Have never, and will never, …

I'm closing the festive season with a pet hate and a picture of Father Christmas:

Link: Jake Wallis Simons, 'I don't want my kids to believe in Father Christmas'

Ignoring the unnecessary and meaningless 'OK', the first sentence proper consists of a main clause interrupted by a second clause. The former relates to the past, the latter to the future, and they are related to each other through the main verb, encourage. However, even though both the syntax and the punctuation show that the second clause is subordinate to the first, it has been allowed to dictate the form of the main verb. This means that the bare infinitive, encourage, also has to stand in for the present perfect form, encouraged, with the result that the main clause is ungrammatical: 'I have never encourage my children…' 

The meaning is clear, but that doesn't make it a) right, b) elegant, or even c) most effective in making the point. (It's the sort of thing that makes me stop reading instantly, since a) the writer obviously lacks professionalism: he has so little respect for the reader and for himself that he can't be bothered making the effort to type one additional word to make his sentence correct; and b) the piece is likely to be littered with such irritations, so instead of fulfilling its potential as a pleasant and/or interesting piece of leisure reading, it becomes something that needs editing for accuracy and clarity…)

Constructions like this one seem to be based on a misunderstanding of a rare form that is acceptable, found in statements such as: They have never and will never come to our house. The difference, of course, is that here the two key verb forms, past participle and bare infinitive, coincidentally appear identical, come.

It is undeniably briefer — by one whole word! — to use the incorrect formula instead of 'I have never encouraged and will never encourage my children…', but the repetition of the verb would in fact make the meaning more plain and increase the emphasis, which is the effect the writer seems to want.

Alternatively, what's wrong with the even more emphatic: 'I have never encouraged my children to believe in Father Christmas, and I never will'?

Happy New Year! More mangles in 2013.

 

Not Washed or Cooked, # 1

I'm trying to clear the seasonal mangles before the season ends, so here's a link the Daily Mail posted, without spellchecking or proofreading it, on the index of its website on Christmas Eve:

Oddly, the headline on the linked page was almost identical, except that it was correct:

 Link: Daily Mail, 'artifical spruce'

It's not the first time the newspaper has run an 'old, faux Christmas tree' story — complete with the same typo. Here's 2007's version:

 Link: Daily Mail, 'artifical Christmas tree'

The Mail seems to be fond of this typo. There are other headlines and links (sometimes with one or other corrected), copy and captions:

 

Link: Daily Mail, 'artifical skin'

    Link: Daily Mail, 'artifical legs'

Link: Daily Mail, 'Artifical Intelligence 1'

Link: Daily Mail, 'Artifical Intelligence 2'

 Link: Daily Mail, 'artifical flavours'

  Link: Daily Mail, 'artifical turf'

There are more… and I think we'll be meeting this one again.

Apostrophe catastrophe, # 1

Leaving aside the hideous pun, note that the mark in front of the n isn't an apostrophe but an open inverted comma or quotation mark, while another letter in the word has been omitted and not marked at all:

Link: The Sun, 'Beeb elf 'n safety ban'

The Oxford Dictionaries website shows how to do this abbreviation of 'and' correctly, using two apostrophes, on its 'apostrophe' page:

Link, Oxford Dictionaries, 'apostrophe'

* See also the Its and it's entry on this blog

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 15

In keeping with the seasonal theme… The text here (which is undated, although a response was posted in July 2008) needed proofreading and correcting, preferably before the error was copied into both the index and the link address:

 Link: Myths Encyclopedia, 'Santa Clans'

The oversight may partly be due to the fact that, as received wisdom and experience show, fonts with serifs (the little details at the ends of some strokes in fonts such as Times or Georgia) are more difficult to read onscreen than fonts without serifs (such as Arial or Verdana). In Myths Encyclopedia's font, especially in the bold format used for the headings, the 'n' might be mistaken for a 'u'.

Coincidentally, however, there actually is a Santa Clan:

Link: The Clan Claus Society

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 14

Today's mangle, the continuation from yesterday's, has a student make a pleasant and good-humoured observation on the teacher's 'Santa' typo. Sadly he, in his turn, hasn't checked Satan's name before posting his comments:

Link: 'Paradise Lost Question 2', 2

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 13

Today's and tomorrow's mangles (continuing the seasonal theme) form a pair, a question and response. This, rather unfortunately, is a teacher's question for her students…

Link: 'Paradise Lost Question 2'

This extract offers a double mangle, as it also uses 'classic' (the best of its kind, an outstanding example) where 'classical' (relating to the ancient world, notably Greece and Rome) is meant.

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 12

A headline gem from yesterday's Daily Telegraph — another the spellchecker wouldn't flag. (The subheading gets it right.)

