ALUMNI

            We learn our language by picking up the obvious rules and then gradually learning the exceptions to those rules. For example, most little kids, at some point when they’re learning English, try out the word “goed” as the past tense of “go.” They’re corrected a few times and begin to use “went,” and before long they’re laughing at the younger kids who say “goed.”

            We learn early on that nouns can be made plural by adding an “s,” and soon run into exceptions such as “children.” Before long we stop saying “childs.”

            I actually know someone who said, “My nose are running. Do you have a Kleenex?” And I know lots of people who say something like, “My driver’s license expired and I had to go get new ones.”

            Because the British Isles were conquered so many times and because so many Britons traveled to far-flung lands, English has accumulated a lot of foreign words, and not all languages add “s” to make something plural.

            The Romans were in Britain for a long time, and Latin had a different way of making plurals. The word “alumni” is Latin, and means former members of a class who have graduated or moved on. It’s plural. Not only that, it’s masculine plural.

            We tend to use this word incorrectly. “I am an alumni of Harvard” is incorrect. Even “She and her sister are alumni of Harvard” is incorrect.

            The masculine singular is “alumnus,” and its plural is “alumni.” If there is more than one alumnus, and some of them are female, “alumni” is still correct, but one female graduate is an “alumna,” and two or more of them are “alumnae” (pronounced ah-LOOM-nee). Confusing, isn’t it?

            “Medium” and “datum” are two other Latin words that are often misused. The plurals are “media” and “data.” The sentences “The media have been giving him a hard time” and “There aren’t enough data to make a prediction” are correct.

            “Criterion” is a Greek word that seems to give lots of people fits. It’s singular; the plural is “criteria.”

            Even Hebrew gets into the act. You know what a “cherub” is, but did you know that the plural is “cherubim?”

            There are lots more of these s-less plurals, but I’ve got to go. My nose are running.

BACKYARD

            I’m writing this on the 4th of July, a day of many backyard barbecues. But where are these barbecues held? In the back yard!

            And where does the backseat driver drive? In the back seat.   

            In both cases, the two-word version is a noun phrase and the combined word is an adjective, and, in both cases, the noun phrase is accented on the second word while the adjective is accented on the first syllable.

            There is no backyard or backseat – or frontyard or sideyard or frontseat. These words should be kept separated when used as nouns.

            The same thing happens when a verb phrase is changed into a noun. We had to bail out the banks, an action that is referred to as a bailout. When used as a verb, it should always be two words.

            There was an ad on my website yesterday, presumably targeted at politicians. “How do I find & turnout my voters?” it asked. People turn out to vote. The total of those who do is the voter turnout.

EK CETERA

            There is no “k” or “x” in “et cetera” (sometimes printed as one word: “etcetera”). It is a Latin phrase that means “and so forth.” The first word is “et,” which means “and,” as in Caesar’s famous accusation, “Et tu, Brute?” (And you, Brutus?). “Cetera” means “the rest,” or “the remainder.”

            I think it’s the “c” in “cetera” that throws people off, and they don’t look closely to see where it comes in. They think it is a hard “c,” but it’s an “s” sound: “ett settera.” In Latin, the “c” would be hard: “ett kettera,” but not “ek kettera” or “ek settera.”

            I learned to read phonetically, and as a consequence I still sound out every word in my head as I read. That slows me down, but I don’t mind. Instead of being able to skim over lots of pages I have to choose carefully what I read. I don’t find it to be a handicap.

            Those who learned to read “holistically,” that is, recognizing individual words and not sounding out their parts, are more prone to mispronunciation. They’re the ones who put an extra “n” in “pundit” or pronounce “rural” as “rule.” They don’t hear the second “i” in “poinsettia” or the first “r” in “turmeric.”

            Et cetera.

JESUS'

            Nothing in English grammar seems to be more confusing than the uses of the apostrophe. The problem is that there are so many functions that it is called upon to perform.

            The Associated Press, which used to be the defender of grammar and syntax, has lately allowed the prose that we read in newspapers to fall into corruption. My guess is that those who knew how to speak and write English have finally retired, and a new generation that has no clue has replaced them.

            The worst offense is total loss of control over apostrophes used to indicate possession. In recent years all semblance of order in this regard seems to have been lost.

            Here are three rules that will take all the guesswork out of possessives:

            1. If it’s a singular noun, always add an apostrophe and the letter “s.” Always! Examples: Bill’s, Mary’s, Jesus’s, Socrates’s, business’s, class’s. Someone in the past objected to adding an “s” to Jesus’s name, as if it were sacrilegious or something, and then classical scholars demanded equal treatment for Socrates and Aristophanes, et al. Forget that. Just add “’s.”

