Kirk Mahoney . com

Huh?!

Reader Brian P. wrote to me yesterday with (quote) “It’s third ten on the forty.” (unquote) as an example of a statement that he heard recently while watching an NFL football game on television.

The statement meant (quote) “It’s third down and ten yards to go on the forty-yard line.” (unquote).

I believe that what bothered Brian the most was the omission of the conjunction “and” between the word “third” and the word “ten” in the statement.

In other words, I believe that Brian would have preferred to hear (quote) “It’s third and ten on the forty.” (unquote) at the very least.

I believe that the omission of the conjunction “and” in the sentence is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to omit the conjunction than to include it.

Brian’s impression is that the omission is a broadcasting-school gimmick:

Dropping one[-]syllable words (many prepositions, plus articles, “and”, “if”, “as”, “is”, “are”, “have” and others) is the latest broadcast[ing-]school gimmick, and to my ear the most grating (with constant use of “actually” and “as well” running place and show).

If that is what broadcasting schools are teaching these days, then that is very discouraging.

On a brighter note: Happy New Year!

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This is a bastardization of a phrase.

Problem:
The second “in” is incorrect in this phrase.

Explanation:
The conjunction “and” is often mispronounced by Americans as if it were the preposition “in”.

The correct phrase is “in this day and age” — with the conjunction “and” between the word “day” and the word “age” — because one can write (quote) “in this day” (unquote) or (quote) “in this age” (unquote).

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:

• “in this day and age” — with the conjunction “and” — 3,030,000 matches
• “in this day in age” — with the preposition “in” — 113,000 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct “in this day and age” versus the incorrect “in this day in age” by a ratio of 26.8-to-1, which is very good.

Solution:
“in this day and age”

This is a bastardization of a nautical phrase.

Problem:
The word “in” is incorrect in this phrase.

Explanation:
The Phrase Finder has a complete explanation of the correct phrase, which is (quote) “by and large” (unquote), not (quote) “by in large” (unquote).

Here are the highlights from that superb explanation of (quote) “by and large” (unquote).

Regarding “large”: The wind is said to be “large” when it is blowing behind a ship’s travel direction.

For example, if you want to sail to the east and the wind is coming out of the west, then “large” is the correct label for the wind.

Regarding “by”: In contrast, to be (quote) “by the wind” (unquote) is to be facing into the wind.

Although many non-sailors see this as a sailing disadvantage, the physics of sailing show that it is advantageous to sail into the wind.

So being able to sail (quote) “by and large” (unquote) means being able to sail not only downwind (the “large” part) but also into the wind (the “up” part).

This explains why the phrase means on the whole.

And one can understand how (quote) “by in large” (unquote) resulted from a lack of understanding about this nautical phrase and a misinterpretation, upon hearing it, of the conjunction “and” as the preposition “in”.

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:

• “by and large” — with the conjunction “and” — 5,090,000 matches
• “by in large” — with the preposition “in” — 44,400 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct “by and large” versus the incorrect “by in large” by a ratio of 115-to-1, which is excellent.

Solution:
“by and large”

I sometimes see an ampersand used where the word “and” is required.

Problem:
These two conjunctions are not quite synonyms.

Explanation:
Wikipedia has an excellent overview of the ampersand.

As Wikipedia notes, “The word ampersand is a corruption of the phrase ‘and per se and’, meaning ‘and [the symbol which] by itself [is] and‘.”

The ampersand symbol — & — comes from a ligature of the letters “e” and “t” in the Latin word et, which means “and”.

Although the rise in popularity of SMS text messaging — with its 140-characters-per-message limit — has spurred the increasing use of the one-character “&” as a substitute for the three-character “and”, it is NOT appropriate to use the ampersand absolutely everywhere as a substitute for “and”.

Here is a summary of where the ampersand is appropriate:

• In the name of a business (e.g., “Smith & Jones”);
• When addressing an envelope to a couple (e.g., “Dr. & Mrs. Johnson”);
• In book and movie titles (e.g., “Harry & Tonto”);
• When giving credit for close collaboration on a screenplay (e.g., “William Benson & Mary Gallagher”);
• When citing sources in text, per the APA style guide (e.g., “(Watson & Crick, 1955)”).

An ampersand is also used in many computer languages.

Otherwise, an ampersand should NOT be used as a substitute for the conjunction “and”.

Solution:
Reserve the use of the ampersand (&) as a substitute for the conjunction “and” in business names, movie and book titles, names of couples on envelopes, and some other special situations.

