The Grammarian In Me Rubs Off On The Grammarian In You

I have turned in my winter article, recipe and photos for Edible San Francisco. This article marks one year of writing for this beautiful seasonal magazine. It's never too late to get a subscription...

Bruce Cole, our editor and publisher, sent us a "Style Guide" for our articles. Specific grammar reminders and some special requests. I feel endlessly graced that some of my best friends and parents are editors, so I have their voices in my head as the words stream from my fingertips. But there are the odd mishaps, the moments where I take grammar into my own hands, and the dashes and splashes of poetic license I season my paragraphs with.

I am a huge proponent of blogs. This very one has changed my life a million ways from Tuesday. There are billions of voices out there none would ever hear or read if it were not for this incredible technology. Have you taken a click through of my "kooky" section? How about "not for the meek," "more like this one"? Of course these are barely a nano of what exists, but they are where I have time to go to a few times a week.

But inherent in blogs is a voice that can sometimes be quite lazy grammatically. Whole baskets of sentences that don't need to be there. Paragraph breaks which never arrive, making eyeballs tired. Words which are spoken but don't need to be written.

I read an interesting flier at The Commonwealth Club about making the Internet more accessible to people with disabilities. When I write my posts I try to think of all the different sorts of people reading them. My "traffic" states that over 500 people visit a day, yet only a handful of you lovelies tells me you're there by commenting. It's impossible to imagine who is reading, but I try to write better and better all the time. Thereby becoming a better writer, and also pleasing all of y'all more and more.

Here are a few of the Style Guide rules we follow at Edible San Francisco:

"William Zinsser on simplicity:
The secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components. Every word that serves no function, every long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries the same meaning that's already in the verb, every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what—these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence. And they usually occur, ironically, in proportion to education and rank.

William Zinsser on style:
Few people realize how badly they write. Nobody has shown them how much excess or murkiness has crept into their style and how it obstructs what they are trying to say. If you give me an article that runs to eight pages and I tell you to cut it to four, you'll howl and say it can't be done. Then you will go home and do it, and it will be infinitely better. After that comes the hard part: cutting it to three. The point is that you have to strip down your writing before you can build it back up. You must know what the essential tools are and what job they were designed to do. If I may labor the metaphor of carpentry, it is first necessary to be able to saw wood neatly and to drive nails. Later you can [end of page 19] bevel the edges or add elegant finials, if that is your taste. But you can never forget that you are practicing a craft that is based on certain principles. If the nails are weak, your house will collapse. If your verbs are weak and your syntax is rickety, your sentences will fall apart.

William Zinsser on clutter:
Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills, and meaningless jargon. "I might add," "It should be pointed out," "It is interesting to note that"—how many sentences begin with these dreary clauses announcing what the writer is going to do next? If you might add, add it. If it should be pointed out, point it out. If it is interesting to note, make it interesting. Being told that something is interesting is the surest way of tempting the reader to find it dull; are we not all stupefied by what follows when someone says, "This will interest you"? As for the inflated prepositions and conjunctions, they are the innumerable phrases like "with the possible exception of" (except), "due to the fact that" (because), "he totally lacked the ability to" (he couldn't), "until such time as" (until), "for the purpose of" (for)."

PET PEEVES

Ruth Reichl’s Never List:

•    Food, in my world, is NEVER divine.
•    Nor is it sinful.
•    I dislike yummy.
•    I loathe eatery.
•    addictive - it's a silly way to say something's good to perfection.
•    crispy (things are crisp, not crispy)
•    meltingly (why is meat ALWAYS meltingly tender?)
•    veggies (so disrespectful to growing things)
•    yesteryear (like fingernails on chalk to me)
•    toothsome (ditto)
•    sumptuous when referring to meals
•    vibrant (in connection with food)
•    served up (served is fine all by itself)
•    tend to be (I prefer "are often")
•    procuring - such a needlessly pretentious verb

{Shuna's Never list:

* Food is not healthy, people are. Food is, if it actually is, Healthful.

*Decadent is not a compliment. No, don't put it near my chocolate cake! The word you mean is Opulent.

* A cake is never flour-less. The word cake denotes flour present. When something that rises like a cake has no flour in it, it is a Torte. }

(For Derrick's pet peeve, click here.)

