Kirk Mahoney . com

I have posted to this blog a few times about words that start with the “re-” prefix.

Here are some examples:

• “return”
• “respond”
• “reply”

A common English blunder these days is to add “back” after any of the “re-” verbs.

The reason that it’s a blunder is that the “re-” prefix in these verbs means back.

The other meaning of the “re-” prefix is again or anew.

Unless you know that you are dealing with an again or anew instance, it is safest to avoid putting “back” after a “re-” verb.

I saw this here.

Problem:
A comma is missing, or the adjective “incredible” is inappropriate here.

Explanation:
“Foxit Reader is a … viewer …, with incredible small size …” contains two adjectives in a row.

Either the writer wanted each adjective to modify the noun “size”, or the writer wanted to modify the second adjective to modify the first adjective.

If the writer wanted “incredible” and “small” to modify “size”, then a comma should go immediately after the first adjective — yielding the first solution.

If the writer wanted to modify “small”, then a different solution is required.

When one wants to modify adjective Y with adjective X, one must convert adjective X into an adverb.

Converting adjectives to adverbs usually requires adding “ly” and sometimes requires dropping a letter or two.

Converting the adjective “incredible” to an adverb yields “incredibly” — and the second solution.

Solutions:
“Foxit Reader is a … viewer …, with incredible, small size …”
or
“Foxit Reader is a … viewer …, with incredibly small size …”

I saw this in the closed captioning on Usher’s “Make Love in this Club” video on one of my gym’s TV sets this morning.

Problems:
A comma and an apostrophe are missing.

Explanation:
First, there is a natural pause when one says someone’s name and then says the rest of the sentence. This pause should be indicated by a comma, so there should be a comma between “BABY” and “LETS” (sic).

Second, “LETS” is a contraction of “LET US”. A contraction requires an apostrophe to indicate the omission of one of more letters, so the omitted “U” in the contraction requires the apostrophe as its substitute.

Granted, closed captioning for live events will have typographical errors.

A music video, on the other hand, should have no typographical errors, given that it is not live and that producers spend small fortunes to produce them.

I searched Google for the lyrics and found them — with the same errors — here and here (among many sites).

This shows that the omissions in the closed captioning were not typographical errors; the omissions are in the original lyrics.

I believe that both of these omissions are consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It’s simpler to omit the comma and the apostrophe than to include them.

Solution:
“BABY, LET’S MAKE LOVE.”

I saw this in AT&T’s 2007 annual report.

Problem:
Either an adjective was used where an adverb was required, or a comma is missing.

Explanation:
The noun “material” can be used as an adjective to modify another noun, and adding “ly” converts it to an adverb.

The adjective “adverse” is modifying the noun “effect” in this example from the 2007 annual report from AT&T Inc., so the word “material” does not correctly modify the adjective “adverse” in this example.

Instead, we need one of two possible solutions (depending on the desired emphasis):

1. If modifying “adverse” is the desired emphasis, then we need the adverb “materially” as the modifier.
2. If modifying “effect” is the desired emphasis, then we need the adjective “material” as the modifier, but we also need a comma immediately following “material” because a second adjective (”adverse”) modifies “effect” (the noun).

I believe that the use of “material adverse” instead of “materially adverse” or “material, adverse” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It’s simpler to omit the “ly” and the comma than to use one or the other.

Using “material adverse” lets one avoid thinking about whether to use the “ly” or the comma.

Solutions:
“… it could have a materially adverse effect …”
or
“… it could have a material, adverse effect …”

I saw this at Amazon.com.

Problem:
“Pair” is a singular noun being used incorrectly as a plural noun, and two commas are missing.

Explanation:
As I wrote last November, two of anything together is a single pair. Multiples of this means multiple pairs.

I continue to believe that use of “pair” instead of “pairs” helps to prove my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say “pair” than to say “pairs”.

Beyond the “pair” problem, the product heading is missing a couple of commas.

“Gold” and “Angled” and “Spade” modify the noun “Connectors”; when one has multiple modifiers of a noun, commas should appear between the modifiers (in this case to get “Gold, Angled, Spade Connectors”).

I believe that omission of commas in a multiple-modifiers situation also is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to omit the commas than to include them, and advertising copywriters lean toward simpler text, even if it is grammatically incorrect and is more difficult to read.

Solution:
“Monster … Gold, Angled, Spade Connectors (2 Pairs)”

I saw this yesterday on a History Channel program about Skylab.

Problem:
A comma is missing.

Explanation:
The television program was about Skylab.

As the program went to a commercial break, a multi-sentence blurb appeared on the screen, and the narrator read the blurb about Skylab.

One of the sentences was “It crashed in a remote area of Western Australia killing one cow.”

The narrator was smart enough to pause after he said “Australia”; otherwise, the sentence would have sounded odd.

Commas tell readers where to put pauses when speaking a sentence.

“It crashed in a remote area of Western Australia” is a complete sentence on its own, and “killing one cow” is an aside that adds information, so “Australia” should be immediately followed by a comma.

Look at these two sentences:

1. Jim hit the man running from the police.
2. Jim hit the man, running from the police.

Sentence #1 means that Jim hit the man who was running from the police. In contrast, sentence #2 means that Jim hit the man while Jim was running from the police. See what a difference a comma makes?

Solution:
“It crashed in … Australia, killing one cow.”

I saw this in a glossy, 16-page brochure for a professional conference.

Problem:
This clause should contain no comma.

Explanation:
I cannot imagine what the brochure writer was thinking when deciding to put a comma in this clause.

Commas in writing indicate pauses in speaking.

If it makes no sense to pause at a particular point when reading something aloud, then a comma should not appear at that point.

Solution:
“The LAS VEGAS HILTON will honor …”

I saw this in an email message.

Problem:
A comma is missing.

Explanation:
Without the comma, this sentence is structured such that the writer is thanking the reader for sharing Jim.

What the writer wanted to do was thank Jim for sharing (the information contained elsewhere in the email message).

Commas provide the pauses that let readers “hear” where writers are taking breaks in speech.

The writer of the sentence in the email message was pausing before saying in her mind the name Jim, but she failed to put in her sentence a comma that would indicate the location of that pause.

Solution:
“Thanks so much for sharing, Jim.”

I instant-messaged someone whom I’ll call Kathy while talking with her in a conference call.

I wrote, “I asked, Kathy, about the session sheets because …”

She replied, “…who did you send this to?”

After some confusing back-and-forth, I realized that Kathy did not see the commas in what I initially wrote.

She thought that I wrote, “I asked Kathy about the session sheets because …” That would have been a third-person reference to Kathy. She thought that I had instant-messaged someone else with “I asked Kathy about the session sheets because …” before instant-messaging the same thing to her.

Instead, because I wrote, “I asked, Kathy, about the session sheets because …”, I was referring to her in the first person. I was trying to make my instant message more personal by pausing (with commas) to include her name.

Lessons:
1. Commas can change a third-person reference to a first-person reference.
2. Don’t assume that readers will see your commas, especially in an instant-messaging situation.
3. Don’t assume that a reader who sees your commas will know that these are equivalent to pauses in the spoken version of what you write. If a reader can’t “hear” the pauses implied by the commas, then the reader will read a first-person reference as a third-person reference.