .."

Myself

The word "myself" is a reflexive pronoun. Correct uses include the following:

• I shot myself in the foot.
  
• Nobody helped me make the bread, so I ate it all myself.
• I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter.

Sadly, I hear a lot of incorrect uses -- as a substitute for "me," or even "I."  For example, I have heard the following (slightly changed to protect the guilty):

• When you're done with that, give it to Bill or myself.
• Myself and John went to the concert.
  

Well known, educated people spoke the undisguised versions of the above.

Adverbial and adjectival phrases

In high school in the 1950s, I learned that "due to" begins an adjectival phrase, not an adverbial phrase. Thus, "The delay is due to circumstances beyond our control" is correct, but "Due to circumstances beyond our control, the game is delayed" is incorrect. 

I can see that few people observe this distinction anymore, but I nearly fell out of my chair the day I heard stock guru Jim Cramer mention it in passing.

A common misuse of an adverbial phrase occurs in sentences that start with "Firstly . . ." or "More importantly . . .." First, let me point out that "firstly" would be incorrect at the start of this sentence. More important, "more importantly" would be wrong at the start of this one.

Kinds of

People have little trouble with expressions like "what kind of dog is that?".  But make "kind" plural and confusion reigns.

Singular: kind of dog

Plural: kinds of dog or kinds of dogs?

From what I've heard, people seem to prefer the latter, even though the former is logically correct.

Further confusion arises when "that" or "those" enters.  If people mean "We get many questions of that kind," they often try to invert the order and say something jumbled like "We get many of those kind of questions."

If you like

I'm not sure what "if you like" means, but I often hear people say it after saying something that embarrasses them silghtly.

Associates

Recently I have heard companies refer to their employees as associates. I haven't done a study, but from the cases I remember, this usage seems more prevalent for lower paid workers. 

Beg the question

Nowadays, I often hear people say "that begs the question such and such."  They mean that the antecedent of "that" causes them to think of the question "such and such."

In logic, the expression "that begs the question" does not take a question in apposition with "question." Rather, it means that the antecedent of "that" is a an argument based on assuming what it claims to prove. For example, "God exists, because the Bible, which is the word of God, says so" begs the question.

Case of pronouns

Today, while watching a football game, I heard someone say that someone gave something "to he and I." Of course that should be "him and me." I think someone once told him not to use "him and me" as a subject, and the admonition made too deep an impression.

Then I heard Brooke Gladstone of NPR's On the Media say that someone should give a prize "to whomever can do . . .."  That should be "whoever," because, while the object of the  preposition "to" is a clause, a pronoun takes its case from its role in the clause. In this case, "whoever" is the subject of the the clause.

A little later, I heard someone use "we, the people" as the object of a preposition. I suppose they would argue that "we, the people" echoes the preamble to the US Constitution, which gives them license not to use the grammatically correct "us, the people." Maybe, but maybe not.

Phrases like "they say," "I believe," and so forth often trick people into using the objective case where they should use the nominative. The key to avoiding this error is to recognize that a phrase like "I believe" is parenthetical. For example, "George, whom I believe is a victim, just lost his job." The "whom" in that sentence should be "who." It is not the direct object of "believe."

"Whom" often turns up in place of "who" in the sentences of people who are unsure of the rules. 

Who, which, that

The local public radio station receives support from a mattress company. They acknowledge this support by saying something like " . . . the mattress company that provides . . .."  However, the copy writers must be crossing out each others edits behind the scenes, because the "that" in the acknowledgment comes out sometimes as "who" and sometimes as "which."

I often hear people refer to companies as "who."  Perhaps it's British. I don't know. It seems wrong to me.

Using "which" here is definitely more British than American. The rule most tech writers insist on and most Americans use instinctively is the one the Fowlers put forth in The King's English more than a century ago. They said

'That' is evidently regarded by most writers as nothing more than an ornamental variation for 'who' and 'which,' to be used, not indeed immoderately, but quite without discrimination. The opinion is excusable; it is not easy to draw any distinction that is at all consistently supported by usage. There was formerly a tendency to use 'that' for everything: the tendency now is to use 'who' and 'which' for everything. 

. . .

This confusion is to be regretted; for although no distinction can be  authoritatively drawn between the two relatives, an obvious one presents itself. The few limitations on 'that' and 'who' about which everyone is agreed all point to 'that' as the defining relative, 'who' or 'which' as the non-defining.

They go on to provide many examples, but they've already said enough.

Kennedy

On Friday, November 22, 1963, President John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. For many years afterward, I could not hear the date November 22 without powerful memories.  Twelve years ago November 22 was again a Friday, and that morning I was sitting in an eleventh floor conference room at Oracle's headquarters in Redwood Shores. Looking out at the dark, threatening sky, I felt strangely apprehensive, but none of the young techies around me knew the significance of the date.

