Arika Okrent’s 17 syllables captured the hearts of the judges, but there were scores of worthy entries in the National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest. The initial screening of 269 entries down to the top 10 resulted in 17 possibilities, and then judges asked to add another 11 back to the mix.
The five-judge panel then went into seclusion in the virtual grammar conclave for most of Sunday before they emerged with a winner, four runners up, and a mess of honorable mentions.
Arika Okrent tapped into a universal feeling of realization and dread when she wrote her winning entry for the 2013 National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest:
I am an errorSoon after, she tweeted an amendment:
Make that “send”
“It became a self-fulfilling haiku,” Okrent said. “I wish I could say I planned it that way.”
Smug peevery is not the way to mark National Grammar Day, lexicographer Kory Stamper reminds us: A Plea for Sanity this National (US) Grammar Day.
March 4 approaches, and with it comes National Grammar Day, a day we celebrate with the annual Tweeted Haiku Contest.
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (small) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I’ve been tweeting in lieu of blogging lately, but sometimes a matter deserves more attention than a string of related tweets. Such is the case with “rock ‘n’ roll.” Dictionaries and style guides differ on how to write a colloquial expression written informally for 60 years or more. “Rock and roll” seems fine and formal, but “rock ‘n’ roll” appears to be the more common form.
Even in the 1950s, it was rendered as “rock ‘n’ roll” as often or more often than “rock and roll,” according to Google Books data. Take a look here: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rock+and+roll%2Crock++%27n%27+roll&year_start=1950&year_end=1980&corpus=0&smoothing=3
The Associated Press Stylebook prefers “rock ‘n’ roll,” but points out that it’s the “Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.” The New York Times agrees with “rock ‘n’ roll,” as does Yahoo! and the Better Homes and Gardens style guide (everyone seems to have an opinion). Style for Britain’s Guardian newspaper is rock’n’roll, no spaces. National Geographic says “rock-and-roll.”
The American Heritage Dictionary gives “rock-and-roll” as its first spelling. Merriam-Webster Unabridged calls “rock and roll” a variant of “rock ‘n’ roll.” Merriam-Webster Collegiate calls “rock ‘n’ roll” a variant of “rock and roll.”
The Oxford English Dictionary has “rock and roll” references going back to 1939, but that was something else. As with many good phrases, the better use came later. Early references from the 1950s in the OED vary, and include the spelling “rock ‘n roll” on an early (jazz) album sleeve. But let’s agree to avoid that; the second apostrophe serves a purpose.
Chicago Manual of Style suggests we make sure the first apostrophe in rock ‘n’ roll is truly an apostrophe and not a single open quote mark.
I remember copy editing a syndicated Dave Barry column that started with a note to editors. Not a note intended for publication, but an appeal to editors to keep his spelling, which I think was “rock and roll.” But there’s probably at least a 70 percent chance that I’m wrong on this.
Last word (for now) goes to Bryan A. Garner, who offers no clear advice other than the suggestion that “rock” has become so common, we probably don’t need to worry so much.
I may return to this post another day, so I’m happy to hear your insight into this important topic.
Judging for the 2012 National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest was as difficult as any in the history of the event. Nearly 200 entries were submitted. The best way to get the full flavor of the event is to visit the Storify that contains them.
But save that for after the big announcement. Judges had a clear favorite:
Being a dangler, Jane knew it would have to come out of the sentence
Without grammar, your
haiku would fall to pieces.
I think I’ll tweet that.
The National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest is back. Nearly 180 poems were entered into last year’s contest. They were brilliant. Even picking the best 10 was very difficult. But, National Grammar Day falls on a Sunday this year, so the organizers decided they could handle having another go at it.
Newspapers have been quick to tell us about the latest trends and help us prepare for a changing world. But they’ve been amazingly slow to recognize the changes that are necessary to remain relevant. And now, as newspapers finally enter the 21st century, “online-first” operations risk losing what made them great in the first place: the trust of the communities they serve.
I hope that the successor to Booth Newspapers in Michigan can combine an online focus with a newspaper’s commitment to truth and accuracy. I’m watching with interest as my former colleagues transition to new roles with MLive Media Group, the statewide news operation that has veteran journalists focusing on delivering the latest news online.
I’d like to say goodbye to “good-bye.”
The unhyphenated “goodbye” gets nearly five times as many Google hits. ”Goodbye” is the preferred spelling in the Associated Press Stylebook. The American Heritage and Webster’s New World dictionaries list goodbye as the first spelling. Bryan Garner in “Garner’s Modern American Usage,” compares the hyphenated form to the archaic “to-day.”
Merriam-Webster, though, includes only “good-bye” and “good-by.” Many style guides, including the Chicago Manual of Style, prefer a Merriam-Webster dictionary, so “good-bye” is with us for now.
The word in any form is only a few hundred years old, stemming from the earlier “good morning” and “good day,” etc., and a shortening of the phrase “God be with you.”
Everyone said it’s easy. I was up late trying to figure out how to include all my website information in one place, and I failed. Or at least fell asleep. All I succeeded in doing was transferring the URL to my blog, so my site exists only on a hidden server somewhere and on my hard drive.
If you are looking for http://www.markallenediting.com, I hope to have my information back up here soon. If you need anything in the meantime, I’m at markallen@copydesk.org, 614-961-9666, @EditorMark on Twitter and (sometimes) copyeditor1 on Skype.
If you are looking for editormark.wordpress.com, my blog postings are all below.
If you are looking for my archive of tweeted tips, most of them also are on this site — I copied them to my blog when I reached about 500. Scroll down to find them.
Thanks for your patience.
Mark
Grammar was not my subject. In high school English class, we did a unit on grammar every semester. It always seemed to be the same thing to me. The work was either obvious (I could recite “Grammar Rock” with the best of them) or unnecessarily confusing (English is like that). The book we used seemed authoritative, but there just seemed to be more rules and guidelines in there than anyone could possibly know. There wasn’t, it turned out, but it seemed that way.
I might be decades behind the time in my perception of grammar textbooks, but the criteria I would use to judge are the level of detail (less is more), the level of intimidation, and the clarity of the rules listed.
My first impression of Mignon Fogarty’s new student grammar is that it’s very orange. It’s inescapably orange with a cover reminiscent of the old Chicago Manual of Style (now blue) and a matching orange inside for headings, examples and shading. Its title opts for bravado over brevity: “Grammar Girl Presents the Ultimate Writing Guide for Students.” It has cartoon drawings, most featuring the familiar Aardvark and Squiggly (a snail) of previous Grammar Girl books. We can give it points for lack of intimidation right away.
