Word Wise

The Wednesday Word Wise Roundup

• A lot of people whine about other people who treat e-mail so casually they stop using uppercase letters altogether. It says something about that person, these latte-sipping uppercase-using people think. In the case of Jerry Yang, chief executive at Yahoo!, it definitely does. He wrote an all-staff e-mail the other day using no uppercase letters whatsoever to make a point after recent talks with Microsoft fell through. The grand panjandrums of grammar political correctness took notice, and then the Chicago Tribune took notice of them.

• Maybe it’s because of Hillary Clinton's shameless comment to USA Today about “hard working Americans, white Americans” or the now-infamous, spot-on “Saturday Night Live” sketch depicting her as morally degenerate, but yesterday several people sent me a link to a blog called “Stuff White People Like,” which, while funny, also made me a bit uncomfortable (they sent it because one of the things white people apparently like is grammar). Then I saw that yesterday John McIntyre, assistant managing editor for the copy desk at The Baltimore Sun and writer of the excellent “You Don’t Say” column, also took note of the site. “In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication,” the SWPL blogger wrote. “Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake.” McIntyre’s response? “The greatest carriers-on often seem to be older white guys, their vermilion wattles trembling with rage as they inveigh against the shoddy education of the younger generation(s), the abysmal decline in literacy and the criminal disregard of English grammar as God intended it to be used.” Read more here, it’s worth it.

Thanks But No thanks

Of all the workshops I teach in my company’s in-house university, my e-mail class is most popular (despite the fact that one colleague fell asleep during it – you know who you are). The seriousness with which people view the class has never failed to impress me. Whether or not it’s due to the existential angst that accompanies the constant potential for embarrassing blunders or worse when hitting “send,” e-mail is a topic that’s more top of mind (as we say in the biz) than I would have thought. Yet one issue causes more discussion during class than any other, and that’s whether to send e-mails that merely say “thanks.” Such e-mails are increasingly reflexive but not necessarily reflective of anything special. I fall on the side of colleagues who say that sending “thanks” e-mails when only the merest wisp of effort has been exerted seems silly and time-wasting, not only to write but to open and read. (I’m slightly paralyzed by them, too, since I sometimes feel the need to thank the person for thanking me and then we get into a thank you war that, as Joni Mitchell sang about the seasons, go round and round and round in the circle game.) I’m not against thank yous always (I'm a big booster of civility in the workplace). But when all a person is doing is answering a question or sending you a document, the incessant thank you-ing diminishes the impact of the sentiment, rendering it less special, more “yeah, whatever.” And “thanks in advance” -- or pre-thank yous -- are even stranger considering the person hasn’t done anything yet. And anyhow, what, really (think about it), does "thanks in advance" even mean? Class discussion usually ends in a draw, with hard-core thank you-ers determined to thank their way through their days while the rest of us come off curmudgeonly and curt. But days and even weeks later I’ve been told by many in the former group that after giving it further thought they’ve stopped sending knee-jerk thank yous. They admit they’re saving time, no one’s feelings are hurt, and that the thank yous they do send are more weighted with meaning. So go ahead, send thank you e-mails when a thank you is really called for. But hold yourself back from writing thank you e-mails every time someone sends you an e-mail. They’ll thank you for it. And I thank you for reading this post. Seriously. Thanks.

The Wednesday Word Wise Roundup

I’ve received e-mail from readers wondering why I haven’t posted a Wednesday Roundup in several weeks and I have no excuse but slothfulness, lethargy, and too much time taken up stressing out over the fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Now that the primary battle seems to be winding down – especially with you-know-who’s poor showing last night in North Carolina and Indiana – I’ll try to be more regular with these roundups.

· Princeton University Press is recalling all copies of a book from its spring catalog because  it had more than 90 spelling and grammar errors. As this story from the Chronicle of Higher Education notes, “The errors came to light when the author’s friends and family members began sending him lists of the numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes they had noticed.”

· The American Copy Editors Society named the winners of its 2007 headline contest, with the “Division 1” winner being “The Way of No Flesh,” which topped a review of a book in The New York Times called The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism. The headline is a play on words related to the novel The Way of All Flesh by Samuel Butler.

