Kirk Mahoney . com

I heard this four days ago on a CNN evening-news broadcast.

Problem:
There is no problem with this statement in and of itself. But the reporter was referring to the state of the person found, so there is a problem.

Explanation:
The CNN reporter said (quote) “She was found safely.” (unquote) as part of a longer report about a robber and father who took his daughter to his robbery of a convenience store.

Security-camera videos implied that the daughter apparently was unaware that her father was robbing the store, but police were very concerned for her safety, the reporter said.

So the police searched for the girl and eventually found her in a safe condition.

But the reporter said (quote) “She was found safely.” (unquote), even though the search for the girl had no hint of danger.

This is an example of hypercorrection.

To say (quote) “She was found safely.” (unquote) is to say that the finding of the girl was done in a safe manner — because “safely” is an adverb that modifies the verb “found”.

The solution comes from understanding the role of a predicate adjective.

Solution:
“She was found safe.”

I heard someone say this yesterday during a conference call.

Problem:
The continuous inflection of the present tense is unnecessary in this statement.

Explanation:
The label “present continuous” refers to a continuous inflection of the present tense.

(Quote) “are wanting” (unquote) is an example of the “present continuous” form of the verb “want”.

As explained at Wikipedia, the “present continuous” form is prevalently used in English to express current action but is rare or absent in other Indo-European languages.

There are at least two hypotheses about why American English speakers often choose the “present continuous” form of a verb over the “present simple” form:

• One hypothesis is that saying something like (quote) “They are wanting …” (unquote) sounds more educated to the speaker than saying simply (quote) “They want …” (unquote). One might even label this as a linguistic hypercorrection.
• Another hypothesis is that using the “present continuous” form instead of the “present simple” form effectively softens the impact on the listener or reader.

No matter which hypothesis you prefer, the “present continuous” form is often unnecessary and tends to interfere with clear, direct communication.

Solution:
“They want a response by January 31st.”

I heard this yesterday on NPR.

Problem:
The indefinite article is incorrect.

Explanation:
I was listening yesterday to an interview on NPR’s “Morning Edition” about Barack Obama’s pending presidential inauguration when I heard (quote) “It can be cast in an heroic way.” (unquote).

The problem with this sentence is that the “h” in the adjective “heroic” is never silent.

So just as one should not say or write (quote) “an helpful man” (unquote), one should not say or write (quote) “an heroic way” (unquote).

I believe that the tendency among some speakers of American English to use the indefinite article “an” in front of the adjective “heroic” is a form of hypercorrection — as if to say (quote) “If ‘a’ is correct, then ‘an’ must be more correct.” (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:

• ” a heroic” — 1,330,000 matches
• ” an heroic” — 184,000 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct ” a heroic” versus the incorrect ” an heroic” by a ratio of 22.6-to-1, which is good but not great.

Solution:
“It can be cast in a heroic way.”

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.

I heard this two days ago on a TV program.

Problem:
The speaker said one thing but meant another.

Explanation:
When talking about a home-renovation project and the work performed by many people, the host of the HGTV program “Hammer Heads” said (quote) “It was a lot of work on everybody’s behalf.” (unquote).

Doing something on somebody’s behalf means that one does something for that person.

So (quote) “everybody’s behalf” (unquote) implies that several people benefited from the home-renovation work that the TV program documented.

However, only the two home owners benefited, and these two home owners certainly were not the (quote) “everybody” (unquote) involved with the renovation.

The correct replacement in the sentence for the noun “behalf” is the noun “part”, given that everybody played a part in the renovation.

I believe that the TV host’s use of “behalf” where “part” was required is an example of a type of hypercorrection — choosing a longer, incorrect word in place of the shorter, correct word.

Solution:
“It was a lot of work on everybody’s part.”

I saw this in a letter from my state senator.

Problem:
The pronoun is incorrect.

Explanation:
The complete sentence was (quote) “The good news is that the ongoing Sunset Review of the Texas Department of Insurance is providing a unique opportunity for my colleagues and I to consider the role of the private insurance market in making health care available to Texans.” (unquote) in a letter from Senator Rodney Ellis.

The correct pronoun for a “for” — F-O-R — phrase is “me”, not “I”.

For example, it is correct to say or write (quote) “a unique opportunity for me” (unquote).

Therefore, it is correct to say or write (quote) “a unique opportunity for my colleagues and me” (unquote).

The senator’s use of the pronoun “I” in (quote) “for my colleagues and I” (unquote) is an example of hypercorrection.

The senator used (quote) “for my colleagues and I” (unquote) as a substitute for (quote) “for my colleagues and me” (unquote) because he erroneously overgeneralized from the correct use of “my colleagues and I” as the subject of a sentence.

Solution:
“… a unique opportunity for my colleagues and me …”

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 heard this yesterday on HGTV’s “Design on a Dime” television program.

Problem:
The verb “lie” is incorrect for this sentence.

Explanation:
The verb “lie” — when it means to be in a horizontal position — is an intransitive verb.

So one cannot (quote) “lie them down” (unquote).

“Lay” is the correct verb for this sentence.

I believe that the use of “lie” in this sentence is an example of hypercorrection. The speaker of the sentence probably knew that “lay” is used too often as an incorrect substitute for “lie”, so she chose “lie” when “lay” actually was the correct verb.

Solution:
“I’m actually going to lay them down.”

My wife heard this on NPR this morning.

Problem:
The preposition “for” is inappropriate here.

Explanation:
Inserting prepositions where they don’t belong is becoming, unfortunately, a common English blunder.

The preposition “for” does not belong in the opening of the sentence that my wife heard.

“I would like” is a weaker way of saying “I want”.

Replacing “would like” with the stronger “want” gives us “I want for them to …”, where “for” certainly does not belong.

This confirms that “for” does not belong in “I would like for them to …”.

My suspicion is that the speaker believed that including “for” made him or her seem more educated — perhaps a form of hypercorrection.

Solution:
“I would like them to …”

I heard this from a USGS spokeswoman on television.

Problem:
The noun “phenomenon” is not plural.

Explanation:
The phrase “one of” should be followed by a plural noun.

The noun “phenomenon”, which means an observable occurrence, is the singular of the plural noun “phenomena”.

I believe that the use of “phenomenon” in place of “phenomena” represents hypercorrection. In particular, because so many people hear that “phenomena” is not always the correct noun, they use “phenomenon” even when “phenomena” is the correct noun.

Solution:
“One of the most deadly phenomena …”