I strolled away from Google Plus to visit Twitter a few moments ago, and I pointed out that “for free” is criticized because “free” often works better in half the space. Usage guru Bill Walsh of the Washington Post pointed out that the real criticism is that “free” is not a noun, a more challenging argument.
The idiom forces “free” into the position of a noun, as if it is the same as “zero dollars” or “no pay.” It’s hard to reconcile, so it might always be considered nonstandard, or as Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage says, “not used in writing of high solemnity.”
But the phrase, apparently only decades old, is very widely used. Blind condemnation sometimes takes an understandable statement and exchanges it for something confusing.
“I worked for free” is more clear than “I worked free” or “I worked for nothing.” “It is impossible to live for free” is not the same as “it is impossible to live free.”
If the meaning doesn’t change, “free” is the better choice. But “for free” is too established and too useful to be disallowed.
You are free to parade, grill, engage in pyrotechnics, and otherwise celebrate Independence Day, but don’t feel it necessary to call it that.
The celebration of the nation’s birthday has the distinction of being the only official holiday named for a date rather than a person or event. There is a temptation to write it as the more descriptive and proper sounding “Independence Day,” but the holiday was originally known by the date on which it falls.
The best written works contain clarity, consistency and elegance. These are the goals of style books.
My first AP Stylebook was a 1976 edition acquired in 1979 when I started high school. I read every entry. I didn’t memorize it, but I at least knew where to look up whatever question I had. Over time, my knowledge of the book diminished rather than increased, but nowadays my online subscription means searching is just as fast as it was when I was 15.
Jojo Malig, an editor in Manilla, Philippines, wrote a column for the Poynter Institute’s website in which he asked several editors about the necessity of multiple style books, such as the Chicago Manual of Style and house style guides. I suggested that local style guides are an important supplement to the AP Stylebook or whatever style book a publication uses as its main guide.
This list of links was presented as a handout at the “Freelancers Forum” session at the American Copy Editors Society conference in Phoenix in March 2011. It was compiled by Mark Allen, Kate Karp and Liz Smith. It’s not intended to be exhaustive, but it represents some of our favorite places to find help when we are editing at home.
The “ou” spelling (loud, gout, rough) is more common than “uo,” especially when the combination forms just one syllable. Where this combination does appear, we sometimes struggle with the spelling.
If you tend to consult your toothpaste tube every time you have to spell “fluoride,” it might help to know that most words that start “flu” are related to the concept of “flow.” “Fluoride” comes from the element “fluorine,” from the Latin “fluor,” meaning “flowing.” “Fluor” was first applied to minerals useful as fluxes, a term familiar to anyone who has soldered a copper pipe. Flux (related to “fluctuation”) comes from the past participle form of the Latin “fluere,” which means “to flow.” The look of fluor-type minerals when exposed to ultraviolet light gives us the word “fluorescent.”
So, if you can associate the thing you find in toothpaste with the word “flux” (things may be “in flux,” a “flux capacitor” powered the time machine in “Back to the Future”), that might help you remember the spelling of “fluoride.” And “fluorescent.”
“Flu,” by the way, also related to “flow.” “Flu” is a shortening of “influenza,” which comes from “influence,” which had to do with astrology, or the effects that flowed from the stars.
I’m tempted to keep exploring the pathways I keep uncovering on this etymological journey, but I think it’s time I got back to work.
The word “fulsome” presents a problem that usage and etymology fail to sort out. It either means “abundant,” “offensive” or, perhaps as a compromise, “offensively abundant.” Dictionaries usually give at least the first two meanings while most usage guides insist on the third. The Associated Press Stylebook says “it means disgustingly excessive” and should not be used to mean “lavish or profuse.” The BBC News Styleguide says, probably incorrectly, that “fulsome is not a close relative of full, and does not mean generous.”
If you missed the exciting celebrations of National Grammar Day on Friday, I urge you to postpone any morning meetings and spend some time reviewing all that was written to mark the day in celebration of the underlying structure of the English language.
Below are 176 entries into the National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest. Look through them and you will see how difficult it was to pick a few winners. If you think the judges erred, please use the comments section to call out your favorites.
Along with the Grammarian Court of our five winning National Grammar Day haiku, there are many entries that deserve mention. Here, then, for your enjoyment, in alphabetical order by author, our honorable mentions:
After hours of discussion about the finer points of haiku, grammar and gamma radiation, the six judges and the sponsor of the National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest emerged from their secret grammar chamber to announce a winner.
Keep your browser open to http://twitter.com/search/grammarday so you can keep up with the wonderful haiku from the National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest. Friday is National Grammar Day (check out the website), and the haiku contest deadline is 10 EST Thursday night.
Dozens of 17-syllable poems have already been submitted for The National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest. Follow the Twitter hashtag #grammarday, the official hashtag of National Grammar Day.
Check them out here: http://twitter.com//search/GrammarDay.
I’m hosting the haiku contest to help celebrate the binding principles of the English language. The top prize is a copy of “Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing,” by National Grammar Day host Mignon Fogarty, and your choice of a t-shirt or mug with my favorite piece of writing advice at my new Café Press shop: www.cafepress.com/EditorMark.
For all our finalists, glory and accolades await.
Grammar, usage and style are what we use to hold language together so it appears with a sense of order and fulfills its basic function. The English language is alive and constantly changing. The rules either allow for flexibility or, after some struggle, change to fit the needs of the language. This change comes not from chaos but from order, and National Grammar Day celebrates our collective, ordered approach to the English language.
Haiku is a Japanese poetry form familiar to schoolchildren with a structure and style that allows for flexibility. Strictly speaking, it should focus on nature or the seasons, but it often strays from convention. While critics might carefully count syllables, the point is not conformity but a sense of rhythm that produces a desired effect.
Twitter is a medium that allows quick communication of brief messages to those who have opted to hear what the writer has to say. It celebrates brevity and clarity of language in an era of verbosity.
To help celebrate the binding principles of the English language, I’m hosting a contest featuring the Japanese form of haiku through the medium of Twitter. The National Grammar Day Tweeted Haiku Contest will convey upon the winner the glory and immortality that comes with having his or her winning haiku permanently embedded in digital archives somewhere. Also, prizes.
Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the other forms. Languages are produced democratically, and perhaps none remains more democratic than English. In other words, English is messy. It has conflicting rules about certain things and no rules where there really ought to be one.
