“If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.”

[I did not write this. I pinched it from Michael Hurd, who doesn’t know who did.]

Paraprosdokians:

First time I heard about paraprosdokians, I liked them. Paraprosdokians are figures of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected and is frequently humorous. (Winston Churchill loved them).

1. Where there's a will, I want to be in it

2. The last thing I want to do is hurt you ... but it's still on my list.

3. Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

4. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

5. We never really grow up -- we only learn how to act in public.

6. War does not determine who is right, only who is left.

7. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

8. To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is research.

9. I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

10. In filling out an application, where it says, "In case of emergency, notify..." I answered "a doctor."

11. Women will never be equal to men until they can walk down the street with a bald head and a beer gut, and still think they are sexy.

12. You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.

13. I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.

14. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

15. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

16. You're never too old to learn something stupid.

17. I'm supposed to respect my elders, but it's getting harder and harder for me to find one now.

-- Source for this unknown.

The Oxford comma: the Kanye West of punctuation

The Oxford comma is the Kanye West of punctuation.

But don’t think that means it’s not necessary.

It protects against spurious boasting.

It makes parties go way, way better.

And it’s the protector of reputations.

Omit it at your peril.

[Pics by Stan Carey, Virginia Lloyd, The Bump, and Andrew Joseph Pergoda]

Save confusion

You may not undertand the  importance of the Oxford comma, but the strippers do.

[Hat tip Stephen Hicks]

Apostrophes to the gallant apostrophe

I loved the attitude of the chap from the Apostrophe Protection Society, who appeared on Larry Williams’s radio show this morning.   He would have been appalled at that sign on the left.  More on that in a minute.  But first, a joke, of sorts:

If you mentioned that a kiwi eats roots and leaves, you’d simply be stating a fact.  But if you said instead that a kiwi eats, roots and leaves, then you could be confused with someone making an excuse for an early exit.

This old joke, in a slightly different form, was the basis of Lynne Truss’s book Eats, Shoots and Leaves, a call to arms for grammar pedant everywhere.  Since writing the book she’s been “listening to the woes of pedants worldwide “-- “a heart-breaking story that is still not sufficiently acknowledged.”

The pedant knows that a simple comma changes the two sentences above.  The pedant knows that if it’s important enough to be understood, it’s important enough to make sure you’re clear.

Internet exchanges take shortcuts, which often lead to more misunderstanding than conversation. Consider this exchange at Public Address, for an example:

“Don't be a selfish prick and think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.”

I'm confused now. Do you mean "if you think other peoples enjoyment is as important as your own then you are a selfish prick"? or "Don't be a selfish prick, think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.”

The problems aren’t only with commas. The much misunderstood apostrophe has been used, abused and - in Birmingham, England, at least -- has now been  banned altogether.  Rather than getting half their road signs half right, the Brummie Town Councillors have now decided instead to get them all wrong.  See:

So like a bureaucracy.

The Birmingham ban apparently prompted the formation of the delightfully named Apostrophe Protection Society headed by retired journalist John Richards, who started the society appalled at the destruction of the English language – and picking the apostrophe as his own personal crusade. (You can hear him talking to Larry Williams here: the segment starts 23:00.)  It’s a crusade for the difference between “Am I looking at my dinner or the dog’s?” and “Am I looking at my dinner or the dogs?”

The apostrophe is an essential part of English grammar, he says.  Errors in apostrophe usage abound  – laziness, ignorance, the modern education ‘system’ being the primary culprits – and its misuse destroys clarity, and and his society is another call to arms for sticklers to help turn things around. His Apostrophe Protection Society has a website, which you can bookmark and use as a reference to how to get it right.

And as it happens, Lynne Truss – who’s been known to stand under movie signs in Leicester Square with a cut-out apostrophe on a stick to correct egregious apostrophic errors in film titles (Two Weeks Notice was one that sparked her ire) – is still on her own correcting crusade, as she explains in this column: Stop the apostrophe catastrophe!.

    I have had to think about such issues a lot recently because of the publication of The Girl's Like Spaghetti, a book for children that handily illustrates the difference made by the apostrophe in a bunch of simple sentences.
    For example, "Those smelly things are my brother's" is illustrated by a group of children running away with pegs on their noses from a pair of disgusting old shoes; opposite comes "Those smelly things are my brothers" (no apostrophe), which shows a couple of boys pouring rubbish on each other.
    I find this extremely amusing, of course, but then I'm like that.
    "The dogs like my Dad" is shown alongside "The dog's like my Dad".
    I love the illustrations for "We're here to help you" (smiling assistants behind a desk) and "Were here to help you" (closed door, covered in signs: "Gone fishing" and "Try next door").
    I am also proud of a sentence that works for both "its" and "it's": "Look, it's behind!" say some children, observing a turtle losing a turtle race. "Look, its behind!" snigger some kiddies, pointing at the rear end of a horse.

