BLOG

Last spring, on CBC radio’s “Sunday Edition,” veteran journalist Michael Enright interviewed Mary Norris, copy editor of “New Yorker” Magazine, on the publication of her first book, Between You and Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen (New York: W.W. Norton, 2015). You can listen to the 34 minute interview here. The book is in part a memoir of the more than three decades Norris has spent in the magazine’s copy department, but is more fully a meditation and handbook on language usage. I recommend it as a fun and insightful read. It will sharpen or refresh your writing skills and allow you to read Norris’ stories from inside the work of professional editing.

She gives many pointers, drawing on her 30 years as an editor and proofreader, drawing upon several sources, like Bryan Garner’s Garner’s Modern American Usage. She analyzes spelling, grammar and punctuation use–including dashes, semi-colons, colons, apostrophes and even on using expletives, in formal text.

Norris describes editing copy many years ago for the Christmas shopping lists of the “New Yorker.” There she would find strings of adjectives would be joined together (e.g. “a floor length cardigan coat in leaf-patterned black silk jacquard”). She says that she’d “get lost in all the throngs of adjectives” of those seasonal listings. And she ably demonstrates for readers the rules governing comma use between adjectives that precede nouns.

Norris tells us that usage guides say that if you can substitute “and” for the comma in a list of adjectives without losing meaning then the comma belongs there. So Norris cites the author James Salter for making that error: “Eve was across the room in a thin, burgundy dress that showed the faint outline of her stomach” (104, emphasis added). Here, Norris notes that “thin and burgundy” does not make sense, because the two adjectives are “not coordinate. They do not belong to the same order,” because “burgundy” modifies “dress” more “tenaciously” than “thin” does. Continue reading ““New Yorker” Magazine’s Mary Norris on Comma Usage . . .”

In his “Usage Tip of the Day” (June 17, 2015), American Etymologist Bryan Garner corrects a common confusion between two similar sounding (and meaning) verbs (long a bugbear of mine):

mitigate (vs). militate

“Mitigate” = to make less severe or intense (Garner writes: “the new drug mitigates the patient’s discomfort”).

“Militate” = to exert a strong influence (Garner writes: “Harry’s conflicting schedule militates against an October 17 meeting.”)

Garner corrects a common error in usage: “Mitigate against,” is incorrect for “militate against.”

He provides two useful examples to demonstrate this error:

(1) “In general, the speed of mass communication mitigates [read ‘militates’] against exploring an issue carefully as people’s attention span decreases in correlation with shorter, rapid-fire presentation.” (Barry R. McCaffrey, “Perspective on Illegal Drugs,” L.A. Times, 2 Jan. 1997, p B7, in Garner, 1).

(2) “It is the one thing that most mitigates [read ‘militates’] against the Patriots winning their last two games.” (Ron Borges, “Two-Game Series for Patriots,” Boston Globe, 18 Dec. 2002, p E1, in Garner, 1).

Today, Garner writes, “mitigate” is almost invariably transitive, a synonym of “alleviate.” The Oxford English Dictionary recognizes an intransitive sense, meaning “to grow milder or less severe,” but labels it rare.

Garner says that using “mitigate” with “against” is not standard e.g. (3): “The show’s excellent 57-page guide mitigates against [read ‘mitigates’] its density, as does the curators’ healthy respect for the impact of real things.” (Roberta Smith, “Icy Genius with a Taste for Order,” N.Y. Times, 29 Nov. 2002, p E37 in Garner, 1).

I’d add a similar error of mine, from undergrad days (4): “Lorna Crozier’s speaker provides a momentary flicker of optimism that mitigates against [the “against” should be moved] the unrelenting despair of the closing lines.”

As a reader and editor, I rarely see the term “militate” used at all, and when I do, it’s usually used wrongly: Garner concludes that “Militate against” — as well as “militate in favor of” or “militate for” — is perfectly acceptable. E.g (5).: “The campaign he ran militates against the historic presidency he would like to lead.” (Jonathan Rauch, “Self-Inflicted Budget Woes,” U.S. News & World Rep., 18 Nov. 1996, p 94, in Garner, 1).

I’ll add this (6): “Readers’ conscientious efforts to understand errors in usage militate in favour of Garner continuing to share his ‘usage tips.’ ”

Garner concludes that “militate toward” is unidiomatic.

Have you confused “mitigate” and “militate” in your mind? Or avoided both because you weren’t sure how to distinguish between them? Please share your usage bugbears with me! With your permission, I’ll use them in a future blog or e-newsletter.

 

In his usage blog today, American etymologist Bryan Garner writes that the “widespread but largely unfounded prejudice against ‘that’ leads many writers to omit it when it is necessary” (Garner, “Usage Tip of the Day,” 1).