If we had a language run by a benevolent oligarchy, we’d have a neutral third-person singular pronoun by now. We don’t. And for now, we just have to live with it.
Another case where our language fails us is in the awkwardness of linking an object to a plural subject, also known as subject-complement agreement. Should we refer to one object or multiple objects? This is a consistent question I get, and it always causes me to scratch my head.
I started an almost-daily offering of a grammar, usage or style tip in April, 2009, and last week I tweeted my 500th tip. Here is my archive to date, which also can be found at my business website, http://www.markallenediting.com.
If you want a big gun, ask for a “cannon.” One “n” is for a law or principle, literary works, or a piece of music. The camera is Canon.
Mackinac Island is in the Straits of Mackinac, which link Lakes Huron and Michigan under the Mackinac Bridge. All are pronounced “Mackinaw.”
The coat, blanket and city are all Mackinaw. The word starts with the Ojibwe and comes through French Canadian, hence the pronunciation.
This column appeared in the September-October newsletter of the American Copy Editors Society.
I visited a transferring co-worker to wish her well and to see what I could liberate from her cube after she left. The pickings were slim, sadly, except for an impressive Random House Webster’s Unabridged. I considered how it would look in my cube, but I left empty-handed. My cubicle remains devoid of reference books.
Here is part two of my column on finding work as a freelancer, written several months after the first. It appeared in the American Copy Editors Society quarterly newsletter.
I love taking a look at a photographer’s contact sheets these days: scores of photos on a computer screen covering a couple of seconds of action. I used to say the secret to news photography was buying in bulk, rolling your own, and shooting enough to get lucky. Now, technology makes it even easier.
This column appeared in newsletter of the American Copy Editors Society in early April. In the months after I wrote it, I’ve become more convinced there is a strong demand for good editing, and I have found myself busy with multiple projects in recent weeks. I followed up this column with more on the topic in the ACES newsletter that came out last month, and I’ll post that column soon.
I’ve had several people ask me in recent weeks for advice on how to find work as a freelancer. And while I give what advice I can, I always preface that advice by saying “I really don’t know.”
I have spent a great deal of time and effort marketing myself and introducing myself to potential employers. But that has yet to bring in enough steady work to make freelancing a viable option.
I was asked recently whether “digitization” or “digitalization” is correct. It strikes me that “digitalization” is growing, but that’s just anectdotal. ”Digitization” remains more common in a Google search, and it is more logical than “digitalization.” Digitize to convert to digits (as in binary). Digital is an adjective.
The words have long histories dating to before the digital age. “Digitize” once meant to point or to manipulate with the fingers. The first use to mean converting analog signal to digital dates to 1953 in the Oxford English Dictionary corpus. Digitizing data first appears in 1973 (at least in OED’s files).
According to Bryan A. Garner in “Garner’s Modern American Usage,” “digitalization” also has a specialized medical use: the administration of digitalis, a heart medicine prepared from the digitalis (or foxglove) plant. The digitalis plant was named in 1542 because of its shape like a thimble, or “fingerhut” in German.
Digit, the Latin word for our fingers and toes, came to mean numbers, especially numbers less than 10, because we count them on our digits.
And here is one more just for fun: a digitorium is a small, quiet keyboard used to exercise the fingers for piano playing.
I noticed a couple of Twitter friends lamenting their inability to spell certain words on the first go. This led to a question from me with hashtag in place, and the ensuing conversation became what someone called a therapy session for copy editors, a chance to come clean with our imperfections.
I put the question out there, “What are some typos your fingers make that your brain knows are wrong?” I wasn’t asking for hard-to-spell words that come back to haunt us, but the words we immediately know we’ve messed up because we’ve momentarily lost control of our fingers.
“Teh,” is a common one, so common that I’m told it’s become gamer slang. There is “fo” instead of “of;” “Firday” for “Friday” — those I expected. What I found most interesting was the number of people who misspell their own names. “Ay” instead of “Amy.” “Jiame” instead of “Jaime.”
Regina White said she finds herself typing Regina Whtie (“Oh to be McGillicuddy!”). Stan Carey said he writes “Stab” or “Stabn” a few times a week.
“Sadly, my name,” said Anne Stibor. “‘Anen’ instead of ‘Anne’ (According to my fingers, my name is now A-n-e-n-delete-delete-n-e’).”
I was scratching my head over this, but at least twice since then I’ve had to correct “Makr” at the bottom of an e-mail.
“My name unfortunately comes out ‘Lousie’ if I am not careful,” said Louise Julig on Facebook. “Not a good thing.”
Carol Terry said “Despite many years typing Carol, my fingers like to sign off as Carpl.”
Lori Burwash sometimes types “Loir.” (“For the French version of ‘Lori,’ I guess.”)
“I always type LAura — like I’m shouting the first part of my name at them,” offered Laura Lampe.
“My spell check always kicks in after I sign off as Luara,” said Laura Barrett.
I often misspell my name, Ricahrd–I mean Richard,” said “Annoyed Richard.”
“I often type an j at the end of my name instead of an h,” said Sarah Sammis.
“Krisitn. I’d never be a Krisi,” said Kristin Thiel.
Some people have the opposite problem. “Any word that starts ‘da’ ends up as my name,” said a teacher who goes by “Lady Strathconn.” Robin Cooke reported: “I often add “e” to the end of “cook.”
“Sometimes I accidentally type ‘Merry Christina’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas’ because I’m so used to typing my name,” said Christina Galoozis.
“Many times I have mistyped Jesus for Jevon or vice versa. I start w/ J-e- then… who knows?” said Jevon Bolden.
“It’s impossible for me to type the word “witch” b/c my last name is Witschey. I always want to add the “s!” said Erin Witschey.
Some others:
“I always type studnets instead of students, and teachnology instead of technology,” said teacher JoAnna Cobb on Facebook.