Link: 'Italian policy…'

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 11

A special Christmas-themed contribution: looks like Eve won't be getting any presents…

Link: Evan Saathof, 'Don’t Skip This: Paradise Lost'

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 10

Unusual name for a bond…

Link: DWS Global Pubic Interest Bond Fund

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 9

I wonder what exactly the International Association of Public Transport's 2002 project involved…

Link: 'Insecurity in pubic transport'

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 8

Sticking with the new theme today, but in a different flavour. Would you have confidence in this company? This was uploaded over a year ago and still hasn't been corrected…

Link: Public relations firm…

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 7

More problematic paradigms to come. Today, a new typo series begins:

Link: Lonely Planet Thorn Tree travel forum: Ukraine to Russia border crossings…

I before E, or E before I?

Lots of people seem to have trouble spelling words that contain the vowel combinations ei and ie. Combinations like these, with a pair of vowels treated as a single syllable, with a simple sound, are called digraphs or monothongs.

I don't know how it's taught in other countries, but in the UK there's a mnemonic, 'i before e except after c'. Since it's only true for some words, it really doesn't help, and may indeed be why so many people have trouble correctly spelling words that include the ei and ie digraphs… 

The bad news is that there's no absolute rule that works for all words with the ie and ei combination, but there is a rough test that can be used to sort out quite a few. (The others just have to be learned or avoided.)

The test is based on the sound the digraph makes (and in the examples below, on British-English pronunciation).

1. If the sound the digraph makes in the word is ee (rhyming with feet), the 'i before e except after c' rule usually works:

• belief, believe, besiege, brief, cashier, chief,* chieftain, field, grief, grievous, lief, piece, pierce, priest, relief, relieve, reprieve, shriek, sieve, siege, thief, thieve, yield

*handkerchief and mischief work like chief, though they are not pronounced with the ee sound for ie

• ceiling, conceit, conceive, deceit, deceive, perceive, receipt, receive

2. If the sound the digraph makes is not ee (a sound other than ee), the spelling order is usually ei:

• eider, eiderdown, eight, foreign, forfeit, freight, heifer, heir, leisure, neigh, neighbour, reign, rein, skein, sleigh, their, veil, vein, weight, weir, weigh

3. The irregularities: learn them or learn to avoid them…

• ancient, feisty, fierce,* friend, seize, species, weird*

*strictly speaking, the ei in weird and the ie in fierce are not digraphs but diphthongs (a combination of two vowels that requires the mouth to move to a new shape), but for spelling purposes they can be included in this list

Always use a spellchecker and/or a dictionary to check the spelling if you aren't sure.

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 6

Someone didn't proofread the tags before posting — and it's right next to 'efficiency' too…

 

Link: Data Center Infrastructure Management

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 5

Following on from yesterday's post on spellchecking versus proofreading, here's a live online example of one of the problematic phrases listed:

(In the interests of kindness, I've obscured the poster's name and not put in a link; but the post is still freely available on the internet. At least the problematic word was spelt right in the reference to the business…)

Why Spellchecking Is Never Enough…

Errors compromise clarity and credibility, so it's crucial to proofread your writing after you've used a spellchecker.

Proofreading means finding spelling mistakes and 'typos' (typographical errors), making sure that you've written what you thought you wrote and said what you meant to say, and checking that you have expressed yourself as clearly and unambiguously as possible. Proofreading a piece of work carefully before publishing it helps to build a good relationship with your audience by demonstrating that you respect both your reader and yourself. It shows that you care what you publish, whether it's under your given name or a pseudonym — after all, if you can't be bothered to read through what you've written, why should anyone else?

This applies to any writing you send out into the world: a work email, an essay, a business proposal, a novel, a blog entry, a Facebook post…

Take applying for a job. Companies are inundated with emails for vacancies — sometimes hundreds for a single post — and you want yours to stand out for the right reasons. I once worked for a company that reduced applications to a manageable level by sorting them into two piles using simple criteria: in one pile went the well-presented CVs, while the other — which was always larger — was for applications that contained errors; these applicants were immediately sent a rejection letter. The logic was that if the applicants didn't check documents as important as their CVs and covering letters when they were chasing a job, they were unlikely to take the necessary care in checking documents they prepared for clients when they were safely in the job — and that, of course, would reflect badly on the company.

Proofreading versus spellchecking

A spellcheck is an excellent starting point for checking a piece of writing; it will flag spelling mistakes and (some) typographical errors, and will check even a large document quickly. If you've typed thier for their or neice for niece, the spellchecker will offer the correct spelling; some will correct such common errors automatically. The spellchecker will also ask you about words it doesn't recognize, and list possible replacements.

When you've run a spellcheck and corrected or checked any words the checker has flagged, it's time to proofread. This is best done on a printout, holding a pen and following the words as you read. (For even better results, read the text aloud to force yourself to read what is there, not what you think is there. When we read silently, our minds will often try to help by making minor corrections — for example, inserting an omitted, but crucial, not — when what we need is to focus on exactly what is written down.)

