<![CDATA[The SAGB - Featured Boobery ]]>

<![CDATA[The SAGB - Featured Boobery ]]>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:21:33 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[The New York Time's's Booberie's]]>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:41:20 GMThttp://www.thesagb.org/6/post/2011/04/the-new-york-timess-booberies.htmlIt seems the writers and editors at The New York Times have given up on correctness. Two days ago, Adam Bryant -- along with his charlatan editors -- committed grievous grammatical boobery. Mr. Bryant's article displays a flagrant disregard for detail, meaning, and the apostrophe. The Society does not approve.

This disturbing apostrophe abuse would be a semi-tolerable mistake if it represented a genuine misunderstanding of how to pluralize acronyms. But it's worse than that -- and not even close to tolerable. Bryant besprinkles apostrophes willy-nilly throughout the entire article, perhaps relying on luck to stumble upon the right meaning. And stumble Bryant does -- on the first page of the article, there are only two correct usages, one of which is in the title of his already-published book.

The other one is the only usage to actually mean what it should -- the C.E.O.s own something: a job.

Unfortunately, the 6 other apostrophe appearances (on the first page) point to Bryant & Co. being total grammatical boobs. Take a look:

Simply being a business fat cat doesn't entitle the C.E.O. to own "are supposed to project confidence..." and "offered myriad lessons and insight..."

See all the apostrophe booberies committed by Bryant here.

This display of boobery highlights more than Bryant's indifference and ignorance: it underlines an epidemic plaguing our acronyms and numericals. That is, Bryant is not the only boob. In fact, this type of error is perhaps more common than any other.

I love the 80's? This is wrong in two senses. First, the apostrophe does not denote plural, so its usage is incorrect. Second, the possession doesn't even work. One would have to say I love the 80s' sensibilities or the 80s' tablecloths: the 80s are plural already and possess something together. We also often see advertisements for DJ's who rock the house, DVD's at a huge discount, and the socioeconomic upheavals of the 1800's. We should rather hear of a DJ's beats, a DVD's quality, and 1851's particular fondness for the railroad.

The apostrophe primarily represents possession (secondarily omission). It does not mark plurals.

Another compelling reason not to smoke

To learn more about apostrophes, visit our Education Page.

Thanks to SAGB member Dan Dunning for submitting Bryant's article.

]]><![CDATA[The more-than-one-word subjects that make us, so confused.]]>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:13:46 GMThttp://www.thesagb.org/6/post/2011/03/the-more-than-one-word-subjects-that-make-us-so-confused.htmlOr the slogans that make me say, "boo(b)!"

Something is wrong with our sentences -- something so common and small that most of us fail to pay it any attention at all. After all, it's surrounded with powerful clusters of players and action. But the more I think of it, the more I see it: it flicks through my students' essays, sneaks into newspapers, and hangs out in slogans. It's a comma, but it's not one we love (at least not at The Society; clearly, things are different in the world). Le voilà:

"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."

This, is not correct. I, wish this kind of punctuation would stop. Who, wrote this thing? Are you, seeing the pattern?

One basic rule all punctuators need to remember is that we never separate the simple elements of a sentence pattern with internal punctuation. Period. (Calling myself on my own (funny) fragment.) In this case, Vegas has separated the base pair whose combination is essential for a sentence: the subject and the verb. A subject is a subject; it doesn't matter how long it is. It could be a name: Tom Jones needed new pants. It could be a pronoun: He hated replacing a trusty pair. There could be modifiers, relative clauses, and prepositional phrases attached: The calfskin pants that Tom Jones's mom sewed for him while watching her T.V. program fit his legs perfectly. Grammatically speaking, these subjects are all equal; they are all doing the action. Tom is needing; he is hating; the pants are fitting. They are all subjects directly preceding their verbs; they ought not be torn asunder by this errant comma. Thus, in our boobery, the things that happen in Vegas -- that is, "what" happens in Vegas -- are doing the action. They're staying. This sentence represents the simplest pattern: subject + verb. That's it. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

I hate to think we would also tolerate slogans such as "He, stays..."; We, stay..."; or even "Drunken idiocy, stays..." So I hazard that we shouldn't tolerate this one either. Anyone for a Vegas boycott?

(I'd also like to boycott the long-taught rule that commas should represent pauses in speech. There is no other rule that has wreaked so much havoc on young punctuators than this one. It's a sometimes-truth touted as an always-reliable one. It's no good. It makes people punctuate like boobs.)

Unfortunately, Vegas is not the only one practicing this "long subjects make us, nervous and sort of make us want, to pause" boobery.