Bottome. Don’t know why, fingers always want to add an e to the end. @briannepruitt
Gaurd instead of guard. @copyeditqueen
I have you instead of your and of instead of off. @BarbInNebraska
“Shittle” for “shuttle.” @andybechtel
I’m a Victorianist and usually type “Vicotrian” in drafts. Also “autsim.” @dvlock
My recurring typo is written. I add a swirly “e” on the ends of words, like “frome.” @BethanyEdits
In handwritting, I often combo words w/out realizing. Ex: “other hand” becomes “othand.” @KristinWithPen
I type “withe” for “with the.” @DiedofEnnui
I almost always write “Forth Worth” for the Texas city. @mattbramanti
“Paragragh” and “reccommend” @JessicaBCI
Phiadeplahia. No, wait. Phiadeplahiua. No. Phialadelphia. Phialdeplhia. Phiadelphia. See? It has a keyboard aversion. @OrangeXW
I’m an architect, and I usually type “construtcion” and “buidling.” Every single day. My CAD program doesn’t autocorrect. @michellegerner
“Bulleting” for “bulletin,” 90% of the times I try for “bulletin.” @OrangeXW
“bothe” is my most common in that department. @stevebwriter
univeristy – every. single. time. @virtuallori
“Now” for “not” and vice versa. a dangerous one.” @lburwash
I regularly type “pateint” when I mean “patient,” and I often misspell my name. @GrammarGirl
I’m embarrassed to say I often leave an “r” out of embarrassed. _steve_hall
recently i’ve been typing “magnate” instead of “magnet” which makes me look like an idiot. @elizabethonline
My most common is probably “think” for “thing.” I do that ALL the time! And “Bethesday” for “Bethesda.” @ErinRagan
Even though I don’t eat red meat, I often mistakenly type “misteak.” @RoxanneCooke
Most common typo is acitivities instead of activities. On iPhone most common is -ig instead of -ing. Drives me nuts @JackieDaly
For some reason, whenever I go to type Phoenix, it comes out Phoebix. I used to have a car I called Phoebe. Type memory. @StaplingJello
Semis for apostrophes? Won;t, isn;t … @LauraSBarrett
I type the word media a lot (Culinary Media Network), I sometimes type Medea instead. VERY different! @ChefMark
Jospeh. @jane_bos
I study – & edit articles on – hypnosis. Lately, my fingers insert an N any time I type a word that begins “H-Y-P”. @ButMadNNW
“Evenutally” and “watn” for “want” @MariaHench
Also tend to add a G to any word ending in I-N. (AND put #type on both these tweets!) @ButMadNNW
I add random final-Es to things that don’t need them. Don’t ask me why. @__Deb
My most common typo: wrok for work, even as part of a larger word. Last couple of days I’ve typed Dilpomacy a few times. @dudgeoh
My most common is occasionally. For some reason always comes out “ocassionally,” so I keep my eyes open for it! @InkyClean
I often end up typing “Untied States” instead of “United States.” I rather like that one. @JenHoward
I often type “YOU” in all caps for no reason at the beginning of a sentence, and constantly type “teh” when I mean “the.” @TimBabbComedian
I always type apostrophes after the contraction. Dont’, wont’, cant’. Word auto corrects to don’t', won’t', can’t’. @akimoku
I use a textbook by an author named Flick; I always type Flickr instead. Silly Web 2.0, confusing me like that. 
@profsivek
Children always ends up childrne. Training winds up trainng. and don’t get me started on my last name ; ) @michellv123
“I can’t type Indiana…ever. Indidna, INdidana, Indidana…I have to come to a crawl when I type it. Too many vowels.” Lisa Higgins, via Facebook
“I *always* type “reasearch” instead of “research.” Erin McKean
“traffice”–I have no idea why. @MarkWSchumann
Oh! One of my classics, a shadow of my Highlander fandom days: “Methos” for “Method.” @ButMadNNW
As I’ve just been reminded I seldom get “particularly” right first time – I have “particulalry” on auto-correct. @stevebwriter
For me, it’s “hospital.” It always comes out “hopsital” unless I make a conscious effort. Sandy Sutton, via Facebook.
I wonder how many people type “greatful”? (Like the “reasearch” mentions.) @frindley
Embarrassingly, “Knasas” for “Kansas.” @grammarmonkeys
Don’t ask me why, but I almost invariably type “thnaks” when I mean “thanks.” @mjcp
As a health care editor, I often type “medial” instead of “medical.” No help with spell check there. @azmattmorgan
Funny, I just typed “speach.” Never done that before. This discussion has got typos on my mind! @marlamarkman
“Form” when I mean “from.” grrr @SpellboundBkshp
Lately my typo is mangement instead of management. I think it’s some sort of doggy skin disorder. @Lori_writes
I type “studnet” for “student” most of the time. @AimeeGissel
I type “Sna Diego” a lot. And I triple check each time I type it to make sure I don’t claim to be in “pubic relations.” @Stefaniya
Look waht (or what) you started, … I was typed my full name on a form as Gerri Berri because I wasn’t paying attention. @gerrrib
I put notes on stories all the time that say “wtih pix.” @gerrrib
Mange rather than manage, manger rather than manager. @ciaramoynihan
When your typo hang up is teh instead of the, people know what you mean. When it’s “trail” instead of “trial,” you’re being confusing. @gerrrib
I often type “pronunication” for “pronunciation.” Very embarrassing. @pronuncian
Always have trouble with point. Even though the first 3 letters are right there in a row, I usually type “opint.” @4ndyman
So used to typing “ing” at word’s end that anything ending in “in” gets a G added: begin(g), satin(g), Palin(g) @4ndyman
Taht/that @kgrindrod
decision and prescious – see?- I mean precious. @aubergineword
I often type “itme” instead of “time” and “enterpreneur” instead of “entrepreneur” lol. @maheshrmohan
The list already seems exhaustive. But with such a variety represented here, I suspect there are still many more. What’s your typo?
In a year of discovery on Twitter, I have acquainted myself with an amazing group of editors, linguists, lexicographers and other word lovers. I don’t consider myself an expert on language, just a practitioner. I haven’t diagrammed a sentence in 30 years. And I am much better at cleaning up other people’s copy than I am at avoiding my own mistakes.
A longtime debate among some word aficionados is whether language rules should be enforced or whether we should let language evolve. It seems a silly debate. Of course, both are true. Language would not exist without conventions, but those conventions evolve to fit changing times. Sometimes this evolution is based on fashion; sometimes it is based on utility.
As a newspaper copy editor, my job was to enforce rules and put up at least an honorable defense to change. Language can be wild and confusing, and trendiness can get in the way of the basic goal of language: clarity. Newspapers can be playful with the language, just not loose.
So a newspaper copy editor probably falls somewhere right of center. Some would say solidly to the right as a member of the prescriptivist’s caucus.
Twitter is not newspapers. It may be written, but sentence structure more closely resembles spoken language than written. Twitter conversations can veer wildly to left.
John Metcalfe took a look at what could be called the wingnuts of Twitter in a story in today’s New York Times. On one side, those who seem to type with their elbows on their Blackberrys and iPhones; on the other side, what the story calls “self-appointed Twitter scolds” who endeavor to enforce the rules of “proper English.”
