The Internet needs a proofreader

Is it wrong for me to be bothered by the fact that this article about writing grant proposals contains more than a dozen grammatical errors? Or that this article had so many, I stopped counting?

As if public restrooms weren’t unpleasant enough

A number of local elections are coming up this month, and one in Gainesville quite rightly has conservatives on high alert.

The Gainesville City Commission earlier passed a "Gender Identity Ordinance" that allows individuals to arbitrarily declare their gender based on "an inner sense of being a specific gender . . . with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth."

We received word of this today from John Stemberger, president of Florida Family Action. Stemberger, who is a lawyer, writes, "the law's wording is so vague that it allows any man -- even a sexual offender or pedophile -- to legally use facilities designated for women. If a majority of voters in Gainesville vote 'Yes' on Charter Amendment 1, they will be able stop this unbelievable law right in its tracks. Opponents as predicted are engaging in fraud and deception about what the amendment is really about."

The organization Citizens for Good Public Policy in Gainesville is working to rally support for Charter Amendment 1, which would overturn the rather silly Gender Identity Ordinance.

Yes, I said silly. While I have great sympathy for those who genuinely have Gender Identity Disorder, there are times when we must judge gender based on simple, observable things. Like anatomy.

I hate to be so blunt, but a similar gender identity ordinance passed in Colorado has already produced complaints from women about men using ladies' bathrooms and locker rooms. It should be obvious that because the women filing complaints could tell that the people they were complaining about were men, we have a problem.

Yet all these men have to do to defend themselves is claim a "gender identity" issue, and they're off. The Citizens for Good Public Policy Web site shows that while genuine transgender persons are not known to commit restroom crimes, male heterosexuals are:

The [gender identity] ordinance can be easily exploited by the heterosexual males who commit the vast majority of restroom crimes, as it gives them legal cover to scout for opportunity, and a convenient excuse if questioned about their presence. Why make it easier for criminals to plan their crimes?

An educated electorate being vital to the welfare of a democracy, I urge you to educate yourself on this matter. And if you happen to live in Gainesville -- get out and vote on March 24.

As Stemberger points out, "if this nonsense is not defeated in Gainesville now it will be coming to a city council in your Florida neighborhood."

Happy Grammar Day

Today is National Grammar Day. Celebrate by reading John McIntyre's Grammarnoir serial.

English is an earthy, messy, sloppy language, but we love it anyway. Here's a snippet that helps explain just why our beloved tongue is such a mess:

"By natural processes of spoken-language change, Latin 'debita' and 'dubitare' had turned into French 'dette' and 'douter,' with complete elimination of 'b.' The French words had passed into English in the forms of 'det' or 'dette' and 'dout' or 'doute.' Now scholars, both in France and England, suddenly became aware of the Latin source of their modern words. Since the parent language, Latin, which they venerated, had 'b' in both words, ought not the 'b' to be restored in their modern descendants, at least in writing? So both French and English began respelling their words as 'debte' and 'doubte' ('doubter' in the case of French). In English, most of these silent, etymological letters stuck. In French, they were partly eliminated at a later period. The result is that today English has 'debt' and 'doubt,' with a 'b' that was never pronounced save in Latin, while French has gone back to the more phonetic spellings 'dette' and 'douter.'" — Mario Pei, "English Spelling," in Language Today: A Survey of Current Linguistic Thought (1967).

Unlike some countries, we have no "academy" to settle spelling disputes or issue edicts about whether "aunt" rhymes with "ant" or "taunt."

And we like it that way.

Gauging success

There are already so many blogs about knitting, I hesitate to bring up the subject.

But while working on the Washington Square Vest from the Winter 2008 issue of Intervweave Knits, I ran into some difficulty with the lace edging. Googling brought me no solution, so I had to puzzle it out myself.

Comparing the lace pattern with some of those in Barbara G. Walker's A Treasury of Knitting Patterns helped a bit. Other than that, it was a matter of experimentation to figure out in what way I was misreading the chart.

It was this: Row 4 calls for binding off 2 stitches and then knitting 4 stitches. But binding off 2 stitches is a three-stitch process. Knit two, slip the first stich over the second, knit another, slip the second stitch over the third. So I did this, then knit the four stitches, continued across the pattern, and wound up with a mess.

