The which switch

Have you noticed how people use "which" to rearrange their thoughts in mid sentence? Today a reporter describing J P Morgan Chase's recent report on its real estate loans said the following:

Then there's jumbo, which we don't know how much of JPM's business is composed of that.

You can convert that into a grammatically correct sentence as follows:

Then there's jumbo; we don't know how much of JPM's business that comprises.

By the time you've said "which," however, it's too late.

Vagary

Today I heard someone complain about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's financial plan. The worst thing, according to this commentator, was the vagary of the plan. Checking Merriam-Webster, I formulated the following distinction:

Vagueness: lack of clarity or definiteness.

Vagary: an erratic, unpredictable, or extravagant manifestation, action, or notion.

The commentator meant vagueness.

Information is available by phoning

When people want to tell you that you can obtain information by calling 555-1212, why don't they just say so?  If you start a sentence with "Information is available," just about the only way to proceed is to say "at . . .."

I'm not sure how to diagram "Information is available by phoning 555-1212." I know what it means, but it's awkward at best and probably defective.

Former Labor Secretary

I heard a talk by Robert Reich the other day. He was introduced as a former Secretary of Labor in the first Clinton Administration. Reich served as Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997, so he is now a former Secretary of Labor. During the first Clinton administration, however, he was not a former Secretary of Labor.

I hear this shortcut all the time. A better formulation would be to state the office and administration, leaving out the word "former." Say, "Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor in the first Clinton administration." Or say, "Robert Reich is a former Secretary of Labor. He served in the first Clinton Administration."

More Obama

This is getting old, so I'm going to stop harping on Obama after this one. He gave a fine inaugural address, but at an event later in the day -- perhaps he'd had a few celebratory glasses of champagne, and who could blame him -- he said, "Each of you have the power . . .."

Of course that should be "each . . . has . . .."

Obama's English

I want to feel proud of Barack Obama, so I wish he wouldn't jar me with his English. 

As the inauguration approaches, every TV station is playing clips of Obama's current or recent comments. Yesterday at the Lincoln Memorial, he once again talked about "the enormity of the task ahead of us." Today I saw a clip in which he said that we need to help the automakers, but that the help should be contingent "upon them making changes."

If Obama were not a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, I wouldn't bother to mention his English.  He is, after all, an inspiring orator, and he expresses himself much more clearly than his predecessor. But Obama has had plenty of opportunity to learn these niceties, and he is surrounded by people who could clue him in. 

Unfair as this fact may be, people all around the world, some of whom speak English as a second language, will pick up on Obama's gaffes and will -- however briefly -- think a little less of him.

Obama can argue, as the Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Dictionary does, that "enormity" expresses "a considerable departure from the expected or normal." If that's what he means -- rather than simply a synonym for immensity -- I'll give him that one. I don't see, however, how he can wriggle out of "them making changes." He clearly means that he doesn't want to give them the money unless they agree to make changes. The way to say that is "contingent on their making changes."

Differently

I can't find the exact quote, but President Bush said yesterday about the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier that it was a mistake. "We tried to say something differently," he said, "but it had a different effect."  There's nothing grammatically incorrect in that statement, but it got me thinking about what he must have meant.

"Differently" is an adverb, so in this case it modifies the verb "say." Thus he must mean that he meant to say something in a different way. By "something" I don't think he meant the word "something" so there is some unstated message that he wanted to give in a way that differed from . . . what? Did he mean that he had already been expressing this unmentioned thought, and now he chose the banner as a different way of expressing it?

Perhaps he meant "something" in the sense of "I don't really care which thing." Perhaps he felt that he had been in a rut, using a fixed means of expression for all his utterances, and he wanted to say something -- anything -- differently to break the monotony.

We get a hint from the fact that he added that it had a different effect. Different from what? He didn't say, but he added that it gave the wrong message.

I suppose he's just trying to say, "I made a mistake, but there was an innocent reason for it."  So far, he hasn't articulated the innocent reason in a way that I can understand.