But that story looks at the extremes, and the middle path almost always turns out to be the superior one. I’m not familiar with any of the people in Metcalfe’s story. The people I know through Twitter are mostly careful with the language, but don’t revel in the imperfections of others. They might note a particularly enjoyable public typo or commiserate over an example of careless writing, but they don’t seek to embarrass or scold.
I was asked about the issue several weeks ago by Metcalfe, and I told him I had never heard of the practice and that I couldn’t fathom whey someone would bother. I explained that I’m loath to publicly make note of anyone’s errors, and I don’t correct Twitter talk. If a friend makes a gaff that could be embarrassing, I am careful to pass a note along privately or through a Twitter account that has only a few followers.
It turns out I didn’t really say anything then that would add to Metcalfe’s story. I gave a better answer, I think, when I was asked about my approach to language policing on Twitter moments ago.
“It’s better to be helpful than to be chiding, to support rather than attack,” I said.
This is not to say that I condone those who don’t care enough about their readers to put together a coherent 140-character statement. But I have a simple technique for dealing with it. I don’t follow them.
Note: If you read to the end, there is an appeal for money.
After a year away from the desk — a tumultuous year for newspaper copy desks everywhere — my respect and admiration for my colleagues has only increased. So, too, has my expectation for a positive future.
I became a journalist because I believed in the power of information and I respected those who worked to keep us informed. I became a copy editor because I wanted to be sure what ended up in the readers’ hands was the best possible telling of the stories that shape our communities and our world.
You would think this would be a lousy time to be in college looking at a career in copy editing. But there are many young people in college today focused on copy editing with the same motivation that drove me. They have the brain power to excel at anything, but they choose to enter the risky, mostly thankless field of keeping us all informed.
Despite the conventional thinking, these future copy editors are entering a field that is more important than ever. The number of news sources is increasing, and we need to be able to turn to those sources that are concerned with the public good rather than those focused on driving an agenda. Newspapers are not dying, and news copy desks will not disappear. The demands on the desk will be greater, but the foundations will not change.
The American Copy Editors Society believes in a strong future for copy editors and every year awards thousands of dollars in scholarships to those entering the field. I am looking forward to meeting this year’s honorees this week in Philadelphia at the ACES annual conference. This year’s scholarship winners are Shannon Epps of Hampton University in Virginia; Emily Ingram of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Robin Kawakami, who graduated last year from City University, London; William Powell, who graduated in December from the University of Missouri-Columbia; and Caitlin Saniga of Kent State University in Ohio.
To encourage others along the path of these five copy editors, I’m planning to run in my first 5K this week through the streets of Philadelphia to the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (a la Rocky) and then onward to the Tavern on Broad, where I’m told raw eggs will be provided. I’ve been walking 5K for the past several weeks, so I’m pretty sure I won’t collapse en route. Last night I ran half the distance, the most I’ve ever run, and I hope to keep up with younger, more fit copy editors for at least the first half of the route.
The run is a fundraiser for the ACES Education Fund. Officers have a goal of building a $130,000 endowment to make the fund self-sustaining. I no longer have an office in which to solicit contributions, but if you’ve read this far, I encourage you to help me with a worthy cause. I’m asking for donations of just $1, which you can send to me via PayPal. I’ll make the donation to the fund in all your names, and I’ll tweet a special thank you to all who contribute.
Donations should be made via mnallen@mac.com by clicking on the “Send Money” tab at the PayPal site. Sorry I don’t have a button. Maybe next year I’ll have figured that out.
Details on the run are here: http://www.aces2010.org/program/activities/fun-run
Details on the ACES Education Fund are here: http://www.copydesk.org/edfund
And please take a look at the fine copy editors honored this year: http://www.copydesk.org/news/10_scholars.php
I am grateful to you for your support.
My seemingly innocent retweet of Grammar Girl this morning gave rise to a lengthy discussion of personal preference regarding the apostrophe in “April Fools’ Day.” Or “April Fool’s Day.” Or “April Fools Day.”
Grammar Girl is careful to check multiple sources, and she found agreement on the plural possessive construction. But one publisher disagrees. The good people at Oxford University Press prefer “April Fool’s Day” on both sides of the Atlantic.
For some reason, the issue struck a nerve, and many people decided to weigh in. So, as we never had a hashtag for the discussion, I’ve cut and pasted the tweets and retweets below. This is just a quickly edited compilation, so please forgive me for any spacing and punctuation issues. For best results, zip down to the bottom and read up.
******************
@Allen02: @EditorMark April Fools’ Day is my birthday. Because I wish to share the glory (rather than be singled out as the fool) I prefer the plural
@PurplePenning:@EditorMark After all this discussion, I think they’re laughing at us.
But are we laughing at them or with them? RT @PurplePenning: Seems no-apostrophe form follows AP on descriptive phrases: day FOR fools.
RT @PurplePenning: @EditorMark Seems like no-apostrophe form (Aprils Fools Day) follows AP guide for descriptive phrases: day FOR fools, no apostrophe.
RT @PurplePenning: @EditorMark To avoid an untenable editing position, should proponents of the Oxford comma embrace the Oxford apostrophe?
@kristy_campbell @EditorMark No joke. Son did report on origin of holiday – chose 1 over many. I’ll be moving the apostrophe going forward. Makes more sense.
Sometimes I play one on Twitter. RT @corb21: @EditorMark so, are you saying you’re a fool?
RT @Compain: Cost prohibitive. RT @EditorMark: I’m all for it! RT @corb21: April Fool’s Day would be ok, if we bought presents for fools …
No joke? RT @kristy_campbell: I thought it a celebration of a singular fool who didn’t mark the new calendar ordered by the Pope.
RT @KARENPRGIRL: We already have Election Day. RT @corb21: April Fool’s Day would be ok, if we bought presents for fools on that day….
I’m all for it! RT @corb21: April Fool’s Day would be ok, if we bought presents for fools on that day….
OED’s earliest reference: “No wise man will tell me that it is not as reasonable to fall out for the observance of April-fool-day” (1753).
RT @FrancisAdams14: @EditorMark I’ll rephrase, rewrite, recast to do away with ambiguity: All Fools Day.
RT @AvrilFoole: @EditorMark I vote for April’s Fool day, so we can have one every month.
RT @MetaPhoenix: We can argue if the correct spelling is Fool’s or Fools’. Either is acceptable. The former is more aesthetically pleasing.