I'm not really bothered by the fragment in Subaru's ad (though a colon would have been much better), but the comma really irks me. "Love. It's what makes a Subaru, a Subaru." This sentence has a slightly more complex patterning than Vegas's ad, but the principle is the same: the simple elements of the sentence are being separated by internal punctuation.

There are actually technically two patterns in this one: It (love) is what (subject + linking verb + predicate noun); and what makes a Subaru a Subaru (subject + verb + object + object complement). But we are primarily interested in the second. 'What' is the subject (doing the making). 'A Subaru' is being made (so it's the object; direct objects are always being verb'd). But the sentence continues to answer what the Subaru is being made into: 'a Subaru.' While the repetition is unwieldy, Subaru is still the complement to Subaru. Here's an easier example: My goats make me frustrated. Subject: My goats (the actors). Verb: make (it's the only possible choice). I am the object. But are they simply making me? That is, are they my creators? Definitely not. They're making me frustrated. Frustrated is the complement to (it completes) me. Let's go back to Tom Jones and his mom's fancy pants -- She makes the pants, simple subject + verb + object. What if she makes the pants beautiful? Beautiful completes the idea of the pants; beautiful is the complement to the object. She doesn't make the pants, beautiful (unless she says to Tom, "I made your pants, beautiful!"). She makes the pants beautiful. Just like love makes a Subaru a Subaru.

Vegas and Subaru, The Society implores you! For the love of grammar, make your slogans correct. Let bad grammar stay in the past. Set a proper example for the kids and remove your unnecessary commas.

Also -- Google, stop correcting my grammar: I'll punctuate when I punctuate...correctly!

]]><![CDATA[Disconnected]]>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:05:58 GMThttp://www.thesagb.org/6/post/2011/03/009900.htmlOur inaugural featured boobery highlights irony. For your pleasure, we have culled 5 delightful and deplorable disconnects between content and form:

5. The Grammar Vandal at http://thegrammarvandal.wordpress.com/: “But, seriously: this blog is about advertisements and businesses and professional writing. In short, writing that should be proofread before being presented to the public. I care about professionalism.”

OFFENSES: Comma after coordinating conjunction; fragment.

4. The Old-Fashioned Punctuator at http://forum.starmen.net/forum/General/Discussion/The-Oxford-Comma: “I was taught to put the comma but I don’t think it’s totally necessary. It’s optional. It’s a little piece of style in writing. Just a little one.Or even more complex if there is something like: We were with my friend, a swimmer and a hiker. You just made me a firm believer in the Oxford comma. I’ve never heard that example but I love it. Unfortunately I’m a comma abuser and you’re now an enabler…When I correct friend’s papers, I always place the comma in there. I’m a bit old fashioned when it comes to punctuation and grammar.”

OFFENSES: No comma with coordinating conjunction; fragment; no space after period; fragment; no comma with coordinating conjunction; no comma with introductory clause; no comma with coordinating conjunction; apostrophe misuse; hyphenation error.

3. Grammar Girl (Guru) at http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/: “Mignon Fogarty is the host of Grammar Girl and founder of Quick and Dirty Tips. Prior to becoming a grammar guru, Mignon was a magazine and technical writer, and an entrepreneur. Mignon has a B.A. in English from the University of Washington in Seattle and an M.S. in biology from Stanford University.”

OFFENSE: Comma Misuse — No comma is needed after “writer” because there are only two items in the series: writer (1) and entrepreneur (2). She is correctly comma-less in the first and last sentence, both of which have two items listed.

2. The Non-Discriminator at Twentysomething.wordpress: “Ever since Vampire Weekend brought it to my attention, I have become obsessed with oxford commas. But I don’t discriminate. I’m also having a renewed love affair with full stops, exclamation points and commas in general…And heaven help the person who forgets to punctuate in my presence.”

OFFENSE: Lack of Oxford Comma

1. National Grammar Day at www.nationalgrammarday.com: “Language is something to celebrate, and March 4 is the perfect day to do it. It’s not only a date, it’s an imperative: March forth on March 4 to speak well, write well, and help others do the same!”

PRIMARY OFFENSE: Comma Splice -- There is no good reason to separate independent clauses with a comma (unless you’re as dramatic as Caesar the Splicer). While we recognize that commas can sometimes separate very short independent clauses (from a non-purist point of view), we believe there are several better options for punctuating this sentence. A semi-colon would be fine, though a bit clunky. A dash would work and allow for the current colon (a nice one) to stay. But in terms of form reflecting content, we think that “It’s not only a date: it’s (also) an imperative!” is ideal.
SECONDARY OFFENSE: Not only … but also

While secondary to the splice, this parallel structure is important for a completely correct utterance.

]]>