I read one of these words today where it seemed to me that the other was more appropriate.

Problem:
Most dictionaries treat these two words as synonymous conjunctions, but one is preferable over the other for expressing cause and effect.

Explanation:
Many, if not all, dictionaries indicate that the second or third definition of the word “since” when used as a conjunction is “because”.

An unambiguous example of using “since” as a synonym for “because” is (quote) “I kissed her since I love her.” (unquote).

However, it is easy to construct an ambiguous sentence with the conjunction “since”.

For example, (quote) “I decided to learn French since my company moved me to Paris.” (unquote) has two possible meanings:

1. A causal meaning — (quote) “I decided to learn French because my company moved me to Paris.” (unquote);
2. A temporal meaning — (quote) “I decided to learn French after my company moved me to Paris.” (unquote).

The temporal version clearly tells us when the writer decided to learn French. The causal version tells us why the writer decided to learn French.

A commenter at another website noted that Bryan Garner wrote in his book Garner’s Modern American Usage that the causal meaning of “since” has existed for more than one thousand years.

I believe that the use of “since” as a substitute for the conjunction “because” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say or write the one-syllable, five-letter “since” than it is to say or write the two-syllable, seven-letter “because”, and clarity can be easily sacrificed for simplicity.

Solution:
To avoid confusion, prefer the conjunction “because” over the conjunction “since” when joining two sentences in a causal relationship. And prefer the conjunction “after” over the conjunction “since” when joining two sentences in a temporal relationship, unless “since” clearly carries a temporal connotation.

I learned yesterday that I have incorrectly begun sentences for years with “And” or “But” — but not in the way that some readers might expect.

Question:
Should a comma follow a coordinating conjunction that begins a sentence?

Explanation:
The coordinating conjunctions in English are “for”, “and”, “nor”, “but”, “or”, “yet”, and “so”, a mnemonic for which is FANBOYS.

Some teachers instruct their students that a coordinating conjunction should never begin a sentence, but this is incorrect instruction.

In contrast, I was (incorrectly) taught relatively early that a comma should immediately follow one of these coordinating conjunctions when the conjunction begins a sentence.

For example, I was taught that the comma belongs after “And” in (quote) “And, he was happy with the results.” (unquote).

Similarly, I was taught that the comma belongs after “So” in (quote) “So, you should see a doctor immediately.” (unquote).

As a result, for years I have put commas immediately after the coordinating conjunctions that began my sentences.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read on several websites yesterday that a comma should not be put immediately after a sentence-opening coordinating conjunction unless that conjunction is followed by an interrupter in a sentence such as (quote) “But, given the circumstances, you should not travel tomorrow.” (unquote).

Here are some of those websites:

• Capital Community College Foundation;
• Get It Write;
• Grammar Bytes.

I do not know why I was taught to put a comma after a coordinating conjunction that begins any sentence.

But my guess is that it could be due to hypercorrection on the part of my teacher(s), as if to say (quote) “We should not begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. However, if we do, then we should follow the coordinating conjunction with a comma, just as we put a comma after a conjunctive adverb — such as “However” — at the beginning of a sentence.”

Having learned this lesson, which I should have learned a long time ago, I searched all of my old blog posts for the error of putting a comma immediately after a coordinating conjunction at the start of an interrupter-less sentence.

“So” was the coordinating conjunction with which I made this error the most often. (Learning truly never ends!)

I believe that I corrected most of my errors, but it certainly is possible that some remain. If you find one, then please contact me.

Answer:
If an interrupter immediately follows the coordinating conjunction at the beginning of a sentence, then put a comma after the conjunction. Otherwise, do not put a comma after the (FANBOYS) conjunction.

My wife heard this a couple of days ago on television.

Problem:
The definite article “the” is incorrect in this phrase.

Explanation:
The word “both” is an adjective that means two together (e.g., “I saw both suspects.”), a pronoun that means the one as well as the other (e.g., “Both of them were flying to Paris.”, or a conjunction that means alike or equally (e.g., “Jim is both tall and handsome.”).

It’s clear, then, that the word “both” was used as a pronoun in the phrase that my wife heard.

Pronouns do not take articles in front of them, so “the both” is always incorrect.

Beyond that, one can see that “the” (or “a”) should never precede “both” in a sentence.

For fun, I searched Google for “the both” (with quotation marks) and got about 2,130,000 matches. Some of those matches were for grammatically correct forms such as “the Both Sides Now album”; most, though, were incorrect.