A useful way, perhaps, to describe those who perpetuate the apostrophe catastrophe.  All power to Mr Richards and his gallant group of sticklers for fighting the good fight.

NB: Cartoons are from this chap’s blog, another stickler for the good fight.

Obama grammared

I'm pleased I scored so highly on the silly old Facebook grammar quiz, since educator Lisa VanDamme reckons you need good grammar to make yourself understood -- and it looks like the ObaMessiah himself don't have no grammar.

Turns out the Great Communicator doesn't know grammar any better than Dan Quayle knew how to spell, making the common blunder of inverting "me" and "I."  Doesn't matter?  Says VanDamme, mastery of the rules of grammar add great precision both to your thinking and your communicating.  And it may avoid scandal, for example:

    Rather than the innocuous, "President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I," what if President Obama had said, "Michelle likes President Bush better than I." Is this a mere difference of opinion about the former President, or a scandal? The ambiguity is resolved with a universal understanding of the rules of grammar.
    "Michelle likes him better than I," as my grammar students can tell you, contains an elliptical adverb clause with "I" as the subject, and means, "Michelle likes him better than I like him." On the other hand, "Michelle likes him better than me," contains an elliptical clause with "me" as the direct object, and means, "Michelle likes him better than she likes me."
     So, if you whose children are gaining a thorough mastery of the rules of grammar have ever asked yourselves, "Does my child know grammar better than me?" the answer is no, he should know you better. And by the time he graduates, he will know better than to ask the question like that.

Straightforward, huh.

And these students of whom she speaks, by the way, are Year 4 at her school.  Like I said, she's an educator.

Reason, freedom, and raising fine children

A guest post here by Brian Scurfield, who argued recently that the future of liberty depends on the idea taking root that it is possible to educate children in a coercion free environment.  He lays out his argument in this post.

What I want to argue in this post is that the way we treat our children is intertwined with the future of liberty.

Most parents want to give their children a good education and to inculcate in their children good values and respect for reason. Yet, despite these intentions, our education system has failed our children. Why is this? Is it simply a case that the problem lies with State schools and that all will be well and good if schools were privatized? While privatization would be a step in the right direction, I don't think this in itself would solve the problem. For the problem is much deeper than just a question of who should run the schools. The problem in fact lies with some deeply entrenched ideas about how children should be raised.

In their starkest form, these ideas hark back to the old idea that "to spare the rod is to spoil the child". Of course, most parents today would find this idea abhorrent, and rightly so, yet many parents are willing in one form or another to practice coercion on their children. They would argue that coercion is necessary to get their children to learn, that it is OK to coerce children because children, after all, are not miniature adults and that parents have more knowledge and experience than children.

I would like to ask these parents how you can inculcate reason if you are willing to employ coercion?

A person that employs coercion to inculcate reason demonstrates by their very actions that reason - not to mention liberty - can be overridden in the pursuit of a goal. But these things can't be overridden: Not only will you probably not achieve your goal or getting a child to learn, you will end up with a whole lot of bad and unintended consequences. Many of these you may not even become aware of.

There is a link between the inculcation of reason and freedom from coercion.

The idea that coercion should play no part at all in child-rearing apparently is an idea that many people, including libertarians, have difficulty accepting. Libertarians often pull out the property-rights argument, that it's my house and my rules. Yet this is to confuse one's legal rights with one's moral obligations. Just because you think your child shouldn't be watching that soap opera doesn't mean it is a morally right for you to simply turn off the TV. Just because you think your child should be attending Auckland Grammar doesn't mean you should force your child to go there.

You can't just raise a child any way you please. That is to deny that children are people possessed of ideas, motivations, and a will of their own. It is also to deny how knowledge is created.

Children are not buckets that you pour ideas into. Children learn best when their learning is self-directed and governed by interest. It's how you learn best isn't it? Young children are naturally inquisitive, but it is only too easy to stamp out that inquisitiveness through coercion.

Parental authoritarianism and thinking "I know best" is just as corrosive as State authoritarianism.

Furthermore, if "knowing best" gives you the right to coerce your child, then that argument will be used against you by others who claim more knowledge and more experience than you. Which, of course, it is.

It is because the creation of knowledge and the inculcation of reason are strongly intertwined with freedom from coercion that the future of liberty depends on how we treat our children. A future libertarian society is going to require lots of new knowledge, including knowledge about freedom, but that knowledge will not be won, nor that society last, if children are not allowed the freedom to control the contents of their own minds.