RT @4ndyman: @EditorMark: Can we call it April Fools’s Day, in honor of all those fools who don’t know how to use an apostrophe anyway?
And multiple fools. RT @paxr55: re: Mother’s Day. Yes, but we usu. have but 1 mother. Cf “my [singular] mother” and “our [plural] veterans”
It’s a style question. So, take your pick, but be consistent. (But majority says plural possessive.) RT @FrancisAdams14: What’s your take?
But, “Mother’s Day.” RT @paxr55: Yes. Cf. Veterans Administration RT A vote for nonpossessive April Fools / via @corb21 … All Saints Day … .
And another: RT @DistantHopes: Why does there have to be ownership of a Day? Could it not just be … dedicated to the plurality of fools?
A vote for nonpossessive: RT @corb21: I’d look to other examples …All Saints Day for one…it’s not All Saint’s Day. I think April Fools Day.
RT @tao_of_grammar: @EditorMark I like “Fools’” because it assumes multiple fools and a day just for them (us).
Touche! RT @lburwash: @EditorMark NYPL says “Fools’.” Canadian Press says “Fool’s.” Hmm, clearly more fools in the US. ; )
Interesting. Checked 4 other style guides—no entries. RT @StanCarey: Oxford Manual of Style: “April Fool’s Day (one fool) *not* Fools’ (US)”
Again, those Oxfordians: RT @lburwash: @EditorMark Canadian Oxford Dictionary, my go-to for Canadian spellings, says “Fool’s.”
I can’t find an entry in the Chicago Manual of Style, but the Facebook page goes with “Fools’.” http://bit.ly/aTnc38
Oh, interesting! The debate heats up: RT @jennhoegg: @EditorMark CP stylebook goes with “Fool’s.” [Does CP have preferred dictionary?]
AP Stylebook also says “Fools’.” Oxford folks stand alone. RT @jennhoegg: I am reassured there is now consensus, because I prefer Fools’.
It’s “April Fool’s Day” according to Oxford American and OED. But American Heritage, WNW, M-W, Macmillan dictionaries prefer “Fools’.”
Oops, a point of contention for we word fools: RT @OrangeXW: At least one dictionary lists “April Fool’s Day (also April Fools’ Day).” .
RT @GrammarGirl: The proper spelling is “April Fools’ Day.” Really. No joke.
Wendalyn Nichols wrote an awesome post yesterday for the Web site Visual Thesaurus. As an aside, the Copyediting newsletter editor mentioned the misuse of “awe,” as in “awe, cute” instead of “aw, cute.”
“Awe” comes from an Old English word “ege,” which meant “terror” or “dread.” It has largely retained that meaning, although recently it has been used in a more positive sense, first in relation to something impressive, and lately to describe anything we think is pretty good, such as a blog posting. It’s certainly overused these days, and it may be creeping into descriptions of babies and kittens. Some babies and kittens may inspire “fear or wonder” (Oxford American’s definition). but the word we’re probably looking for is “aw.”
That being said, most dictionaries I checked lack a positive sense for the word “aw.” Oxford American say “aw” first appeared in America in the 19th century and is “used to express mild protest, entreaty, commiseration, or disapproval.” None of those fit the way we use it with babies and kittens.
American Heritage includes “tenderness” in its definition. But that definition is absent in Oxford American, Webster’s New World, Merriam-Webster Unabridged, Macmillan, and the Oxford English Dictionary. So without an American Heritage Dictionary handy, we might be confused how to spell “aw, cute.”
The growing popularity of “awesome” probably influences the misspelling “awe, cute,” as well as “awe, cool” instead of “ah, cool.” (Sure, it’s spelled “ah, cool,” but it’s more often pronounced with a “w.”) American Heritage labels the use of “awesome” for “outstanding” as slang and Macmillan Dictionary notes it is “mainly used by young people.”
I would try to reserve “awe,” “awesome” and “awe-inspiring” for the truly impressive, both good and bad. We might have an easier time with “awe” if dictionaries took a new look at “aw.”
A squeamish Facebook reader left a note on my wall last night about the very common use of the word “nauseous” to mean “feeling sick” rather than “inducing a feeling of sickness.”
Hello! You’re here just in time. Today I’ve seen the word “nauseous” used in print is two separate publications. Makes me cringe. Is “nauseated” still the correct term to use to mean the feeling I get whenever I hear or see “nauseous” used instead?
“Nauseous” meaning “feeling sick” is a 20th century American invention. It’s frowned on in formal writing, but it’s very common.
Interestingly, in the Oxford English Dictionary’s earliest examples of “nauseated,” the word meant “causing nausea” (“the nauseated pleasures of luxury” from 1659). Common at the time was the verb “nauseate,” which was used with an object, often with “at,” as in “I nauseate at their improper use of English.” Toss that one out at a party for fun.
“Nauseated” for “feeling sick” seems to emerge in the 18th century. Perhaps there was no nausea-related adjective to describe the feeling before then. If you go back to the original Latin, “nauseous” meant “causing nausea.”
There is another form of the word that has been used for hundreds of years: “nauseating.” A big majority of the American Heritage usage panel preferred “nauseating” to “nauseous” in a sample sentence. So it may be that “nauseous” is being pushed out of formal writing. Something “nauseating” will make us feel “nauseated.” Or it may be that as “nauseating” replaces “nauseous,” “nauseous” will supplant “nauseated.”
I would uphold the distinction and not use “nauseous” for “nauseated” on paper, but don’t make yourself sick over it.
Sorry; that was too easy, I know, but I couldn’t resist.
This is a bonus extended edition of a column I wrote for the most recent newsletter of the American Copy Editors Society. It seems an appropriate topic as we prepare to pause on Thursday, National Grammar Day, to celebrate the nation’s editors, grammarians, usage experts, English teachers, linguists, word bloggers, Scrabble players, and greengrocers.
In a packed room of frightened copy editors at one of the penultimate sessions of ACES 2009, one question particularly hit the point: Sure, there are other jobs, but where else can I contribute so powerfully to the public good?
That had been my nettlesome question for weeks. It was less than a month since my last day at a daily newspaper. For the first time in 20 years, I had nothing to do with the local paper, no influence on the community’s focal point of public discourse. I wasn’t sure if I’d be satisfied wherever else I might land.
One of my first applications was for a copy-editing job at a company that does Web-based marketing for drug companies. No one bit at that application. I would have been compelled to take the job had it been offered, and I probably would have found some satisfaction in it. Some.
But, face it, beyond newspapers, where can you so directly and honestly give people information they need to get by? It’s hard to replicate that sense of accomplishment elsewhere.
