Oh, dear.

My intrepid editor (whom I once described as "erstwhile," thinking it meant about the same thing as "intrepid" - one more reason you should never assume, chickadees!) has begun posting his weekly columns in blog format. Since I planted the idea in his mind, he identifies me (and links to this little project) in his first post.

I had rather liked the idea that I was laboring in obscurity, with my infrequent posts read even less frequently by a handful of uninterested but friendly pals. Now I suppose I'll have to brace myself for the influx of ones, nay, fives of new readers.

For the next few weeks, it's P's and Q's all the way.

Split this! (or, Correcting grammar on the Internet is the last refuge of a scoundrel)

To the CiN Weekly staff blog commenter who includes a split infinitive in his reasons for never reading the publication again:

You might want to read this.

This is probably as good a time as any to talk about another grammar-related pet peeve: the habit some Internet scrappers have of using their opponents' poor grammar to rebut their argument. Yes, of course, a perfectly turned (and spelled, and punctuated) phrase lends strength to an argument. But a misplaced comma in your opponent's thesis does not invalidate it. Besides, criticizing others' grammar opens one up to all sorts of attacks on one's own use of the English language (as I have found out myself).

The example of the blog comment isn't the best, since it's referring to something that appeared in print and is therefore held to a higher standard than your average flame war - but we'll use it anyway, since the dynamics at work here are interesting.

Here, commenter "bw" seems to have us on the ropes with a barrage of intellectual superiority: factual error! another factual error! obviously you don't know your facts! aargh! Then he pauses ... and: "Split infinitive," he tosses off nonchalantly, intending it as a rhetorical gob of spit on our bruised and bleeding credibility.

But the effect is quite different. By using a grammatical error as an argument (and a false grammatical error at that!), the entire argument is cheapened. Suddenly, "bw" is transformed from a stalwart warrior for truth to a bitter troll who has to dig and scrabble for fodder for his nitpicking complaints. Suddenly, the rest of his points seem somehow less valid. (An example: How dare we say the PSP and DS were released in late 2004 without informing readers that this was the original Japanese release, not the American one? Well, um, we dare.)

Remember, dear readers: Grammar is a powerful thing. Do not use it as a weapon unless it truly is called for.

Important update!

I note with interest that this has become a non-story with the release of a grammatically correct DVD.

The fine folks at Universal were probably shaking their heads in disbelief at editors for even making it an issue. But 'tis our true nature, and it cannot be denied!

The number of amounts

Dear writers:

Did you know that you can't have an "amount" of books, turtles or comedy club performances? The word you're looking for is "number."

This one is pretty simple. If something can be numbered, it's a "number." As in, "She reduced the number of cigarettes she smoked each week."

And the number doesn't have to be in the sentence, dear writers; it doesn't even have to be known! As long as you can take the thingamabob under discussion and stick a number in front of it without it sounding insane, you've got yourself a numerable thingamabob. (Some prefer to describe it as a "thingamajig.")

If, when you try to stick a number in front of the 'bob or 'jig, you end up sounding like English is your second language, then you want to use "amount." Try, for example, having five cash, 14 water, eight soup.

Watch out for that soup thing, by the way, because you can of course have eight soups. Therefore, the restaurant increased the number of soups they serve, which is why you increased the amount of soup you eat.

That is all for now. All my love to the family.

Yours truly,
Kelly