            2. If it’s a plural noun and doesn’t end in “s,” add an apostrophe and the letter “s:” children’s, media’s, women’s.

            3. If it’s plural and ends in “s,” add only an apostrophe: “dogs’, businesses’, classes’, Joneses’.

            That’s not so hard, is it? Well, it works for nouns, but watch out for pronouns. There are no apostrophes in possessive pronouns like its. If you put one in, it becomes a contraction of “it is.” Other possessive pronouns include hers, his, itself, herself.

            One more caveat: don’t put apostrophes in simple plurals. You see this all the time in handmade signs and the like: Employee’s only, Kitten’s for Sale, Fresh Apple’s.
            Finally, if you’re going to tell the world who lives in your house, on your mailbox or your wrought-iron gate, avoid apostrophes. The Smith’s means belonging to one Smith, so if there are two or more of you, it should be The Smiths. Similarly, The Jone’s means belonging to one Jone. What you’re probably trying to say is The Joneses. Possessives aren’t needed to inform the world who resides in your house, but if you have to add them, use The Smiths’ or The Joneses’.

THERE IS

            This phrase is linked to my very pettest of peeves, the misuse of the word “they.” What both errors boil down to is a lack of understanding of, or downright rejection of, the concept of “number.”

            “There is many pitfalls on the road to financial recovery.” I hear such constructions every day, from people of all walks of life, from people who should know better.

            How many pitfalls? More than one? Then it should be: “There are…”

            All I can conceive of to explain this obvious error is that people are not even thinking a whole sentence ahead in their speech. If they knew when they started that they would refer to more than one thing, perhaps they would say it correctly. Or, perhaps, they are forgetting how they started a sentence before they finish it.

            Words are like tools. If they are well cared for, oiled occasionally, and kept sharp, they can produce true works of art. They can explicate complex meaning and differentiate between similar but not identical objects, events, and feelings. On the other hand, as is so often repeated these days, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

            Sloppy speech makes for sloppy communication, and that leads to the “dumbing down” of everyone.

            The classical arts of language are grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Grammar is a system of word meanings and the rules of their interaction. Logic is a method of weeding out inconsistencies and assumptions that lead to incorrect conclusions. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. If grammar is ignored or atrophies, it becomes more difficult to produce logical thoughts, and when rhetoric is unfettered by logic, people can be convinced of just about anything.

            Is our language deteriorating accidentally, or are there those who are working to dismember it? Look at those who wish to convince us for the answer. That’s why precise speech is important and worth preserving. Don’t let them dumb us down!

MISNOMER

            This word simply means “wrong name” or “not the correct word in this context.” It is not, as some people seem to think, a synonym for “misconception” or “fallacy.”

            The prefix “mis-“ means wrong, or incorrect, as in “misspelling.” The “nomer” part of the word is related to the word “name” and such words as “nominate,” “nomenclature,” etc.

            “Calling an orangutan a monkey is a misnomer,” is a correct use of the term.

            “The belief that humans cause climate change is a misnomer,” is incorrect. It’s also wrong, but that’s just my opinion. Grammatically, the sentence would be correct if “fallacy” were used.

ALOT

            I always try to figure out why people make the mistakes they do. Sometimes it’s easy; in this case it’s not.

            My only guess is that people extrapolate their misspelling of “a lot” from the word “apiece.”

            Whatever the cause, the unholy merger of “a” and “lot” is simply pandemic. In the past week, at least five of my Facebook friends have used it, including a state political leader and a local office holder.

            Bottom line: “a lot” is always two words. Period. End of story.

THESE KINDS

            About three years ago I started hearing people using the phrase “these kinds of things,” and, like so many phrases, this one went viral. I’m sure some people used this construction in the past, but all of a sudden everyone seemed to be doing so.

            In most situations, “this kind of thing” is quite adequate. To have “these kinds of things,” you must have at least two sets of things.

            Examples are obviously necessary:

            “We’ve had floods in just about every state along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. I don’t know how people cope with these kinds of things.” (There was more than one flood, but no other disaster or difficulty was mentioned. This is a case of simply “this kind of thing.”)

            “In the last year, people in the Midwest have had to deal with drought, then extremely cold weather, then excessive rainfall, and now flooding of record proportions. I don’t know how they cope with these kinds of things.” (You could make a case for this one, but “this kind of thing” would work just as well – the set being the various disasters enumerated.)

            “Not only have Midwesterners had to deal with drought, extreme cold, excessive rainfall, and record flooding, but now several state legislatures have passed measures reducing aid to displaced persons. I don’t know how they can cope with these kinds of things.” (There are definitely two separate classes of things in this example, and the construction “these kinds of things” might be appropriate.)

