In celebration of the OWL

You don't have to be a Purdue alum to completely appreciate their Online Writing Lab. Their advice is sound, fast, and easy to understand. If you need a top-up on your grammar and mechanics, they can help. If you need help with your writing, they've got you covered. They just started a grammar blog which, given their credentials, should be a huge success. Well done to the OWL. I'm a commited supporter.

There is nothing merry about marryoke

This week I had an unfortunate encounter with a marryoke clip on YouTube. Why unfortunate? Marryoke is a cringe-worthy mix of twee, cheese, and mere mortals bursting into song for no reason. None of these should be present at a wedding or in the following celebration of such a union.

I can't even begin to think of what Emily Post would think of this, but Miss Manners is pretty clear about it...

"Another vulgar example where people forget their wedding manners is when some people using their "day" like running it like a show business.

No doubt it is a day to get creative, as Miss Manners Wedding Etiquette says "...the perpetrators fail to understand the difference between making an occasion enjoyable and making a significant event into a mockery."

That is, secret fantasies should remain fantasies. We must apply discernment to whether we are going distastefully over the top in our planning, decoration, theme etc. There is a way to go "over the top" without compromising on elegance."

Keywords here are elegance, enjoyable, tasteful... That's what the entire wedding day should be about; marryoke is the opposite of that.

Whose and who's

One of our beloved followers has requested a clarifiation on whose and who's. Liz, this is your wheelhouse, so I hand it over to you.

In poor taste, in more ways than one

I saw this ad, for Bone Suckin' Sauce, in the Lakeland catalogue (it was in the work breakroom). All I could think is, who named this condiment? What's the point of having a juvenile humour-based phrase on a food item, and one you'll most likely enjoy in the garden with a bunch of friends around the barbeque pit? And what if your grandparents are at the event and ask for more bone sucking sauce and all the pre-teens through mid-twenties spit out their food with laughter?

Naming a food seasoning the same thing that some immature guy can offer as a fellacio-based joke or something you'd find sold in Ann Summers is in poor taste, and certainly not something Emily Post would have in her kitchen cupboard.

Shopping is not a journey

This entry is at the request of the smallest member of our household (she's in the photo, giving two thumbs-down). She does not like shopping at a local grocery store due to their incorrect usage of "with" in their signage. Small child's explanation is, no one who works there is shopping; they are working. We are the ones doing the shopping. After giving this some thought, I completely agree. This usage of "with" is confusing, especially to those learning the language for the first time. The store staff members are not going on the shopping journey with us; they are facilitating the journey. If we were in a plane, then the airplane staff could correctly say, "Thank you for flying with us" because we all flew together; shopping is a different matter.

Small child suggests, "Thank you for shopping in our store". I agree.

(on a different topic, yes, this makes me a very proud parent)

England's Top Scorer

Yes, in Watford again, I took this pic in the window of Primark. Although we locals are rather excited about the World Cup starting next month, this t-shirt is not a way to support the England squad. It's clearly not an ironic t-shirt (I do love that t-shirt genre), since no one who isn't getting any would wear this to be ironic. It isn't meant to be worn by any of the England football players, since it's clearly a woman's garment. It has not been created for the England women's football team since the t-shirt was on sale to all who want to shop at Primark.

The only message I see is pride in "scoring" the most shags in the entire country. This is, at a minimum, tacky and, at a maximum, a public health risk.

Two apostrophe crimes in one photo

Yesterday I went to Watford to get my hair cut. As a approached the salon, I noticed both signs (how could you not, especially the HUGE one in the window), both of which need editing. My concern on the BLOW DRY'S is that this clearly wasn't an in-house sign; it's not like the manager asked someone on the staff to quickly print out a sign about this exciting blow dry offer. This sign is a size that only a professional printer could've processed. Why didn't someone at the printers have a quiet word with the owner of this sign and suggest some other phrasing, so the message isn't sadly incorrect?

The blue Gents Haircuts sign is easier to fix. Someone just needs a small apostrophe-shaped piece of white tape to make it state Gents' Haircuts.

(Thankfully this salon's grammar weaknesses do not impact their cutting skills. My hair looks great.)

What is this sign trying to say?

I see loads of signs when driving, but it's when I'm walking that I get to stop and ponder. Today I saw this one at a doctor's office near Watford Town Hall. I get the "no parking" request, but the accompanying words are confusing. Is it no parking, but patients can pick up stuff there? Is it no parking for patients, but everyone else can pick up something there? It is the patients' pick-up area, but someone forgot to order the apostrophe? Also, if it is the patients' pick up area, what are they picking up? Overall, wouldn't the "no parking" message suffice if the doctor wants to keep that area clear?

