Kirk Mahoney . com

I heard this a week ago on CNN.

Problem:
The speaker said the opposite of what she meant.

Explanation:
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said on April 22, 2009, (quote) “I think we cannot underscore the threat …” (unquote) in a presentation to the U.S. Congress, and the CNN television network broadcast it on April 23.

I do not recall the end of the statement, but I do remember that Secretary Clinton did not include the word “enough” in her statement.

If I recall correctly, the (quote) “threat” (unquote) referred to the threat of the Taliban taking control of Pakistan’s nuclear arms.

Secretary Clinton was trying to say that she could not overemphasize the threat.

The verb “underscore” in this context simply means underline or pay attention to, not overemphasize.

The solution comes from including the adverb “enough” or the adverb “sufficiently” in the statement.

The Secretary’s misstatement is equivalent to someone saying (quote) “I could care less.” (unquote) when he or she should say (quote) “I could not care less.” (unquote).

Solution:
“I think we cannot underscore enough the threat …”

I instant-messaged this to a friend last week.

Problem:
The statement is ambiguous without a hyphen.

Explanation:
What does (quote) “Face time matters.” (unquote) mean to you?

Soon after I instant-messaged this statement, I realized that my friend could interpret what I wrote in two ways.

One interpretation of the statement is that I was commanding or imploring my friend to seriously consider (quote) “time matters” (unquote).

In other words, one interpretation of (quote) “Face time matters.” (unquote) is that this was an imperative statement.

The other interpretation of (quote) “Face time matters.” (unquote) is that I was telling my friend that (quote) “face time” (unquote) with other people makes a difference.

These two interpretations are possible because the word “face” is both a noun and a verb and because the word “matters” is both a noun and a verb.

The solution comes from using a hyphen to indicate whether one is talking about about (quote) “time matters” (unquote) or about (quote) “face time” (unquote).

Written schematically, what we have is [NOUN|VERB] NOUN [VERB|NOUN], and any sentence that follows this pattern will be ambiguous without a hyphen between the first and second words or between the second and third words.

Some might argue that using an exclamation mark instead of a period in (quote) “Face time matters.” (unquote) would make it clear to the reader that the statement is an imperative.

Unlike Spanish, which tends to favor the use of exclamation marks for imperative statements, American English seems to have dropped the common use of exclamation marks for imperatives a long time ago.

Using a period instead of an exclamation mark at the end of an imperative statement is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to write a period than it is to write an exclamation mark (one stroke versus two strokes). And it is simpler to type a period than it is to type an exclamation mark (one key versus two keys).

So the absence of the exclamation mark does not assure American readers that the statement is not an imperative.

But I would counter-argue that the presence an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence with this pattern does not ensure that the sentence will be interpreted as imperative. Instead, the exclamation mark could be interpreted as turning a declarative statement into an exclamatory statement.

Solution:

• Use (quote) “Face time-matters.” (unquote) — with a hyphen between “time” and “matters” — to ensure that the statement is interpreted as an imperative sentence about facing matters of time.
• Use (quote) “Face-time matters.” (unquote) — with a hyphen between “Face” and “time” — to ensure that the statement is interpreted as a declarative sentence about the importance of spending face-to-face time with others.

I saw this a week ago on a pickup truck.

Problem:
A possessive apostrophe appeared where it should not.

Explanation:
(Quote) “Drywall Finisher’s” (unquote), with an apostrophe before the letter “s”, was the title on a magnetic sign attached to the side of a pickup truck that I saw last week.

The contractor’s telephone number and some other information appeared beneath the title.

Because the APOSTROPHE-S made the word “Finisher” a possessive, I had to wonder what was being possessed.

But I was left hanging.

The apostrophe in “Finisher’s” should not have been there.

The sign maker was trying to pluralize the noun “Finisher”.

He or she instead made the sign maker’s common blunder of inserting a possessive apostrophe when pluralizing a noun.

Maybe sign makers just love to create apostrophes?

Solution:
“Drywall Finishers”

I wrote a blog post in November 2007 about “Nauseous” vs. “Nauseated”.

I recently heard an actress on a TV drama say that she felt nauseous when she should have said that she felt nauseated.

She made me think again about the two words.

And I realized something: Saying “nauseous” when one should say “nauseated” instead is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

Many Americans say “nauseous” as if it had only two syllables, as in NAW-SHUHS, instead of pronouncing all three syllables, as in NAW-ZEE-UHS.

Either way, it is simpler to say the two- or three-syllable “nauseous” than it is to say the four-syllable “nauseated”.

I overheard a conference call in which someone said this a few days ago.

Problem:
The speaker used the wrong word for the verb after “We need to” in this statement.