“Nobody goes into journalism for the money,” former copy editor and reporter Leigh Roessler said. “You go into it because you feel like you can help people.”
Roessler got into community activism when she was free of ethical considerations imposed by her newspaper job. She helped form an area commission for her Columbus, Ohio, neighborhood.
“If you’re involved in journalism, you know more than 99.9 percent of the public how government works,” she said.
Roessler is now business manager for Huber and Co. Interactive, a Web and social media firm. She stays out of local politics to avoid a conflict of interest involving a client, so she spends her volunteer time at church and her daughter’s school.
She also serves as her company’s copy editor. But after a career in editing, there is no shame in trying something else.
An editor friend once told me that, years ago, he heard Kurt Vonnegut say something along the lines of “Never be ashamed of what you have to do during the day in order to write at night.” Whether we write our novel or become community activists or go to band-booster meetings, there are ways to be worthwhile to society beyond having our work in the daily newspaper.
One thing I’ve learned from the nonjournalist copy editors I’ve met is that one can be happy and influential editing on the outside. Editing at any level is fighting the good fight for clear writing. Copy editing’s core is the same no matter who signs your paycheck. Copy editors help the process of communication by correcting errors and improving clarity. Poor writing often is a simple form of obfuscation, and copy editors beat the drum for clear writing. Everyone benefits when we understand each other.
Rob Reinalda, formerly of the New York Daily News, was a news editor at the Chicago Tribune before 2008’s layoffs. He landed at Ragan Communications, where he is executive editor and helps a host of others with that clarity thing.
His job is still about “providing good information” to the readers. He said he tries to maintain journalistic standards, including clear language, fairness, balanced reporting and sound structure. He sets style for his company and does more writing than he could on the desk, including scripts for Mignon Fogarty’s Grammar Girl podcasts.
I used to think of copy editors employed by private companies as working for the owners or the shareholders, while I nobly worked for the readers. It turns out, every editor is working for the readers and we all get paid by someone else so we can do it. It’s a great system, and it’s not just journalists who enjoy it.
The breadth of the influence out here is less clear. A few score people might have read a scholarly article I edited compared to tens or hundreds of thousands who have read a front-page story I improved. But that bit of scholarship might contribute to emerging thought and have just as much influence as one more story about the economic meltdown. We all lament how fleeting newspaper stories can be. Hundreds of thousands of words are pieced together every night and end up in the recycle bin by the end of the day. Edit a book, though, and your work may outlive you.
Lament the lowering of standards and the gutting of a noble institution. But don’t think defrocked newspaper copy editors are done making a difference.
To learn about the American Copy Editors Society and its upcoming conference in Philadelphia, go to http://www.copydesk.org.
I put this two-page list of tips together for a small newspaper chain recently. It’s available as a PDF on my Web site, http://www.markallenediting.com. I’m posting it here mainly in the interest of getting your feedback so I can touch it up. if y0u find it useful, feel free to download it from the Web site.
Below is a list of four of the most common issues to hit the copy desk. What follows is a list of some of my Twitter tips (@EditorMark) that might be particularly useful to reporters.
1. Errors in math. Don’t ignore the common-sense advice drilled into our heads in high school: Check your work. I would put the error rate in number-intensive stories at about 20 percent. Reread your stories, pull out the numbers, and make sure they work together. Quick tip: For percentages, divide the part by the whole and multiply by 100. Also, remember extremes usually do not tell the reader what is typical. “Up to 70 percent” off at a store means some things are 70 percent off, most are not. Same goes for claims by politicians and other public officials.
2. Errors in parallel structure. Once you’ve put down a verb, everything that follows in a list must agree with that verb. The same holds true for bulleted lists. This is often forgotten, and so we get “plans to cut police positions, library hours, and to reduce spending on parks.” Read what you have written (and don’t be afraid to move your lips as you do so).
3. Misplaced and dangling modifiers. Don’t be afraid to rewrite or divide a sentence to avoid confusion over the intended object. “A Wisconsin man was reported stabbed by Beloit Police.” “Frozen solid, Bruce walked out onto the lake.” Read what you have written.
4. False continuums: The snowstorm brought everything from fender-benders to school closings. So those are the extremes? Where does the increase in sales of plastic shovels fit? Make a list if you must, but avoid the “everything from” construction unless you can actually fit all your items on a line.
Tweeted tips
“That” often is superfluous. But don’t omit it without carefully reading what’s left. Keep it in for clarity; omit if excessive.
Ships “founder,” meaning they take on water and sink. A sailor on the doomed ship might “flounder,” or thrash about trying to stay afloat.
For something to be “historic,” it must be important to history. If it just happened in the past, it’s “historical.”
Do not call charter schools “taxpayer-funded private schools.” Governance models vary, but all charter schools are public schools.
To “flout” is to mock or otherwise show disdain; to “flaunt” is to show off. “Flautist” is a fancy-schmancy way of saying “flutist.”
AP says “mike,” not “mic.” OED has references to “mike” dating to 1920s, “mic” to 1960s.
Don’t say “margin” if you mean “ratio.” Ratio is the relationship between two numbers; margin is the difference: 2-1 ratio; 12-point margin.
If you feel bad, don’t say “badly” unless you have a poor sense of touch. It’s the same as with smelling bad or smelling badly.
It celebrates all mothers, but Mother’s Day keeps the apostrophe inside as a singular possessive, as does Father’s Day and New Year’s Day.
“Biweekly” means every two weeks. But for 150+ years, it also has been used to mean twice weekly. Avoid confusion and say what you mean.
You “lay” something. But, annoyingly, “lay” also is the past tense of “lie.” Lay an object down. Lie down. He lay down. (It was laid down.)
“Currently” usually adds nothing; use it rarely and thoughtfully for clarity. Never write the horribly verbose “at this point in time.”
Don’t call two quarters of GDP decline a “traditional” definition of “recession.” The recent convention often is rejected as simplistic.
To “clamor” is to make a lot of noise. To “clamber” is to awkwardly climb or move (probably from “clamb,” an old past tense of “climb”).
“Discrete” means distinct or separate (the island of Crete is a discrete part of Greece). “Discreet” means quietly careful or judicious.
“Defuse” means disable a bomb. It can be used figuratively: to defuse a tense situation. “Diffuse” as a verb means to spread out or scatter.
You can be both interested and “disinterested.” “Disinterested” means impartial. Don’t care? Then you are “uninterested.”