· Last month Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat profiled the “grammar vigilante,” whose goal is to “make the U.S. "’a safer place for spelling.’" The 28-year-old grammar vigilante himself has a blog in which he chronicles his adventures (if you can call traveling across the country trying to stamp out spelling mistakes and other abuses wherever and whenever he sees them “adventures”). It's more fun than you might expect.

Have you read an interesting, funny, or instructive article or blog post about writing, language or grammar you think I should post here? Let me know.

All Mail, All the Time

Readers around the world ask questions in Word Wise’s comment section and my colleagues around the world e-mail me with questions, as well. Here’s a smattering of some recent ones and their answers. Re: And Your Point Is? From JP: Which side are you on regarding the writing of the famous search engine as "Yahoo!" or "Yahoo" in journalistic stories? Me: I prefer it without the exclamation point, which is also how AP does it (though The New York Times disagrees, since a quick search shows it uses the exclamation point sometimes, though not in any consistent way as far as I can tell). Re: And Your Point Is? From Nicole: We call [exclamation points] exclamation marks in Australia - why the difference? Me: Not the answer you’re looking for, Nicole: I don’t know and I couldn’t find anything (at least online) that explains it. Re: R-E-S-P-E-C-T, Find Out What it Means to Me From Bbebop: Where's Hispanic? It would be nice to know if it's out of favor. Me: AP only capitalizes those words in its AP Stylebook that are supposed to be uppercase all the time, so it goes from “black” to “Black Muslims” to “blackout, brownout.” Also, that AP didn’t update the entry for “Hispanic” this year doesn’t mean it’s out of favor at all. Currently, the entry for “Hispanic” is as follows: “A person from – or whose ancestors were from – a Spanish-speaking land or culture. Latino and Latina are sometimes preferred. Follow the person's preference. Use a more specific identification when possible, such as Cuban, Puerto Rican or Mexican-American. See Latino, nationalities and races, and race entries.” Re: Punctuation Situation From Ragdoll: What is the rule when it comes to names that end in "s"? Me: If the word is a proper noun and ends in an s, just add the apostrophe. Charles’ book, Biff  Harris’ lake house, Dickens’ novel. AP says Jesus is no different than Charles when it comes to grammar (the great leveler); one exception, which may not impact you much unless you're a serious monarchist: when referring to the London palace commissioned by Henry VIII known as St. James’s Palace. Re: Commasutra From Patricia: What's the last word on serial commas? Me: Two schools of thought on the serial comma: AP, which says to use it only if by not using it confusion would follow, all hell would break loose, the end of civilization as we know it would ensue,  or if the items in the series are “a complex series of phases” (2007 AP Style, page 325). That all sounds pretty subjective to me. Then there’s the University of Chicago Manual of Style, with which I agree: “A comma … should appear before the conjunction. Chicago strongly recommends this widely practiced usage … since it prevents ambiguity.” That said, is it "the last word" on the serial comma? I fear not. Re: Ten to One From JP: Here's the classic consistency conundrum to these number-and-numeral rules: If you have a phrase such as "the guys brought home six trout, 11 bass and 14 catfish," do you go with the egregiously inconsistent "six" or the more proximity-related-consistent "6"? Any thoughts? Me: I can’t agree with your supposition that to write “six trout, 11 bass and 14 catfish” is “egregiously inconsistent” (“egregious” means “conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible”). You can disagree with the AP rules on numbers and style, but to follow them isn’t egregious or even inconsistent. Re: Ten to One From Bob: In writing: percent or per cent? Certainly in British English, we were encouraged to use the latter, i.e., use the symbol "%" or spell it out as it was designed. Me: In American-style English we use percent, though when it came into being, around 1568, it was per cent, an abbreviation of the Latin per centum (“by the hundred”). In the early 1880s Americans decided per cent was too fussy (that’s my interpretation, at least) and started writing it as one word. Differences between American and British English abound and I'm wary when it comes to writing about them since everyone in the UK (ok, maybe not everyone) seems so gosh darn touchy. Re: Composed, Comprised, Confused! From Ethan: I’m confused by what comprise means. Your two examples seems inconsistent. OPEC comprises 13 countries. Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Sergio Rossi, Boucheron, Bottega Veneta, Bédat & Co, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, and Balenciaga comprise the Gucci Group. In the first example, the  larger organization “comprises” the smaller ones. In the second example, the smaller organizations “comprise” the larger. However you have stated that “a whole comprises parts.” I would think the second example should therefore state “the Gucci Group is comprised of Gucci, YSL, etc etc” Me: My headline that week was pretty apt – it is confusing. Your initial comment is right, the examples are inconsistent. But your correction is off, as well. That sentence (beginning with Gucci) should have read “The Gucci Group comprises Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, blah-blah-blah” OR “Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Sergio Rossi, Boucheron, Bottega Veneta, Bédat & Co, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, and Balenciaga compose the Gucci Group." Re: Composed, Comprised, Confused! From Shona: Wouldn't you say "comprised of," as in X is comprised of a, b, c? Me: No, you’d say “composed of.” Saying “comprised of” would be the equivalent of saying “contained of,” which we wouldn’t do. As the excellent blog Mighty Red Pen noted last December, “At times like these, I like to end with the gentle wisdom of H.W. Fowler, who says sweetly, ‘This lamentably common use of comprise as a synonym for compose or constitute is a wanton and indefensible weakening of our vocabulary.’” Me: Keep those questions coming.