I believe it is possible to educate a child in an environment free from coercion. This doesn't mean that you become a doormat for your child or that what your child says goes. But how is it possible? Well, it requires lots of things. It requires acknowledgement that both you and your child are fallible, that one or both of you may be wrong, that problems can be solved through reason, that by working with your child you can find a common preference where nobody need get hurt. Yes, these things may not always be easy, but that's no excuse for not trying. The whole approach is called Taking Children Seriously.

Saturday morning ramble - #23

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Fixing your errors

Here's a list from the ever useful Economist Style Guide of unfortunately far too common solecisms you should know about, and should definitely avoid (especially if you're submitting an article to The Free Radical). [Hat tip Ceely's Modern Usage] What's a solecism? Looks like you definitely need to read the list...

SOLECISM, n., a deviation from correct idiom or grammar; any incongruity, error or absurdity; a breach of good manners, an impropriety.

Many necessary correctives here, to quote just a few:

• Canute's exercise on the seashore was designed to persuade his courtiers of what he knew to be true but they doubted, ie, that he was not omnipotent. Don't imply he was surprised to get his feet wet.
  
• Confectionary [of whatever colour]: a sweet. Confectionery: sweets in general.
  
• Crisis. This is a decisive event or turning-point. Many of the economic and political troubles wrongly described as crises are really persistent difficulties, sagas or affairs.
• Critique is a noun. If you want a verb, try criticise.
  
• Decimate means to destroy a proportion (originally a tenth) of a group of people or things, not to destroy them all or nearly all. Factoid: something that sounds like a fact, is thought by many to be a fact (perhaps because it is repeated so often), but is not in fact a fact. [e.g., "global warming has already made hundreds of thousands of climate refugees from low-lying Pacific islands."]
• Frankenstein was not a monster, but its creator.
• Gender is a word to be applied to grammar, not people. If someone is female, that is her sex, not her gender. (The gender of Mädchen, the German word for girl, is neuter, as is Weib, a wife or woman.)
  
• Hobson's choice is not the lesser of two evils; it is no choice at all.
• Homosexual: since this word comes from the Greek word homos (same), not the Latin word homo (man), it applies as much to women as to men. It is therefore as daft to write homosexuals and lesbians as to write people and women.
• Key: keys may be major or minor, but not low. Few of the decisions, people, industries described as key are truly indispensable, and fewer still open locks.
• Like governs nouns and pronouns, not verbs and clauses. So as in America not like in America. But authorities like Fowler and Gowers is a perfectly acceptable alternative to authorities such as Fowler and Gowers.
  
• Media: prefer press and television or, if the context allows it, just press. If you have to use the media, remember it is plural.
  
• Only. Put only as close as you can to the words it qualifies. Thus, These animals mate only in June. To say They only mate in June implies that in June they do nothing else.
  
• Oxymoron: an oxymoron is not an unintentional contradiction in terms but a figure of speech in which contradictory terms are deliberately combined, as in bitter-sweet, cruel kindness, sweet sorrow, etc.
  
• Per caput is the Latin for per head. Per capita is the Latin for by heads; it is a term used by lawyers when distributing an inheritance among individuals, rather than among families (per stirpes). Unless the context demands this technical expression, never use either per capita or per caput but per person.
• Propaganda (which is singular) means a systematic effort to spread doctrine or opinions. It is not a synonym for lies.
• Rebut means repel or meet in argument. Refute, which is stronger, means disprove. Neither should be used as a synonym for deny.
• Use and abuse: two words much used and abused. You take drugs, not use them (Does he use sugar?). And drug abuse is just drug taking, as is substance abuse, unless it is glue sniffing or bun throwing.
• While is best used temporally. Do not use it in place of although or whereas.

Style and Grammar

In a bid to raise the standard of the blogosphere, I wish to point out that too many bloggers are ending their sentences with prepositions. This is the sort of thing I mean: "Just had an amusing case of passing a message along electronically at the Telco conference I am at."

Awful. As Winston Churchill said about such things, "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put."

LINK: 'Preposititions at the End,' part of Guide to Grammar & Style - 'P'

TAGS: Blog

The Site of Brian

DPF has the link to the website of the newly crowned and extraordinarily humble Bishop Brian Tamaki of the Destiny Church. It's hard to know which site is funnier, the offical Brian site or the unofficial 'happy clapping for Jesus' Brian site hosted by the Density Church. Some of the comments on the DPF thread are hilarious:

"Look on the bright side - no doubt Tamaki's political start-up will corner the stupid bigot market..."

"I liked his use of grammar in this quote, 'The Christian religion must prevail over all other false religions.'"

"The man has all the potential to be the leader of the Maori Taliban."

The site itself is even funnier: "The Media: a modern day witchcraft," declares Brian. He's not really serious, is he? Sadly, he is.

So too is his political party: leader and former policeman Richard Lewis was interviewed yesterday on 'Agenda.' He didn't mention stoning sinners, but he did look like he was about to start taking names ...