I was discussing my blog and other writing issues with friends last night.  Between sushi orders, someone asked about the use of "on accident" and "by accident."  I had never heard anyone use "on accident," and, because I always use "by accident," I assumed that was correct.  I was right, to an extent.  Unfortunately, my answer probably tells you that I am over thirty. 

The Washington State University list of Common Errors in English  states affirmatively that "on accident" is incorrect:   "Although you can do things on purpose, you do them by accident."

The Urban Dictionary also agrees with me (I think):  "on accident" is defined as the "improper usage of the phrase "by accident". Started in the United States, but it has started to spread to other countries like a plague. A terrible, terrible, grammar plague."  In case you are not familar with this site, Urban Dictionary "is a slang dictionary with your definitions."

Pain in the English addressed the issue, with many comments.  Most agreed that "on accident" is incorrect, but becoming more common.

Grammar Girl also discussed the subject.   She notes that Leslie Barrett, a professor of Linguistics at Indiana State University, wrote a paper about "on accident" and other changes in language.  "According to Barratt's study, use of the two different versions appears to be distributed by age. Whereas on accident is common in people under 35, almost no one over 40 says on accident. Most older people say by accident. It's really amazing: the study says that 'on is more prevalent under age 10, both on and by are common between the ages of 10 and 35, and by is overwhelmingly preferred by those over 35.' " Unfortunately, however, "Barratt found that there is no widespread stigma associated with saying on accident."

Tim W. at Mother Tongue Annoyances checked the OED to research the issue.  Here is what Tim said: 


So, to conclude, many people (including me) think that the use of the term "on accident" is incorrect and annoying.  Unless you want to be considered incorrect and annoying by many people, you should use "by accident."    In particular, it is probably not a good idea to argue that your client 's conduct was not intentional because it was "on accident." 

The Style and Substance blog at the Wall Street Journal lists some trite jargon that we should all avoid.  The list includes "bitter dispute," soft-spoken, whopping, key, and "going forward."  Read the post to see why some WSJ staffers dislike those terms. 

The blog also has a quiz -- find the flubs in actual sentences from the Journal. 

Grammar Girl always provides helpful advice on confusing grammar issues.  She addressed the serial comma this week.  Read the post (or listen to the podcast) because she has great examples. But here is her bottom line: 


Go Grammar Girl! 

The next time someone criticizes legal writing, just point to the writers who create assembly instructions.  That is where the Plain English movement would do some good.  Read Mark Liberman’s post today at Language Log about the lack of determiners in assembly instructions. 

Benjamin Zimmer also has an interesting post at Language Log, dissecting the Bill of Rights grammatically.  His discussion of the word “to” “pulling double-duty: first as a preposition, then as an infinitive marker” helped clarify an issue that I often see in legal writing.  When you use a clause to introduce a list of items, you may sometimes be uncertain whether the “to” goes in the introductory clause or in each of the items.  Benjamin’s example is New York’s Taxicab Rider’s Bill of Rights:



Benjamin’s marked-up version would go like this: 


Read his entire post.  Understanding the dual use of hte word "to" can help avoid some confusion in any writing.

I have heard the term “comma splice,” but was not sure when a comma was or could be spliced.  Grammar Girl explores that subject on her podcast this week.  Her conclusion demonstrates and explains the issue:

Do you remember the recent contract case that was decided by the placement of a comma?   In its Q&A section, the Chicago Manual of Style addressed the placement of a comma in another contract, a store’s return policy. 

The policy provided that the store would “refund the purchase price of any previewed, defective or mislabeled products returned within 30 days, provided you have the original receipt.”   The store claimed that “since the serial comma is not employed, ‘previewed’ becomes a stipulation of both ‘defective’ and ‘mislabeled.’”  For that reason, the purchaser’s new (not previewed) product was not covered by the policy.  This is how the Chicago Manual of Style responded: 

 I generally do not like the serial comma, but this example shows that it certainly can be significant. 

World Wide Words discusses the origin of the word “lobbyist.”  Like most people, I always though it had something to do with meeting with politicians in lobbies of hotels, probably originating with President Grant and the Willard Hotel.  Wrong.  According to Michael Quinion, the word was used long before Grant’s presidency. 


FYI. 