Jesse Kornbluth’s Never List:

•    PERFECT
As in "the perfect vacation" or "the perfect date." No. Nothing's perfect. [Well, maybe: a perfect idiot, a perfect delusion.] People who use "perfect"—a dumb, empty, overused and altogether meaningless adjective—are not signifying their good taste, but their unwillingness to think of a more descriptive word. {Amen}

•    HOPEFULLY
Everyone uses "hopefully" as a shortcut for "I hope." It is not. Yes, the dictionary allows it, but that's just bending to popular usage. In my book, there is only one correct use for "hopefully." It's a synonym for "prayerfully"—as in, "She looked up hopefully and said, 'Dear Lord, please make it rain soon, or we'll have no harvest.'" Do you want to say "I hope"? Then say "I hope."

•    EVERYONE and THEY
As in: "Everyone knows what they want." Who is this "they"? A singular subject is followed by a singular pronoun. How to write this sentence correctly? I say: "Everyone knows what he/she wants." Looks awkward? True. But at least it isn't sexist. Or wrong.

•    SINCE and BECAUSE
They're not synonyms. "Since" only refers to time: "Since August, he's been in a funk." It cannot be used to suggest causality: "Since he's depressed, we never call him."

•    VERY UNIQUE
I think this started in real estate ads, where hype often trumps truth. "Your apartment is unique? Wait 'till you see this totally unique place." Implication: The new apartment is far more unique than the old one. But something can't be "more" or "less" unique than anything else. "Unique" is an absolute. It can't take a modifier. And if you stop to think about it, you grasp that everything is unique and everyone is unique—as in "one of a kind"—and, suddenly, "unique" becomes...banal.

•    OVER and MORE THAN
"He has over a billion dollars." Wrong. Riveting, but wrong. "Over" refers to positioning in space—the opposite of "under," as in "over the fence." When you refer to quantity, you want "more than."

•    DISINTERESTED and UNINTERESTED
"Disinterested" describes neutrality. "Uninterested" suggests a negative point-of-view. A gay man may be said to be sexually "disinterested" in women; that is, he doesn't care about having sex with them. But he may be "uninterested" if a woman propositions him; that is, he has a definite opinion on the idea, and it isn't to rip her clothes off.

•    ITS and IT'S
Now you think I'm being insulting. But its amazing how often people get this wrong. Oops. Wrong. (But you caught that, didn't you?) I meant "it's"—the contraction of "it is." The possessive adjective has no apostrophe.

•    DAY THAT CHANGED US...FOREVER
A cliché used to describe 9/11, and, as a result, other events. What does "forever" mean here? That it didn't change us in a way we could unwind? As if we could, with less momentous events, turn back the clock and have a do-over? No, unless there's been a change in philosophy and physics, even if you could tidy up whatever occurred so there was no evidence anything ever happened, you and the place would be still be changed forever—you're in a later time. All change is forever. Live with it. And dump the horror movie sound of "forever."

Do you have any grammatical pet peeves you'd like to add?

Comments

[beastmomma]

mixing up the use of "its" and "it's"

[Katie]

I hear most of those, but I happen to like "toothsome." Say, perhaps, one likes a more toothsome caramel than Sahagun's drool inducing salted caramel. Yes? No?

I don't know. I go to school for English, so proper grammar is important to me, but is there a point where we're just being snotty?

[maura]

Funny, I just wrote an entry that I whittled away to almost nothing. I was second-guessing my editing, but this entry inspired me to keep it posted.

pet peeve: "alot"
favorite word: tarmac

[Sha]

The overuse of "that" is my biggest pet peeve.

Something (that) I learned in a writing class is we use THAT too often.

For example from Mr. Zinsser's comments on Style: "But you can never forget that you are practicing a craft that is based on certain principles."

Remove the first and not the second? I don't know. The sentence seems more readable (to me) without the first "that".

[catherine]

This was a very interesting piece. Thank you.

I, too, like toothsome.
Food, in my world, can be divine and yummy and definitely vibrant in color.

My peeve is that so few people describe the taste and texture of the food they write about.

[Anita]

I'm an editor by profession, but I also recognize that language is ever-evolving. Call it rationalization, if you must, but if English weren't elastic, we'd all be writing "realise" (or, to choose a more drastic example, "ye").

I think that the common misuse of "hopefully" has reached the tipping point. It’s part of the lexicon now, whether we like it or not. That’s easy for me to say, I suppose: I’m in the “like it” camp, and I misuse “hopefully” with wild abandon. It’s a useful turn of phrase, and I like the way it rings. Does it make me sound like an ignorant boob? Probably, to a few trained ears. But it’s conversational, and it’s my little quirk. (File under: Foolish consistency, hobgoblin.)