A “determiner” is a modifying word that determines the kind of reference a noun or noun group has (Oxford English Dictionary). Other examples are “a,” “the” and “every.” Without determiners, we end up with grammatical “miscues” that force us to re-read and guess the sentence’s conflicted meanings. Don’t mistreat your readers in such a way; many won’t take the trouble to re-read!

Garner shares three examples where “that” is needed to convey the sentence’s meaning properly:

(1) “Following comments from the public, the council decided the issue needed further study by a committee of citizens and private haulers.” (Halal, “San Diego Addresses Crusade,” Waste News, 23 Dec. 1996, at 14, cited in Garner, 1). Note that that sentence argues that the council “decided the issue,” which is not the meaning of the sentence. Insert “that” after “decided.

(2) “Commissioner Karen Sonleitner pointed out any policy changes approved after Sept. 1 could be subject to the state’s Property Rights Act.” (Trower, “Travis Debates Regulations for Flood Plain,” Austin Am.-Statesman, 30 July 1997, at B2, cited in Garner, 1). Note here that the commissioner did not “point out any policy changes.” Insert “that” after “pointed out.”

(3) “Skinner said he believes many prisoners contract AIDS behind bars.” (Novak, “Prisons Hit by Soaring AIDS Costs,” Chicago Sun-Times, 3 Nov. 1997, at 1, cited in Garner, 1). Note here, Garner says, that “Skinner didn’t express an opinion about any prisoners’ veracity. Insert ‘that’ after ’believes.’ ”

So in the interest of brevity, do not drop your determiners, or your writing and readers will all suffer!

What is your grammatical or stylistic bugbear, this week? Share it with me below. I’d love to hear from you.

American Etymologist Bryan Garner recently posted a tip addressing the misuse of the term “minuscule.” He says that the common spelling of “miniscule” is incorrect. “Minuscule” is “derived from the word ‘minus’; it has nothing to do with the prefix “mini-,” he writes.

But he adds that the word is commonly misspelled and cites several surprising examples of the error (I’ll include two here):

• “Mouth hanging open, Harry saw that the little square for June thirteenth seemed to have turned into a miniscule [read ‘minuscule’] television screen” (J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, p. 242).
• “Even as some people questioned the practical effect of saving such a miniscule [read ‘minuscule’] portion of the state budget, they were mostly willing to forgo cynicism” (Kathleen Burge, “Forgoing of Salaries Gets Mixed Reviews,” Boston Globe , 2 January, 2003, B5)

(“Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day,” May 27, 2015).

Does the mistake Garner corrects here strike you as minuscule? Are you a usage nay-sayer who thinks that such a word is used too infrequently to worry about? Language specialists argue for the importance of accuracy and consistency in our written and edited copy. Even apparently minor words warrant close attention.

Do you make this particular error more in the vernacular than in writing?

Please share your usage bugbears with me below, or on my contact page.

This week, I attended a stimulating “Lunch n’ Learn” hosted by the Saskatoon Chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). Host Jacqueline Gallagher (VP of Recruiting, David Aplin) chaired a discussion that featured Alex Fallon (President and CEO of Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority [SREDA]) and Derek Lothian (VP of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters; and Executive Director of the recently formed Saskatchewan Manufacturers’ Centre of Excellence [SMCoE]).

You could say that the topic was not original. What Millennials are like in the workplace has been debated for years (Millennials were earlier called “Gen Y,” those age 33 and under, or born between 1981 and 2000). By contrast to Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, the discussion focused on what Millennials’ contributions will be. What aspirations, values and practices they have. Since I meet Millennials frequently in the work that I do, I gladly took in the talk.

Gallagher provided the background that there are 8.9 Million Millennials in Canada, who account for 29% of our labour force. Their life defining events have included 9/11, the Digital Age (since they embrace the technology they were raised with) and the Global Financial Crisis. Although it’s ultimately reductive to characterize a generation in this way, Gallagher (citing Karsh and Templin’s book, Manager 3.0: Millennials’ Guide to Rewriting the Rules of Management) reported that Millennials tend to be collaborative (working in teams rather than alone). They are often flexible in their work (e.g. often valuing family time more than work time). They are often transparent (sharing information that they know with peers). Evidence shows that they are casual in their approach to work (preferring an informal office environment). And they seek balance in their lives (perhaps not “balancing” work with life, so much as integrating work with it). The Millennials whom I shared discussion at the event were also obviously often tech-savvy and confident. Gallagher said that they tend to “vote with their feet,” if a job or organization does not meet their needs and interests.

The same study Gallagher said that this generation is concerned about how things get done. But they often don’t care about why or when.

Fallon and Lothian, like Gallagher, are Millennials themselves, but shared insights borne of their experience working in the high stakes government of the UK and Ontario.

Continue reading “On Millennials in Business (and Beyond) . . .”