I think that Grammar Girl can read my mind.  This week she (or rather her surrogate, Legal Lad) addresses the distinction between “further” and “farther.”  “The quick and dirty tip here is that you use farther to talk about physical distance and further to talk about metaphorical, or figurative, distance. It's easy to remember because farther has the word far in it, and far obviously relates to physical distance.” But listen/read Grammar Girl here and get more tips about how to distinguish these terms. Then you can impress your friends and colleagues when you correct them.  (If you are really tempted to correct someone's grammar, please listen to Grammar Girl's tips here.) 

I have just discovered “Grammar Girl” podcasts. The first two I heard  were great. 

First, she explains lay and lie, words that I long ago decided to ignore because I was so uncertain about their usage.   This is how she explains the present tense: 


Her best (and most painful) tip for remembering has to do with Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton.  She says they were both wrong.  (If you are young, you may not understand that, and will just have to listen to the podcast.) 

All this sounds easy, but then, ”everything goes all haywire, because lay is the past tense of lie.”  She gives a chart and more tips, but admits that even she has to look them up. 

Her second podcast was even better – how to correct other people's grammar without losing friends or sounding like a snob

Thanks, Grammar Girl! 

Tenser, says the Tensor has an interesting post on the use of “slouch” as a verb of motion, as in William Butler Yeats's poem "The Second Coming:"

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Tenser did a Google search and found 285 variants of slouching toward something.  Slouching toward Gomorrah seems to be very popular and frequently misspelled. (The Tensor found nine different spellings).   Slouching, when used as a verb in motion, creates a vivid word picture -- I will have to remember to use it more often. 

The slouching information was interesting, but read the Tenser’s discussion of “toward” and “towards,” which is linked to the slouching post.  Every time that I use either of those words, I hesitate because I assume that one is correct and one is not.  Based on another Google search, The Tenser found that “toward” is more common in American English and “towards” is more common in British English:  

It does appear that exclusive use of towards is more than ten times as common as exclusive use of toward in British English, but they're about equally common outside of the UK, and in .us domain web sites, toward is about twice as common as towards. Pages with mixed usage are always the least common.

So, boiling down this data to an oversimplification: if you use towards your prose will seem slightly more British to American readers, and less obviously American to British readers.

That is consistent with the OED, which lists both words, but the entry for “toward” mainly just refers to the entry for “towards.” 

When I am not sure of how to use a word, I usually try to find ways to avoid its use.  That’s how I have been with “toward” and “towards,” but not any more. 

In The Tenser’s post on “toward” and “towards,” there is a link to another interesting post on “word moments.”  Read it here. 

“Bob’s Quick Guide to the Apostroph, You Idiot” is a carton that expresses some strong feelings about the use of apostrophes.  Those feelings are apparently shared by a lot of people, because Bob has run out of posters of the cartoon, although more are on the way.  You can order one (or more) here.

Pam Robinson at Words at Work is asking readers for their "favorite words."  So far, two of the words are hippopotamus and dullard.  Those are two nice words but I don't use them very often.  Pam is preparing a roundup of favorite words for next week. I am interested in seeing the results. 

Do you ever get the words "comprise" and "compose" confused?  Pam Nelson at Grammar Guide has some tips: 

The best way to remember how to use "comprise" is to remember that the whole comprises the parts, instead of the parts "comprising" the whole. So the band comprises its members; the members do not "comprise" the band.

Pam goes on to add: 

But the most important thing to remember is that "is comprised of" is always wrong -- at least among careful writers. I realize that dictionaries, which are descriptive, recognize that some people use "comprise" to mean "compose" or "constitute" and that such usage is widespread. But many editors still find "is comprised of" grating and incorrect. Careful writers will avoid it. 

I checked The Redbook, and it agrees: 

The most frequent error in using these terms [comprise and compose] is signaled by the pharse comprised of.  Strictly speaking, since comprise means "to include," the phrase makes no sense.  John, Paul, George, and Ringo composed (were comprised in) the Beatles.  The Beatles comprised (were composed of) John, Paul, George, and Ringo. 

Any example that uses the Beatles sticks with me. 

John McIntyre at the Baltimore Sun blogged recently about the usage of lay and lie.  I have always had trouble with those two words and usually just try to avoid them.  But John inspired me to try again to get the distinction fixed in my mind.

 I found this at the website for the style guide for the Office of Public Affairs and Communications of Lewis & Clark College.  The hint at the end is especially helpful. 