I'm guilty of repeated, flagrant infractions (dis)regarding at least three items on the lists above. I suspect that Ruth R. and I wouldn't get along in real life, so I suppose there's no point in my adhering to her highly idiosyncratic "don'ts" list. And I’m not writing for Gooormaaaay.

I wholeheartedly agree that shorter articles are often stronger articles. When I used to edit magazines – in the days when there were such things as hard word-count limits -- they called me The Queen of Cuts. Shortening manuscripts is a task I relish, because I know that it's healthy... like pruning a tree to yield a better harvest. So why are so many of my posts so damned long? Simple: "Every writer needs an editor. Even editors." I try hard not to be lazy when blogging, but my resources, and my talents, are finite.

Pet grammar peeve: People who correct other people’s grammar. I used to date a man who was copy chief at a major tech publication. His mom taught English, and his dad was a famous journo in the ‘60s – the poor guy grew up living and breathing grammar, eating it with his Corn Flakes. He brutally taught me to use the possessive case ahead of gerunds by constantly interrupting me whenever (and I do mean *whenever*) I misused it. Ahem. I’ll never forget, but I also never forgave. Most of my memories of this fellow are lost to the sands of time, but aside from his cruel pedantic streak, I can’t remember many.

[Derrick Schneider]

Aside from the one you cite (and the you're/your, etc.), I really just ask people to read what they wrote before they hit Publish. I don't expect anyone to know the nuances of grammar--one look at the blogs of many professional writers, and it is clear that most are savvy writers only by virtue of having good editors--but a quick read of a post would, I think, catch many a sin.

And Anita, your ex sounds horrible. I push myself to be a good writer out of motivation, but I wouldn't think to make a point of constantly correcting others (unless, of course, I was serving the official role of editor).

[lee]

Yes! I love the immediacy of blogs but sometimes wading through the errors is trying. I know I am not the best writer but I do proofread several times. When I began the blog I asked my grammar savy boyfriend to read through my posts before I published them but when he printed one out and went over it with a red pen, I knew that plan wasn't going to last.

Catherine- I agree that people don't describe flavor enough but when I try it myself it is hard. Texture is easy, flavor is not.

Sha- I say leave the first and drop the second!

[Meredith]

Besides those all ready mentioned, how about when people use the word "impact" as a verb. I heard that OED accepted it because it was used so often, but it still sounds wrong to me.

[Marc]

The usage rules for the English language are complicated and evolving. Jesse Kornbluth says that "since" cannot be used for "because". But others write otherwise. The Columbia Guide to Standard English (1993 edition, full text at bartelby.com): "As a subordinating conjunction since can introduce a dependent clause and mean “because”: Since no one objected, I continued. In the same grammatical role, it can also have a temporal meaning: I haven’t talked to her since she moved away....Make certain that context indicates clearly whether the conjunctive use is causal or temporal."

And the American Heritage Dictionary (2000, also at bartelby) entry for since says: "Inasmuch as; because: Since you're not interested, I won't tell you about it."

[David L]

Gulp...does this mean I have to go back and change all my posts?

[Hande]

ehm, I never thought I would discuss (and question) something about baking with a pastry chef, but on one point I have to object: A Torte is a multi-layered cake (with flour) with a cream filling. I have seen many a reference to "European style" cakes in American sources, which are all with low or no flour and are gooey, is this maybe the point of confusion? In Europe we seldom have traditional flourless cakes. Maybe Americans mistook the gooey cream between the layers of our torte for the cake itself being gooey and therefore reasoned it should be flourless?

[Melissa]

I'm not a writer or an editor, but I spend a considerable amount of time at work reading other peoples' writing in the form of reports. I am often horrified by the poor grammar and spelling. But it's not art, or journalism, and no one else really cares, so I have always kept my feelings to myself. Since you're asking though, I will confess that it makes me crazy when the word heroin is misspelled ("heroine"). I work in a drug treatment program!

[H.Alexander Talbot]

Shuna,

and for me what if we applied the ideas of grammar and writing to working with food? Great read and inspiring.

Alex

[Sara]

Blogging has helped me identify some bad habits I've adopted. I use the following words way too often:

actually
really
even (as in "even though")
though

There are others, but I can't remember them right now. Seeing them over and over in my own writing, right in front of my face every day, has helped me become aware and try to hack them away everywhere they appear unnecessarily. Yet when I started my blog, I was completely unaware of these habits. I am afraid to look up things in old posts because of how much rewriting these posts need.