Avoid using “fumes” to mean “vapor.” Fumes usually are smelly or toxic vapors. Vapor is any diffused matter floating in air, such as steam.
Don’t fear “effect” as a verb. To “affect” is to influence; to “effect” is to bring about. “Effect” something and you can take the credit.
“Who” is the proper pronoun for the subject of a sentence. If your pronoun is not doing anything, use “whom.” “Who” does stuff to “whom.”
“Alright” is common, but it’s a nonstandard spelling of “all right,” which prevails in formal writing. Stick with two words, all right?
“Irregardless” is a nonsensical variant, formed by adding the negative prefix “ir’” to “regardless,” which already has a negative suffix.
There is no need to write the awkward “’til.” Till is a perfectly good word that means the same thing. “Until” is best for most writing.
One who “begs the question” is pretending that restating a question answers it. Consider “raises the question.”
“A while” is two words if it follows “in” or “for” — that’s when it acts as a noun. “Awhile” is an adverb.
The Kenny Loggins song “I’m Alright” from “Caddyshack” is stuck in my head as I write this (it’s catchier than the Who’s “The Kids are Alright” or Elton John’s “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting”).
Last night, I tweeted about alright, which is considered nonstandard by most dictionaries and not a word at all according to many stalwart prescriptivists. I said:
“Alright” is common, but it’s a nonstandard spelling of “all right,” which prevails in formal writing. Stick with two words, all right?
That brought a defense of the word from one copy editor and an immediate counter from another. The ensuing discussion over two dozen tweets involving 10 people culminated with this tweet that I woke up to: “You will pry alright from my cold, dead hands. Not sooner.”
I had hoped to avoid that, of course, and, in fact, I accept that alright inevitably will earn its place between already and altogether. But if I find alright while editing someone’s copy, I will suggest it be changed to the accepted all right.
None of the dictionaries I commonly use lists alright as fully acceptable. American Heritage calls it “nonstandard” and Oxford American calls it a “variant.” Other dictionaries are less categorical. Webster’s New World says alright is a “disputed spelling of all right.” The Oxford English Dictionary refers to it as “a frequent spelling of all right.” Merriam-Webster is the most accepting, only hinting at a dispute: “In reputable use though all right is more common.”
Bryan Garner, in the third edition of “Garner’s Modern American Usage,” created a five-point scale to show to what degree a disputed word has entered the lexicon. Stage One is Rejected and Stage Five is Fully accepted. Alright rates Stage Two: Widely shunned, although it could be argued that is common enough to warrant Stage Three: Widespread but … .
The English language is a great democracy in which popular opinion sets the course. We may individually defer to the writers of our high school grammar texts, but ultimately there is no single compilation of the Laws of Grammar that we are bound to follow. We collectively set the course. As with any democracy, it sometimes gets ugly.
That “alright” is a word is indisputable. There it is, seven words to the left. There it is in song titles and 37 million times on Google (and 72,500 times on Google Scholar). There is a question as to whether it should be a word, but a better question might be “why not?” There is precedent for making words by dropping the second l in the preceding all.
The American Heritage usage note on all right suggests that the combined form missed the boat only because it came along so late. The OED corpus suggests people didn’t start commonly using “all right” to mean satisfactory until the 18th century. Words like altogether and although already were in use by the Middle Ages, before dictionaries and usage guides.
“Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage” (published by Merriam-Webster) devotes nearly two pages to alright. It suggests that there are reasons to differentiate between the stresses placed on all right vs. alright. As one person tweeted: “I’ve graded some tests and papers that were alright; definitely not all right.” That distinction would have been allowed to flourish, Merriam-Webster’s usage guide says, “if it were not so regularly suppressed by copy editors.”
For now, I will keep suppressing, albeit with a margin note explaining the dispute.
As Arthur Crudup (and later Elvis) sang, “That’s all right, that’s all right, that’s all right now, Mama, any way you do.”
After seeing “affect” used improperly several times in succession years ago, I photocopied the “AP Stylebook” entry, cut it out, copied it at 200 percent, then doubled its size again, knowingly contributing to deforestation and exacerbating profit declines for the Newhouse family.
Unfortunately, the small act of posting the enlarged affect/effect entry on my desk divider failed to put the issue to a rest. At some point AP updated its entry. It’s now less succinct, but it’s still a good guide. There are many good explanations out there of the correct usage (see a few below), but affect/effect mixups remain a common usage annoyance.
A copy editor friend recently suggested I blog about it. His suggestion came on the heels of another copy editor’s call for help after her brain seized up on the matter.
I did tackle affect/effect in exactly 140 characters one day in a Twitter entry:
“Don’t fear ‘effect’ as a verb. To ‘affect’ is to influence; to ‘effect’ is to bring about. ‘Effect’ something and you can take the credit.”
That, too, failed to put the issue to rest.
To use my copy editor friend’s example, let’s delve into the differences using two nouns, “catnip” and “cats.” Catnip is our subject of our examples; cats are the objects that the verb refers to. Both affect and effect can be verbs, so:
Affect means “to influence.” “Catnip influences cats.” It certainly does. The verb form is usually “affect.” Use it whenever something is taking an action on something that already exists.
Effect means to bring about, to cause. “Catnip causes cats.” Clearly that does not make sense. To “effect” a cat, one must create a cat. To be precise, a daddy cat and a mommy cat fall in love, etc. Their mating effects a litter of kittens.
Very often, we see the verb “effect” used with “change.” To “effect change” means to make change happen. If you “affect change,” you are having an influence on the change, but there would be some form of change with or without you.
As a noun, “effect” is the result of the action. Catnip affects cats with the effect that they act squirrelly.
“Affect” has another verb form, meaning basically “pretend.” “He affected the air of an Oxford don as he explained the usage issue.” The noun is “affectation.” Psychologists also use “affect” to mean an observed emotional state, as in “seasonal affective disorder.”
If this last paragraph adds confusion, ignore it. Those are not common uses. In fact, forget the noun issue altogether. You instinctively know that if it’s a noun, the word is “effect.” The headache comes with the verb form. So, all you need to remember is:
If the object of the sentence is being changed, the verb is affect.
If the object of the sentence is being created, the verb is effect.
Or, more succinctly: Affect is to change; effect is to create.
I hope this blog entry effectively puts the issue to rest. But if you need reinforcement, here are some other sources that address the issue:
Paul Brians’ “Common Errors in English Usage”
Grammar Girl’s “Quick and Dirty Tips“
Professor Malcolm Gibson’s “Wonderful World of Editing“