      Lay means "to put" or "to place." It requires an object to complete its meaning. Principal forms are lay, laid, laid, laying.
            Please lay the boxes there. I laid the message on the table.
      Lie means "to recline, rest, or stay" or "to take a position of rest." It refers to a person or thing as either assuming or being in a reclining position. This verb cannot take an object. Principal forms are lie, lay, lain, lying.
            He's been ill and lies in bed all day. The mail is lying on the secretary's desk.
      Hint: To determine whether to use lie or lay in a sentence, substitute the word place, placed, or placing (as appropriate) for the word in question. If the substitute fits, the corresponding form of lay is correct; if it doesn't, use the appropriate form of lie.

Pam Nelson always has interesting things to say at the Triangle Grammar Guide.  This morning she directed us to a list of "10 flagrant grammar mistakes that make you look stupid." 

I bet you can guess what many of the mistakes are and can add a few more of your own.   The list certainly included many of my personal pet peeves. 

Check them out and avoid them -- we all hate to look stupid.

Geoffery Pullum at Language Lob has some harsh (but entertaining) words for product warning labels.  He does not mention it, but lawyers play a significant role in drafting that language.  Maybe warning labels should be the next focus area for the Plain English movement. 

Who ever said that grammar can't be fun?  Here is an article that includes some humorous rules for writing.  William Safire calls them fumblerules or “perverse rules of grammar.”   

For example,

• A writer must be not shift your point of view.
• Just between you and I, the case of pronoun is important.
• Mixed metaphors are a pain in the neck and ought to be weeded out.
• Write all adverbial forms correct.
• If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, resist hyperbole.

Enjoy! 

Blogslot alerted me to an interesting monthly newsletter from  The Wall Street Journal. 

Syle & Substance newsletter is distributed monthly to the staff of The Wall Street Journal, usually around the end of the month, and is made available to the public on WSJ.com. It critiques the Journal's news pages on language and other issues, and it notes stylistic and other updates for The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Business Style and Usage. Each issue includes a quiz asking readers to ‘find the flubs’ that appeared in the Journal, involving use of the language.

The June issue of Style & Substance addresses an issue that I have discussed here: 

“While some Republican conservatives may want a religious candidate, it may not be him,” we said in a profile of Mitt Romney, bringing the inevitable “you of all people” reader reaction. 

Of course, he would indisputably be the grammatically correct pronoun after the linking verb, just as “it is I” is technically correct, rather than “it is me.”  Even writers who know the rules sometimes use the objective rather than the nominative pronoun in cases like these, attempting to avoid sounding pedantic.  But here the issue could have been sidestepped nicely and satisfied everyone nicely by simply saying “. . . it may not be Mr. Romney.”

I agree with those two points. First, sometimes grammatically correct does not “sound” right and, second, you can usually find a way to re-write the sentence so that it sounds correct and is correct. 

In addition to discussions of several different issues, ach Style & Substance issue also includes a quiz to find the “flubs” in actual passages from the WSJ.  The quiz is both entertaining and instructive – check it out.  

Every training session about legal writing includes the direction to avoid the passive voice.  Based on that training, we all “know” that the active voice is bolder and stronger and therefore more appropriate for persuading judges to rule in our clients’ favor.  But, as always, there is another point of view. 

The Language Log today offers a fascinating history of the disfavored passive voice.  Geoffrey K. Pullum points out, with specific examples, that the Declaration of Independence, Orwell’s "Politics and the English language,” as well as Strunk and White violate the injunction against the passive. 

It just shows that there really are no rules and the passive voice has a place in any style of writing.

Here is something to confuse you on Monday morning.  I always learned that, when the phone rang and someone asked for Susan, my proper response was “This is she.”  (Unless, of course, it is a telemarketer and my response is much more colorful).  It appears, however, that there is some question whether my response is proper.

    According to Suite 101, the nominative form of the verb cannot be used to describe someone who is the object of the sentence, so that the correct response to the telephone question is “this is her.”  Here is more detail from Suite 101 (but read the whole article because it has other interesting points about using pronouns). 


Nonetheless, there is discussion on Pain in the English  that supports my understanding of the rule.  According to Scott,


    As for me, when someone asks to speak to Susan, I will continue to respond “this is she,” based on two rules.  First, writers and speakers should first consider their audience and I believe that my “audience,” (that is, telephone callers who ask to speak to me) believe that “this is she” is proper and that “this is her” is not proper.  If I responded, “this is her,” I like to think that some of my callers would wonder if it were really I/me.   Second, that is the way I have always done it.  That is not always a good rule, but I like it here.

    Go forth and answer the phone.