Golden Grammar Gospels Redux
I got a pretty good reaction with my post last week about common grammatical/spelling errors. Due to popular demand, I’ve decided to do this on a semi-regular basis. (Read: when I am short on time, or ideas, for meatier posts. I’ll even use the same graphic.)
Thinking about “press release language” for a second, many PR folks desperately search for alternatives to descriptors like “industry leading.” A big alternate play is "premiere." But that’s not the right spelling, folks. “Premiere” is akin to “debut,” as in “Angelina Jolie showed up at the big movie premiere.” You want to use “premier” which means “first in rank.” I suppose you could launch a product from a top-tier brand by saying it was “the premiere of the (XYZ) from the premier name in (XYZ)” but that would sound cloying.
Irregardless of how you spell it … oh! wait! whoops! “Irregardless” is not a real word. (Actually, that is debatable, but do you really want to go to war over it? Use “regardless.”)
Last one for today, and I can’t believe I did not cover it last time: for some baffling reason, many people use THEIR and THERE interchangeably. It’s one thing to confuse “premier” and “premiere” (I’ll admit I screw that one up too!), but THEIR and THERE have completely different meanings.
Put in its most simple terms, “there” is a place or state-of-being; “their” denotes possession. You can “go there” … you can “take it from there.” But when you use “their,” you’re talking about ownership: “There they go, riding off on their two-seater bicycle.”
While the reactions to my last rant were generally positive, some folks wondered if I was being too rigid, especially in the age of IM and SMS?
look, fwiw i cn txt w the bst of em, bt vrythg has itz place. in biz comms we shld @ lst tri 2 b prof?
By the way, most of the errors covered in this post came from the comments on my last post, so please leave your personal grammar grievances here, to flesh out future posts.
Next time: i.e. vs. e.g., and, etc. vs. et al. Get excited!
Subscribe by Email
View on mobile phone
Click here for my LinkedIn profile
Comments
As someone who writes and edits for a living, I've seen every grammatical atrocity you can imagine.
The best part of discovering them is that they're usually perpetrated by very bright people who haven't paused to think about what they're actually saying.
Then you can mock them about it for DAYS because you know they likely wouldn't have let that mistake stand if they'd done another read-through.
I have a much harder time being fierce with people who JUST CAN'T WRITE. But I guess that's fine... that's why they need me.
But I have zero patience with any company that publishes things online or off with lame mistakes. Your credibility is worth a proofread ... or hiring someone with a clue.
Dumb mistakes in ALL realms generally come back to not taking the time to do something right, or having the wrong person do it, period.
Grammar? No exception.
Posted by: Meg | June 17, 2008 02:17 PM
Keep them coming! Please!
A few of my pet peeves are less about strict grammar rules and more about word choice and usage. Impact used as a verb, for example, enrages me, even though most major dictionaries sold me out a few years ago and started listing it as such. This decision will not impact on me, it will HAVE an impact on me.
And speaking of decisions, we make them. We don't take them. I think bureaucrats are to blame for this one.
Last big pet peeve is the apostrophe but I think Bob the Angry Flower covers it as well as anyone in this strip:
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Posted by: Joe Boughner | June 17, 2008 02:20 PM
affect vs. effect
Posted by: Kemp | June 17, 2008 02:26 PM
Keep it up, Todd. The only reason people do not spell words correctly or use incorrect words is laziness. SMS/IM is just an excuse, and there is no real excuse for not being able to spell and write correctly.
Posted by: Mel | June 17, 2008 03:59 PM
Speaking of "impact"... (from @Joe Boughner) "Impactful" is not a word, right? So many executive types use this word in presentations, and then the speech becomes the opposite of "impactful."
Posted by: Kelly Jones | June 17, 2008 04:29 PM
___ and me vs. ___ and I. Gets me every time ...
Posted by: Pamela Seiple | June 17, 2008 09:19 PM
As a newspaper editor turned PR consultant in a city where the economy is driven by high-tech, I’ve found over-used buzzwords far more annoying than the misuse of words.
My favorite example is a directory of local tech companies my paper would publish in which companies would submit descriptions of themselves in 40 words or less. The amount of cut-and-pasted marketing speak that left us still struggling to understand what a company actually did in practical terms was amazing. Then there were all those one- and two-person shops that were already calling themselves a “leading provider of …”
Journalists are bombarded all the time with pitches that claim how a new product or service is going to change the world. It’s noise and clutter that only serves to drive the pitch that much more quickly into the trash bin. Often, it’s the executive approving the media material who shoves in this kind of bombast and it’s up to the PR person to dig in their heels and resist. And if it’s the PR person who’s including it, well, time to step back, take a breath, and consider the perspective of the journalist on receiving end.
Posted by: Leo Valiquette | June 18, 2008 10:18 AM
A righteous "amen" brother. To add to your "their/there" woes, the other one that utterly kills me is when people use either of these options when what the mean is "they're". Ack. It sendeth me.
Posted by: Michael O'Connor Clarke | June 18, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject-verb agreement is a big problem with people, and that really comes from editing. If people took the time to actually read over their stuff (I do it out loud, which is extremely helpful) they would catch this very simple but very noticeable mistake.
Posted by: Mickey Slevin | June 19, 2008 01:23 PM
Preach on :-). I'm actually really excited about the upcoming i.e. vs e.g. post; I have no idea what the difference is there, even though several people have tried (unsuccessfully) to explain it. In truth, I don't think they even knew.
Posted by: Aaron Mentzer | June 19, 2008 05:31 PM
What drives me crazy--and I see it all of the time in business/marketing literature--is when the writer turns a perfectly good noun into a verb. There have been many but the most recent example was someone who said that he was to "conversate" which, I think meant have a conversation. Well, there is already a word for that..."converse"! I'm going to start writing these down because I see them every day.
I also dislike when people add "-age" on to nouns for no good reason to form another noun that means the same thing. I mean, doesn't "signage" the same thing as "signs"?
I know that every language changes and evolves I just don't like made-up, pretentious-sounding words that are meant to sound impressive instead of just using simple, direct words that already exist.
Posted by: Liz | June 22, 2008 07:26 PM
Thank you! Do you have anything planned for my pet peeve... "got". It's overused, and used incorrectly. I once had an employer ask that I find a "grammar" class for some of our employees. They're smart and capable, they just don't speak too good. :-) Which brings me to the difference between good and well. Thanks for the blog! DeAnne
Posted by: DeAnne | June 26, 2008 08:35 AM
This isn't grammar related, but is usage related.
In a subsequent post you use the term "could care less"; that term makes little sense. The term to use is "couldn't care less"; it makes sense.
Posted by: Rick Kiley | July 1, 2008 10:54 AM