            It’s a minor point, perhaps, but recently it has gotten worse. Now I keep hearing people say “these kind of things.” I can only shake my head as smoke wafts from my ears. There is no conceivable excuse for putting those words together.

RETICENT

            This word means “reluctant to speak,” but I hear it more and more often used as a synonym for the more general term, “reluctant.”

            “Reticent” is related to the word “tacit,” which means “silent.” A good synonym is “taciturn,” which has the same root.

            “George was reticent about his many accomplishments in the field of nuclear engineering,” is a correct use of the word. “George was reticent to drive any vehicle with a stick-shift,” is not.

FELLOWSHIP

            This word is a noun, but especially in churches it can be heard used as a verb, as in, “We hope to have you fellowship with us again next Sunday.”

            One should be careful about turning perfectly good nouns into verbs. For example, I’ve heard the word “office” used that way: “Where do you office?” “I office in the Bradbury Building.”

            Yuck. I suppose this trend could catch on:

            “Oh, he’s hammocking in the back yard.”

            “My mother retirements at the Shady Rest Home.”

            “He violins with the orchestra.”

            Let’s hope it doesn’t catch on. I find it difficult to friendship with people who use “fellowship” as a verb.

DECIMATE

            This word means “to reduce by one-tenth,” and does not mean annihilate or devastate, as it is often used.

            Its origin goes back to the Roman Empire, where it was used as a punishment for cowardly or unsuccessful soldiers.

            Imagine, if you will, a Roman general standing before an offending line of soldiers, ordering them to count off, over and over, one to ten, then directing that every number three be killed. Undoubtedly the survivors would make every effort to avoid such an offense in the future.

            There have been cases throughout history where this method of discipline was applied to civilians, sometimes to the residents of entire villages.

            When such action is taken against human beings, it is grotesquely violent, but if, for example, a mouthwash were to advertise that it “decimates the bacteria that can cause disease,” it wouldn’t be very effective.

            If you want to say an event wiped out most of a group, “devastate” is more accurate than “decimate.”

AMERICAN

            In the 2007 Miss Teen USA contest, the finalist from South Carolina was asked why she thought it was that a fifth of Americans couldn’t find the United States on a world map. Her answer was mind-bogglingly incoherent and thus hilarious, and the YouTube video of it has racked up 50 million hits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww). I must add that her smile was quite winning.

            What seemed to bother most people about her answer was her use of the term “U.S. Americans,” as if this were a stupid tautology. Nobody seemed to mind that she called the country where we’ve been fighting for a decade “The Eye-rack.” Twice.

             Well, I don’t think she was all that wrong in specifying which Americans she meant.

            There are (according to Wikipedia) fifteen countries or territories in South America, with a combined population of almost 400 million people. In North America, there are 43 countries and territories (including Central America and the Caribbean), with a total population of about 542 million.

            The United States of America (heavy on the “of”) is just one country with about a third of all those people.

            Yes, I am saying Canadians are Americans, too – as are Mexicans, Falkland Islanders, Brazilians, and even (gasp) Cubans.

            And yes, I realize that if you say you’re an American almost anywhere in the world, the hearer will assume you mean you’re from the United States. Katharine Lee Bates probably didn’t have Tierra del Fuego in mind when she wrote “America the Beautiful,” although the shining seas she speaks of meet down there.

            It’s just that I appreciate accuracy, and I resent those who seem to think everyone on the other side of an imaginary line is somehow inferior.

            Lyndon Johnson was famous for beginning his presidential addresses with “My fellow Americans,” and many of his successors have done the same, but I appreciate Barak Obama for ending his addresses with “…and may God bless the United States of America.” Perhaps he is sensitive to our usurpation of the word from our neighbors.

CONGRESSMAN

            There is very little need for this word. It is imprecise, gender-specific, and confusing.

            Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins as follows: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The proper terms for members of Congress are, therefore, “senator” and “representative.” A “congressman,” if such a word had any utility, would be a male senator or representative.

            “Congress” includes both houses, but the ubiquitous use of the word “congressman” as synonymous with “representative” confuses many people, who think there are two legislative bodies, the Senate and the Congress.

            As for the gender-specific problem, it results in such unnecessary constructions as “congresswoman” and “congressperson” to specify, respectively, a female representative or a non-gender-specific representative.

            Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, refers to herself in her official correspondence as “Congressman Blackburn.” I can see doing that with a word such as “chairman,” which is a title for a presiding officer, or “airman,” which is a military rank, but in this case it is simply unnecessary.

            “Representative” has two more syllables than does “congressman,” and as such might take a bit more energy to utter, but it is far preferable. If a catch-all term is needed to describe someone elected to Congress, try “federal legislator” or “member of Congress.”