
You might recall my post on June Casagrande’s first book, Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies. Well, she’s back with a new book, Mortal Syntax 101 (Language Choices that Will Get You Clobbered by the Grammar Snobs Even if You’re Right) and on Friday we’ll be giving away 3 copies of it! But first, check out my interview with June below and discover the one grammar rule she’s itching to change, and a whole lot more.
DI: We know whose side of the language snob war you’re on, but still, there must be a couple offenses that really get your grammar goat. Lay ‘em on us.
JC: I hate confessing this stuff. But you got me: I cringe when I hear “between you and I,” mostly because people instinctively know better but are overcompensating for their grammar insecurities. We all know to say “between us” instead of “between we,” but with these “and I” constructions, suddenly we start hearing a mom voice in our heads and we panic. Then, despite our instinctive understanding that an object form like “me” is called for after a preposition, we goof up and say “between you and I.”
I also get a taste of bile from “there’s” used before a plural. Technically, you can get away with this. The “Oxford English Grammar,” for example, sanctions it. But I was taught to use “there are” before a plural, so it’s hard to stomach “There’s some people I want you to meet.”
DI: How much has the success of Lynne Truss’ Eats, Shoots & Leaves changed the language landscape? Or has it always been cool to kibitz about grammar?
JC: Lynne Truss did a good thing: She gave voice to all the people who were frustrated with a world full of misplaced apostrophes. It’s a valid frustration. The problem is that, given the slightest bit of encouragement, these types can go too far. Way too far. So criticizing something like “carrot’s” on a sign becomes a slippery slope into a valley of bullying and misinformation: a place where people run around making others feel dumb for ending sentences with prepositions, for using the word “nauseous” to mean “queasy” and for starting sentences with the word “hopefully” — all of which are completely grammatical and acceptable. A pathetic brand of power-drunkenness if ever there was one.
DI: With technology making such an impact on words and language, can you imagine a day in the not-so-distant future when there are practically no rules governing its use?
JC: I can indeed imagine a world in which there are practically no rules governing the use of language. Ever read Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” or Stephen King’s “The Stand”? Show me a scorched earth on which people are eating each other and I’ll show you a world in which grammar rules have gone the way of the salad fork. But as long as we continue to be a society, we’ll continue to conform to some standards of communication. In fact, Noam Chomsky has hypothesized that this stuff is innate — hard-wired. I’m not qualified to weigh in on his theories. All I know is that grammar arose if not out of nature out of necessity. And every BFF knows you’ll get a funny look if you call someone your FFB.
People worried that language standards are going to hell in a handbasket need to chillax.
DI: English is spoken the world over now. How much has the global-village influenced grammar?
JC: I don’t know. I’m too busy worrying which I should learn first: Mandarin or Cantonese. (Brace yourself, world.)
DI: Have you ever coined a word? If so, what?
JC: I have indeed tried to coin words. Here’s how successful I was: Not even I remember what they were.
DI: If you could change any existing grammar rule, what would it be?
JC: I would write a clear, unimpeachable and enforceable-by-federal-law definition of the prefix “-bi” as applied to words like “weekly.” It would mean “every two.” “-Semi,” on the other hand, would mean “every half.” Currently, that’s not the case. “Biweekly” can mean either every two weeks or twice a week. Yes, really. Quoth “Word Court” columnist and “Atlantic Monthly” editor Barbara Wallraff: “-Bi is useless for making clear a rate of occurrence.” Not if I had my way, it wouldn’t be.
DI: How can our readers be in touch with you if they have grammar-related questions? Do you keep up an online presence?
JC: I welcome grammar questions of all kinds, including ones that begin with, “Some idiot in my office is betting me $20 that …” Send ’em to junetcn@aol.com (which I check infrequently but eventually). I also have a website and a blog at conjugatevisits.blogspot.com and a weekly grammar column at burbankleader.com (enter search term “Casagrande”).
Browse through past Creatively Speaking posts here >>
Shhh…super secret special for blog readers.
I’m glad someone else is interested in making a law over the bi/semi thing. When it’s used, people always have to ask for clarification. Why not just be as clear as possible from the beginning. We should start a petition . . .
posted by nutmeag on 6-11-2008 at 9:40 am
Sweet post.
Now I’m going to be a typographical snob. In June’s second-to-last response, the hyphen should go after the prefixes rather than before; “bi-†instead of â€-biâ€.
posted by jimmywags on 6-11-2008 at 9:50 am
Richard Lederer is, by far, the most sensible and realistic linguist out there.
Language grows by being open to new words and new constructions. This is what has made English the modern lingua franca. It has also made it the greatest language for word games and expression.
On the other hand you can’t just go adopting new ways of speaking willy-nilly. There remains an informal vetting process to weed out the garbage. Without it communication would be made more difficult.
There is still no excuse for the OED adopting “bling.”
posted by BassMan on 6-11-2008 at 12:33 pm
I die a little inside every time homophones are written incorrectly. I had a previous boss who ALWAYS wrote in emails “it only makes since to do it this way”. It drove me insane and I got to where I would talk to other employees and say “does that make any s i n c e?” and have to verbally spell it out real quickly like it was a new word. I’ve always wondered if he spelled it the other way when it would represent a delineation of time…I never had the opportunity to witness though. I had something else to mention, but have long sense forgotten. Oh well.
posted by michael on 6-11-2008 at 12:37 pm
jimmywags-
I thought the exact same thing.
posted by Pointy-Hatted Geek on 6-11-2008 at 2:57 pm
michael – I’m the same way anytime someone writes the (incorrect) phrases “to make due” or “so-and-so wasn’t phased” (among others). It’s not just the misspelling that bothers me, it’s the fact that it’s obvious the person doesn’t understand what the phrase actually means but is just parroting its use in a particular situation.
posted by Celeste M. on 6-11-2008 at 9:48 pm
To expand on the incorrect phrases thread, I remember in high school when my friend explained to me how “all intents and purposes” is the only correct form of the phrase. “All intensive purposes” is not.
In addition, being from the South, we all say the phrase “a-whole-nother,” which I have tried to take the effort to avoid. But “another whole” is just not southern enough, y’all.
posted by Cat on 6-13-2008 at 12:54 pm
This is probably more of a pronunciation thing than a grammar thing, but lately I’ve heard the word “spiel” pronounced “spill” a lot lately.
Why must we mess with the Yiddish?
posted by Lindsey on 6-14-2008 at 10:37 am
what about people that , instead of saying ‘have you ever’ just choose to say ‘ever’? they are the worst.
posted by nick on 6-29-2008 at 1:02 pm
June is smart, witty and funny! I am reading “Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies” all over again to refresh my rusty memory…I would love to get a copy of her new book, which I take it, is a sequel to Grammar Snobs…
By the way, did June make up the word “wanker?” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language does not have it…
Also, one of my petpeeves is when I hear Newscasters use “troop” as one person not as a group or more than one…This drives me nuts! Am I wrong?
posted by Psychewriter on 4-13-2011 at 2:20 pm