I like "toothsome," too, but for me it is a very specific word with a very specific meaning. It doesn't mean "tasty." It means "good against the tooth." Al dente pasta is toothsome. Jell-O pudding -- even though I like Jell-O pudding -- is not.

Pet peeves in other people's writing/speech:

"momentarily" instead of "in a moment"

"nauseous" instead of "nauseated"

I try not to get on other people for their grammar and speech anymore because (a) my own are not always everything I wish them to be, and (b) there is value in the individual voice, even when it is flawed. There is music that can only be played on arguably imperfect instruments, and I want to hear it.

Those two pet peeves, though, those will get you smacked.

As for the word "grammarian," I cannot read or hear it without thinking of Henry Higgins quoting Zoltan Karpathy in My Fair Lady:

"'...and although she may have studied with an expert dialectician and grammarian,
I can tell that she was born Hungarian!"

[Aaron]

I don´t have any to add, but I´d like to second one of Shuna´s pet peeves.
¨Healthy¨has become so popularly misused that is practically becoming allowable. Please don´t let this happen by continuing to misuse a perfectly lovely and useful word.
Indeed, the apple may at one time have been healthy. In fact, the Fuji apple you bought at the farmer´s market was probably once a healthy specimen, hanging on drooping branches, languishing in the crisp fall air, and drinking nutrients from it´s mother tree and in turn a well tended soil. However, now that it is on you kitchen table, cut into quarters so that you can crunch into its flesh, it´s healthful, and in turn, will make you healthy!

[Jennifer Jeffrey]

Thanks for the good reminders... this was a great read!

[Irene]

about that they thing-I think there's a definite need for a new gender-neutral pronoun. Sometimes I use hesh-an amalgamation of he + she as in everyone knows what heshe wants-but actually it would be nice to have an alternative that just nixes gender from the picture entirely...

[cakegrrl]

Very useful post, Shuna. Thanks!

[Jill]

nucular. chromozone. irregardless.
Also I agree with the poster above, inspiration trumps regulation. And...my chocolate desserts do decay the cells, as well as any pretenses of decorum, so go ahead and use the "d" word. I notice this post got more comments than any other recently!

[Christina]

This was thought-provoking and fun to read. Zinsser echoes George Orwell on several points: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6124822

My pet peeve is more often spoken than written: It's people who say "on line" instead of "in line" when referring to a queue.

[kudzu]

I am probably older than anyone who has responded and I have seen drastic style changes over the years. As a writer I am expected to follow the style book of the publications where my work is used. Some of the now-acceptable spellings and phraases send me up the wall; many of them alter the flow and sound of prose.

Bloggers are not subjected to these restrictions. This doesn't mean they shouldn't try to use effectively proper grammar -- and they should edit before publishing.

PS No matter how often I write "farmers' market" it is printed as "farmers market" by the paper for which I do the most work. And I am very unhappy about having to use only last names when referring to the subject of a story.

PS again: A few of my least favorite words in food writing: "napped with", "ultimate", "redolent", "knobs (as in butter or even vegetables)". Whew.

[Jordan]

I thoroughly enjoyed this post. I write and I find "style" always makes an intriguing discussion. Thank you for sharing.

[emma]

Amen! As a very uptight smitty (who absolutely breaks some of these rules regularly), I appreciate this public service your post has done!

Also: I love your blog. It's only been a couple of weeks since I've started reading, but your writing is sharp and cozy, smart and comfortable, at the same time. I wish I could attend one of your classes or, at the very least, pull up a chair at a restaurant where you've been cooking!

Cheers.

[shuna fish lydon]

YEAH GRAMMAR!!
YEAH! YEAH!

Hande-- thank you for bringing forth Eurpean cake talk. In America, because we are lazy about keeping up with history and tradition, we create our own dilineators (sp?) for the differences between foods.

Hence why we think a tomato is a fruit.

In The Food Lover's Companion, 3rd Edition, Sharon Tyler Herbst, this is what it says under torte:

A rich cake, often made with little or no flour but instead with ground nuts, breadcrumbs, eggs sugar and flavorings. Tortes are often multilayered and filled with buttercream, jams, etc.

Believe you me I love confectionary history and I do not mind being corrected, for I love learning more and more about dessert traditions all over the world!

And I am a pastry chef exception, unfortunately, as there are few baking books or blogs where dessert people get their facts straight!

Thanks for stopping by and proffering your knowledge, it all gets added into the mix of education!