Explanation:
The speaker who said (quote) “We need to error on the safe side.” (unquote) was discussing a company policy with others on the conference call.

The word “error” is a noun and not a verb.

What the speaker should have used is the word “err”, which looks like “error” but is a verb that means to be mistaken or incorrect.

Perhaps the speaker simply mispronounced “err” (the verb) as “error” (the noun).

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following (with the quotation marks, to avoid variations) and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

• “err on the safe side” — 23,600 matches
• “error on the safe side” — 1,260 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used “err on the safe side” versus “error on the safe side” by a ratio of 18.7-to-1, which is good by not great.

Solution:
“We need to err on the side of caution.”

I got an interesting email message last Monday from one of your fellow readers of this blog.

I will refer to her simply as “Paula” because I don’t have permission to use her surname.

Paula had read “Alumnus” vs. “Alumna” vs. “Alumni” vs. “Alumnae”.

She also had seen a link named “Miss ND Alumni” at the top of the Miss North Dakota website.

Paula told me (quote) “I had just dashed off a note to the webmaster of the Miss North Dakota pageant where the menu item is Miss ND Alumni, and I listed the masculine and feminine singular and plural forms of Alumnus.” (unquote).

She thanked me for (quote) “defending correct English usage” (unquote).

Thank you, Paula, for defending correct English usage, too!

And, in case my statement in the earlier post was unclear, let me stress here that it is correct to use the masculine plural form when referring to a group of males and females.

In contrast, because the Miss North Dakota contest is only for women, “Miss ND Alumnae” — not “Miss ND Alumni” — is the correct name for the link on the Miss North Dakota website.

I saw this in a corporate announcement.

Problem:
The writer mixed metaphors.

Explanation:
The full sentence was (quote) “If we all row in the same directions, we will ultimately climb the mountains and be successful.” (unquote).

Beyond this conditional sentence’s use of the plural “directions” where the singular “direction” was required (as discussed in yesterday’s post), there is a problem with the “If” clause matching the implied-”then” clause.

Given the target audience, I doubt that the writer was referring to some sort of extreme adventure such as uphill kayaking.

So it makes no sense to the average reader to climb a mountain by rowing.

The solution comes from making a water-related reference (e.g., to a lake) in the implied-”then” clause.

Solution:
“If we all row … we will cross the lake …”

I saw this in a corporate announcement.

Problem:
The noun should be singular, not plural.

Explanation:
The full sentence was (quote) “If we all row in the same directions, we will ultimately climb the mountains and be successful.” (unquote).

Beyond this sentence’s mixed metaphor (more on that in tomorrow’s post), there is a problem with the “If” clause.

First, we must agree that anyone can row in only one direction at any given time.

Now, suppose that you are rowing in a direction and that I am rowing in a direction.

Suppose further that these two directions are identical.

Then there is one and only one direction in which the two of us are rowing.

We would call this (quote) “the same direction” (unquote).

By the way, it is incorrect to say that the adjective “same” always modifies a singular noun.

An example of the adjective “same” correctly modifying a plural noun appears in (quote) “Jack and Jill like the same fruits.” (unquote).

Solution:
“If we all row in the same direction, …”

I have lost track of how many times I have heard this.

Problem:
The gender of the noun does not match the gender of the pronoun.

Explanation:
The noun “bimbo” comes from Italian and refers in Italian to a male child, male infant, or male baby.

As Dictionary.com explains, one of the definitions of “bimbo” in American English is (quote) “an attractive but stupid young woman, esp. one with loose morals.” (unquote).

I do not know how a masculine Italian noun became a feminine English noun that is disparaging and offensive but makes no comment on the target’s sexuality.

But, ever since I learned enough Italian to appreciate the gender pattern in masculine and feminine Italian nouns, whether singular or plural, I have been bothered by how ignorant (quote) “She is a bimbo.” (unquote) sounds.

The feminine form of “bimbo” is “bimba”, which gives us the solution.

Solution:
“She is a bimba.”

My blog post yesterday made me remember this slogan from Apple.

Problem:
The Macintosh computer maker used an adjective where an adverb was required.

Explanation:
Apple Computer used (quote) “Think different.” (unquote) in the 1990s as one of its advertising slogans.

The word “different” is an adjective.

Adjectives modify nouns, not verbs, but Apple used “different” to modify a verb (”Think”).

Apple was trying to tell the viewer how to think.

This requires an adverb.

Many adjectives can be converted to adverbs by appending the L-Y suffix.

“Different” is one of those adjectives.

This gives us the solution.

I suppose that Apple and its advertising firm were trying to be catchy or edgy by using an adjective where an adverb was required.

But I view this grammatical mistake as encouraging the decline of the distinction between adjectives and adverbs.

Solution:
“Think differently.”