I believe that this common English blunder sometimes indicates hypercorrection: if “both” is good, then “the both” must be better. Wrong!

Solution:
“… for both of us.”

I saw a personal email message the other day that illustrates well the difference between “if” and “whether” — two conjunctions that are not synonyms.

Problem:
Writing the conjunction “if” in place of “whether” — even in informal writing — can confuse readers.

Explanation:
I wrote about these two conjunctions back in January, but I have since found a simple example that illustrates why “if” is dangerous as a substitute for “whether”.

The example appeared in an email message from a woman who was arranging a party:

• “Please let me know if you’ll be coming to my party.”

Changing the order of the sentence, we get:

• “If you’ll be coming to my party, then please let me know.”

This implies that the message writer was not asking to hear from message readers who would not be attending her party.

However, I talked to the message writer and learned that she wanted to hear from everyone who got her email message. This would ensure that she had confirmation either way — “Yes, I’ll be coming to your party.” or “No, I won’t be coming to your party.” — from each of the message recipients.

The message writer should have used “whether” instead of “if” in her sentence to ensure that she got confirmation either way (”yay” or “nay”):

• “Please let me know whether you’ll be coming to my party.”

Solution:
Be careful with using “if” as a substitute for “whether” in whatever you write — even personal email messages. Otherwise, you might not get the results that you desire.

My post yesterday about “Whether” vs. “If” reminded me about “Whether or not”.

Problem:
Some people use “whether or not” when “whether” is appropriate (and complete!).

Explanation:
It is overkill to include “or not” in sentences such as “He will not say whether or not he wants to leave the company.” This example can be correctly rewritten as “He will not say whether he wants to leave the company.”

In this example, the conjunction “whether” introduces a clause whose uncertainty is unknown. Adding “or not” after “whether” adds no value in such situations. One could say that adding “or not” introduces unnecessary redundancy.

There is a valid use for including “or not” somewhere in a “whether” sentence: when one wants to say “regardless of whether” or “no matter whether”.

For example, both of these sentences contain “whether” and “or not” and are valid:

• “We must depart for the train station in one hour whether or not you have found your swimsuit.”
• “We must depart for the train station in one hour whether you have found your swimsuit or not.”

Either of the above two sentences is a valid substitute for either of the following two sentences:

• “We must depart for the train station in one hour regardless of whether you have found your swimsuit.”
• “We must depart for the train station in one hour no matter whether you have found your swimsuit.”

I believe that the use of “whether or not” in speech as a substitute for “regardless of whether” or “no matter whether” supports my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “whether or not” (four syllables) than to say “regardless of whether” (six syllables) or “no matter whether” (five syllables).

Solution:
Use “whether” to introduce a clause whose certainty is unknown. Use “whether or not” in speech as a substitute for “regardless of whether” or “no matter whether”; otherwise, avoid using “whether or not”.

I saw throughout a technical document the use of the conjunction “if” where the conjunction “whether” was required.

Problem:
The conjunction “if” is not a synonym for the conjunction “whether” in formal writing.

Explanation:
A technical document should contain formal writing. I recently reviewed a technical document that contained such sentences as “Call the LDAP Screening class to determine if the LDAP server is affected.” This exemplifies incorrect use of the conjunction “if”; correct use is exemplified by a sentence such as “If an association is not found, remove that association from the list to be deleted.”

The “Call the LDAP Screening …” sentence should be rewritten as “Call the LDAP Screening class to determine whether the LDAP server is affected.”

The problem with using “if” to introduce a clause indicating uncertainty is that the use of “if” can sometimes create ambiguity (especially in writing).

For example, “Let him know if he has won the contest.” could mean:

• “Let him know, if he has won the contest.” (Don’t let him know, if he has not won the contest.)
  -OR-
• “Let him know whether he has won the contest.” (No matter how the contest ends, let him know.)

I believe that the use of “if” as a substitute for “whether” — even in formal writing — supports my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s much simpler to say or write “if” than to say or write “whether”. The one-syllable conjunction “if” can be spoken quickly. The two-syllable conjunction “whether” demands that its first syllable be held longer than average so that the listener doesn’t confuse the word with the noun “weather” upon first hearing it (without the context of a complete sentence).

Solution:
Use “whether” to introduce a clause whose certainty is unknown. Use “if” to introduce a clause in the indicative that is presupposed to be consistent with fact. Use “if” to introduce a clause in the subjunctive that describes an occurrence that is presupposed to be contrary to fact.