Elude vs allude

I never saw this one before. A technical communicator posted to a list: ". . . you eluded to the possibility of . . .."

She meant "alluded." Allude = refer indirectly to.  Elude = avoid by clever maneuvering.

Also, if you don't understand a subtle point, you might say that it eludes you.

In lieu of

"The downward move of the pound against the dollar is especially significant in lieu of the problems in the US economy," said a financial reporter the other day. Of course he meant ". . . in view of . . .."

I have often heard that misuse of "in lieu of."  In lieu of means in place of, as in "The school claims that its lunch menu conforms to the mandated pyramid. Following President Reagan's advice, they use Ketchup in lieu of a more traditional vegetable as one of the pyramid's building blocks."

Suspect vs suspicious

Listening to CNBC today, I heard a talking head discussing stocks that pay big dividends. His point was that reduced earnings might cause those companies to cut their dividends. "Investors should be suspect," he said.

I'm surprised at how often I hear people make that mistake. Suspect means questionable. Suspicious means questioning. Investors should be suspicious.

Similar words

Sometimes you think you're saying one thing, but you're really saying something else. Here are a few examples.

Apprise = inform.  Appraise = determine the value of.

Keep me apprised. I don't need to be appraised, thanks.

Regard = attention.  Regards = greetings.

In regard to the matter at hand .  .  ..    Regards are appreciated but irrelevant.

Imminent = about to happen.  Eminent = prominent and respected.

We may have an imminent problem, but it's not eminent.

Principal = most important.  Principle = underlying rule.

Our principal problem and our principle problem are two different things.

There are many more.

Appears or is displayed

Most procedures in user guides contain steps that look like this:

. . .

3. Click Add.

   The Add User dialog box appears.

4. . . .    

I've heard that some experts claim "appears" suggests something magical and insist on saying ". . . dialog box is displayed." The reason is silly and the gratuitous passive voice expression that results is annoying.

Users are easier to write for than the user

You can solve a lot of problems relating to "gender neutrality" simply by using plural subjects. 

For example, "The File menu enables users to maintain their files" works well, while writing the same thing for "the user" leads to awkward sentences like "The File menu enables the user to maintain his/her/its files" or the ear-grating "The File menu enables the user to maintain their files."

Hyphens

Twelve years ago the members of the copyediting-L list engaged in an exercise to resolve, or at least clarify, some disputed issues. First we identified issues, then we assigned people to advocate on each side of each issue. 

I argued then against hyphenating the word "email," but the majority on the list wanted to give the hyphenated version more time to evolve into the unhyphenated version. Well, they've had plenty of time, but the same people who never hyphenated the word (Sun, Wired, and many others) still don't, and the ones who advocated hyphens (Microsoft and the "mainstream" publishers) still use them.

I say it's time to give the hyphens a rest and agree to spell comon terms like email and website solid.

Useless words

I don't remember who first suggested this, but somewhere along the line -- years ago -- I read the suggestion that you can always improve your sentences -- with no change in meaning -- by omitting every instance of the word "very." 

Since then I've never come across a sentence that was better with "very" than without.

This applies to other imprecise adverbs like "extremely" or "quite." 

I wonder what other words are useless.

Why I started this blog

When you say something that makes people do a double take, they may suddenly find you less credible. Most people use infelicitous expressions because nobody has ever (or at least recently) pointed out the effect they have on listeners or readers. 

For example, since his election, I have heard Barack Obama refer more than once to "the enormity" of the problems facing the US economy. As a former head of the Harvard Law Review, he ought to know better -- unless he means something different from what I think he means.

Another thing that puzzles me is why so many people in the last few decades have become confused by the phrase " is one of." What follows that phrase should be a definition of the group that the subject belongs to. Such definitions almost always involve plural verb forms (for example, "the people who keep their opinions to themselves"). Every day, I hear people who have presumably gone through journalism school say things like "John McCain is one of those people who puts country first." Obviously, that should be "people who put country first." Thirty years ago, nobody would have made that error.

Many things grate on my ear simply because of my upbringing. I know that "dove" for "dived" is a regionalism, but my grade school teachers drilled into me that saying "dove" was evidence of ignorance.  Saying "wait on" for "wait for" falls into that category  too, but my grade school teacher never mentioned "wait on." Until I came to California, I thought the only meaning of "wait on" was "serve," as in a restaurant.

Using "loan" for "lend" also grates on my ear. It falls somewhere between ignorance and regionalism -- where the region in question is Wall Street. It's so common now, we might as well just call it correct and forget about the distinction altogether. But I still hear the difference.

The one I'll never accept -- no matter how common it becomes -- is using "lay" for "lie." When you hear about someone "laying low" or getting the" lay of the land," think of it this way. If you hit a golf ball and it comes to rest in an advantageous position, that's a good ---- (fill in lie or lay).