Note: Here are two questions I should have asked last week before I posted. First, what's the difference between "stationary" and "stationery"? And second, how does the author of Emma and Pride and Prejudice spell her name? In that post, about exclamation points, I mixed up the difference between standing still and the paper on which people used to write thank you notes and letters home from sleepaway camp (stationary being the former, stationery the latter) and I misspelled Jane Austen's name. Lots of you pointed out one or both these errors (which have since been amended) and like any writer, I appreciate your careful reading and gentle corrections.

And Your Point Is?

In 1986 Hamilton, Ohio, changed its name to Hamilton! Ohio. Aside from its total weirdness (yes, Hamiltonians, while no doubt you’re lovely people, it is weird and it screws up comma placement and according to reports it cost $35,000 of taxpayers’ money to redo the city stationery), the exclamation point brings up a sore subject with lots of people – that is, exclamation points themselves. You’re either an exclamation point-type person or you’re not. And, it seems, like the divide between those who support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, apparently the twain shall never meet. One of my favorite blogs, The Pirate Geek, recently referred to exclamation points as “louche and lazy.” Take that, Hamilton. But exclamation points have a long and proud history and I’m on their side. Really! I am! They’ve been around since the 15th century and originally were meant as a “mark of admiration.” The symbol itself is believed to originate from the Latin word io, an exclamation of joy, and, in fact, may be an altered combination of those two letters. For every embarrassing Love Smart! by Dr. Phil there’s an incredible O Pioneers! by Willa Cather. And let’s not forget Shakespeare: “A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!” Or James Joyce: “God, these Bloody English!”  Or Jane Austen: “But you have such a generous spirit!" And I could go on. The point about exclamation points is that they can convey a robust spirit or excitement. Used sparingly, they’re an effective way to express a variety of feelings, meanings, and attitudes. Outcry: Help! I need somebody! Help! Not just anybody! Irony: The surgeon fainted at the sight of blood! Name calling: You beast! Joy: I love you! Enthusiasm: Count me in! Shock: Well, I never! Loud noises: Wham! Pow! Zap! Disappointment: Work just won’t be the same without you! Newness: Try ‘em, you’ll like ‘em! Excitement: It’s a best practice! You get a lot of bang for your buck. But it’s their overuse -- which like anything else that’s really good only when really rare -- that renders them useless. So go ahead, free yourself to use an exclamation point once in a while. In Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Alice says, “ever so many lessons to learn!” And with today’s post? One less. Hurrah! Note: In the original version of this post I misspelled "stationery" (I wrote "stationary"), so my thanks to Nicole, a reader from Australia, for pointing it out. Further proof that everyone needs an editor.