Remember that a spellchecker works by comparing the individual words (not phrases) in a document with a list of correctly-spelt words. It cannot and will not identify where you have typed the wrong word if that word is spelt correctly. A spellchecker will let through errors such as:

• Milton's Stan tempts Eve by flattening her.
• In Paradise Lost, Santa transforms into ever more lowly creatures.
• 'Satan Claus is coming to town…'
• Kuhn observes that a paradigm shit results in a paradigm that is both new and improved.
• The Roman forum was a pubic square used mainly as a marketplace.
• 'Its a long way to Tipperary…'
• Aesop tells a storey about how a tortoise beats a hair.
• 'Their is a house in New Orleans…'
• She tiptoed on bear feat.

… and many more.

A spellchecker won't find these mistakes. Proofreading is a must.


21 December 2012, Addendum
In case you think this is harsh, pedantic or plain pernickity, see Matthew Wardrop, 'My interests include cooking dogs' 

Its and it's

Lots of people confuse its and it's, possibly because they are taught these around the same time as they are learning about the apostrophes (the ' sign) used to show possession (e.g., John's bike) and it all gets mixed up.

When we speak, there's no problem with its and it's because they sound the same and the context makes it clear what we mean. In writing, however, we need to show which we mean. (Strictly speaking, the context makes it clear in writing too, but if your reader has to stop and think about whether you mean its or it's — which might well happen if you're not clear about how they work and are not consistent in using them — it disrupts the flow and breaks the link between you and your audience.)

In written English, an apostrophe marks a place where something has been taken out of a word or phrase: the new, shortened word is called a contraction. We use these all the time, for instance when we say can't and doesn't: can't is short for cannot, and doesn't comes from does not. You could use either form in the same sentence:

I can't come out on Friday or I cannot come out on Friday.

He doesn't eat salad or He does not eat salad.

The apostrophe replaces the letter (and, of course, the space) omitted when two words are merged into one contraction. These kinds of contractions are easy to deal with because they can only mean one thing.

Sometimes the same contraction abbreviates different phrases, but the context shows what is being shortened:

What's the problem? or What is the problem?

What's happened? or What has happened.

So: its or it's?

If you remember that apostrophes replace something that's missing, you can easily solve the problem of its and it's by expanding the contraction to check whether you've used the right one:
 

• It's sunny today. This means It is sunny today and the contraction needs an apostrophe: It is → it's
• It's been sunny today. This means It has been sunny today and the contraction needs an apostrophe: It has → it's

That is how it's is used. Now for its:

• The dog chews its squeaky toy makes no sense at all if you turn it into The dog chews it is squeaky toy. Nothing is missing and its, without any apostrophe, is right.

That's all there is to it. You can use the same method with other words, for example to distinguish between your and you're:

 

• You're cheerful. This is short for You are cheerful and the contraction needs an apostrophe: You are → you're
• Your book, is it? To say You are book, is it? would be nonsense. Nothing is missing, no apostrophe is needed: the your is correct.

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 4

Somehow, despite five repeats of the chorus (not all reproduced below — there are limits!), no-one noticed the spelling error here… or on several other websites.

 

Link: Must Be Santa

Yet, as Chico Marx said in A Night at the Opera, 'There ain't no Sanity Clause!'

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 3

In this oldie, The Daily Telegraph challenges The Grauniad [sic] in the hideous typo stakes. A visit today shows that the opening sentence's numerous errors remain uncorrected, and thus it still has only the most tenuous of connections to logic, meaning, grammar, clarity or, indeed, English, so it deserves its space here:

 

Link: Alan Ellis, computer programme

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 2

Apparently CIFAS are using Ali G to do their proofreading…

(Note: if you have your website designed by someone else, it's a bonus if the designer checks the textual content you provide, not a basic part of the package. You're paying for the website to be designed and created, but you supply the text and it's your website, so it's up to you to check that it is correct.)

Spellchecking Is Never Enough, # 1

Me, myself, and I…

Found online this morning, on a business website: 

[…] designed by myself in conjunction with top British manufacturers.

This features the common error of using 'myself' when the writer means 'me', resulting here in a contradiction: has the writer done the designs alone (which is what 'by myself' means) or with someone else ('in conjunction with')?

The correct way to express this statement would be:

[…] designed by me in conjunction with top British manufacturers.

Similarly, the word 'myself' is not the same as 'I'. It isn't correct to say

John and myself went to the cinema 

when actually

John and I went to the cinema.

You can check which is right by removing the other person from the statement. You  would say

I went to the cinema

not 

myself went to the cinema

so it won't be correct to change the I to myself if someone goes with you!