Vagazzling

What is up with this, ladies? It is unacceptable on so many levels, not the first of which is my ever-living rant about nomenclature for lady-parts. The vagina is an opening and a canal, people. The vulva includes all the lips and good bits. This area people are getting bejeweled? This is just skin, folks. Skin that has been depilated, yes. Skin that is most likely erogenous, yes. But it is skin, not vagina. Not to mention the weirdest thing, which is jewels on your lady-bits, no matter what we call them.

An actual document from my actual job

I call your attention to item "i":I would say that it is ironic that they misspelled the word "grammar" in a sentence cautioning people to make sure things are spelled correctly, but that would be a misuse of the term irony. Although, that is also open to interpretation (and an issue for another time)

Is that the opposite of "outcourage"?

I've been looking for a job lately and saw this while wandering around one of the job boards:

I encourage you to make serious inquires into spell-check.

This is well done

This morning I found this cute flag bag on my desk. Inside I found a box of Ferrero Rocher and a thank you card. All of this was from an appreciative student, who left this for me after I helped her with a research project. Not only was I surprised by the gesture, but the handwritten note was a beautiful touch.

This well done example of expressing gratitude is what etiquette is all about.

Wrong word, wrong place

I took this photo in the restrooms at Jodrell Bank, of the University of Manchester. The correct word is "dispense", not "receive". Hence, the name of that thing over the sink that holds liquid soad, the soap dispenser. It's not a soap receiver; that's the person.

Local news

Whilst out and about on my daily travels I see a load of crap grammar. Shocking? It was to me too, when I first arrived in England in 1995. I naïvely thought all those entrancing English accents meant the speakers were somewhat well educated. Ha!

A fab example of this is our local "magazine", a publication pushed through our front door each month. It's titled My Abbots, and each month's issue contains misspellings, apostrophe crimes, and biased human interest stories offered up as news. On the homepage alone, you've got a missed apostrophe in the two "In This Months Edition" sections. Also on this homepage you've got local adverts, including one for Robins Rubbish...

The April issue of this periodical offers some more evidence of no proofreading whatsoever. On page 16, we see "Mother ran motorist of road in fit of rage". On page 22, we get to read about a "short listed" consultant. Page 34 offers "Aprils' top tips" for the garden. Page 94 give us an apostrophe for no reason at all; there's not even an S to trick you. And on page 57, I can't figure out what "Memorial match to in aid of Dan" means. Need I go on?

An oldie but a goodie...

People who know me may tell you that while I feel strongly about many rules of grammar, there is one misuse of words that irks me beyond all others…less/fewer. I think the reason for this is twofold: 1. It comes up all the damn time and 2. It has a rule to fix it that is both easy to remember and simple to apply.

It really is ubiquitous these days. For example, behold this photo taken by my fellow blogger KMS:

I believe this was in a little establishment called Starbucks. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? Oh, and a Starbucks in England, so this is therefore an issue of international proportions (Queen’s English, my ass)

Fewer napkins. Actually, shouldn’t it be fewer serviettes over there? That’s an issue for another time though (An addendum: it has recently come to my attention that, apparently, it the great British class system of back-in-the-day, saying "serviette" was considered lower class while "napkin" was used by the upper class. Who knew?)

Here's another one that is particularly bothersome from TBS. That's the Turner Broadcasing System. It’s a superstation, people. Broadcasting nationwide. Anyway, they have a whole ad campaign touting:

Sigh. Fewer. Fewer commercials. Not less, fewer.

I understand that people like the dichotomy of more/less. It flows off the tongue. “More or less” is a popular English idiom. If asked, most people will tell you that the opposite of more is less. The two go together. Except when they don’t. Think of More as a player. Yes, he’s seeing Less, but they are not exclusive. More is free to hook up with Fewer whenever the mood strikes him.

And as I said, this would bother me less (not fewer) if there wasn't an easy way to determine whether you are using the correct word in a particular case. But there is, people.

Look, I know grammar can be difficult and annoying. To use who/whom correctly you have to identify the object of a sentence. I’m constantly debating the relative merit of using an comma vs. a dash vs. a semicolon. I often have to pause an think about whether the quote goes inside or outside the quotation marks (which incidentally, is another thing that varies depending on if you are in the U.K. or the U.S., and the Brit way makes so much more sense.) But less/fewer is so easy to figure out, it’s ridiculous

All you have to do is remember this: “Less money, fewer dollars.” Less is abstract, fewer is a measurable amout. If you can count the thing you are talking about and it makes sense, i.e. “one dollar, two dollars, three dollars” then you use fewer. If it doesn’t make sense: “one money, two monies, three monies” you use less. See? Less time, fewer hours. Less travel, fewer trips.

Let’s try it: one napkin, two napkins, three napkins. Fewer napkins. One commercial, two commercials, three commercials. Fewer commercials.

Less money, fewer dollars. Embrace it, people. It's the "righty tighty, lefty loosey" of the grammar world.

It all started with this facebook post:

(Names changed to protect the bossy.)

And so here we are. Ready and willing to comment on affronts to the English language and polite society.