You see, the third stitch of the bind-off--the one that remains after you slip the second stitch over--counts as the first of the four knitted stitches.

Well, as we used to say in the old country, duh. Once I figured this out--by experimenting on my swatch--the lace fell neatly into shape.

So this reinforces what the knitting teachers and magazines and books always tell us. Don't skip the swatch.* In addition to ensuring you get proper gauge, it gives you an opportunity to practice the pattern stitch on something other than your garment. Had I leapt blindly into the garment without going through this learning and practicing stage first, I would have ripped out and started over again several times.

As it is, I used an entire ball of yarn just working the swatch, which is now almost long enough for a scarf, if it weren't so messy. But instead of ripping out, I can keep this mostly messy but partly correct sample in view while I work the vest. Now that I know what I am doing.

For the non-knitters, a swatch is a small sample of knitted fabric that helps knitters ensure they are getting the correct number of stitches and rows to the inch called for in the pattern. For those knitters (and I once was one) who resist swatching because it seems a waste of time and yarn: swatching not only prevents the ripping and reworking alluded to above, but it also helps prevent the phenomena of the sweater coming out too big or too small, despite your using the same needle and yarn as called for in the pattern.

Sorting out sound-alikes

When I see the same mistake three times in one week, I have to write something.

Since this set of homophones* is on almost every list of commonly confused words, I though everyone had learned it by now.

Unfortunately, it seems the only people who read those lists are grammar geeks who already know the correct usage. So I'm going to sound off anyway, in the hopes of reaching someone who is not a grammar geek.

Principal/principle

I recently encountered two different versions of this mistake:

"He's a principle at the firm..."

and one of this:

"They need to learn this basic principal of business..."

Do you see the error? Each of these homophones is in the wrong sentence.

The correct versions:

"He's a principal..."
"…this basic principle..."

I wish I could give you some clever mnemonic, but honestly, sometimes you just need to look things up.

Principal: as an adjective, it means "first in importance." As a noun, it's "a person in charge." The term is used in finance to describe the amount of a loan (because first the lender gives you money, and then you pay it back).

Principle: The underlying assumptions of a system of thought.

Both words have additional meanings related to the ones given here. Both have the Latin root princeps (initiator), which accounts for the confusion.

Of course, homophonic errors are only noticeable in writing. But if one wishes to be seen as -- how can I put this nicely -- not careless in one's writing, one must know the difference.

Or at least find a proofreader who does.

*—Homophones (same sound) are words that are pronounced the same but have different spellings and meanings. Words that are pronounced the same and spelled the same, e.g. bear (carry) and bear (animal), are homonyms (same name). Words that are spelled the same but not pronounced the same, e.g. bow (of a ship) or bow (and arrow), are homographs (same writing).

Unless you live in a cave...

Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles H. Bronson issued a press release today to remind citizens that although "the federal government recently delayed the deadline for the switch until June 12, some television stations plan to convert their broadcasting format on February 17, which had been the original deadline."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but given the publicity the conversion has already received, I think anyone who isn't already aware of it does not own a television.

Distinguishing real mistakes from non-mistakes

Many of those who frequent the discussion boards of the American Copy Editors Society work hard to disabuse colleagues about journalistic shibboleths, such as the one Bill Walsh calls "the un-splitting fetish."

This is the wrongheaded belief that leads many--including, it seems to me, a disproportionate number of journalists--to write awkward constructions like "we already have been there," where any normal person would write "we have already been there."

This superstition about not allowing the adverb (e.g. "already") to come between the two parts of a compound verb (e.g. "have been") has been thouroughly debunked by the best minds in the field, some of which are cited in Garner's Modern American Usage. For example: "Not only is there no objection to thus splitting a compound verb...but any other position for the adverb requires special justification" (H.W. Fowler, Modern English Usage).

Nevertheless, many people continue to un-split, which is why Chief Justice Roberts, attempting to copy edit on the fly, bungled the inaugural oath. Steven Pinker, chairman of the usage panel of The American Heritage Dictionary, adds his voice to those of the aforementioned minds, giving an insightful examination of why unsplitting is pointless. In doing so, he also gives us a magnificent headline:

Oaf of Office

So let's review: split verb phrases or, dare we say it, split infinitives—not mistakes. Attempting an impromptu rewrite of the most solemn oath of office in the land—big mistake.