# Gross abuses of the English language **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 13, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991 "2003-05-13T17:11:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/181 "2003-05-23T14:26:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > In other words, you wouldn’t say, “I went to the movie and, Brian came with me.” True, but you would say “I went to the movie and, as he had nohing better to do, Brian came with me”. ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/182 "2003-05-23T14:36:47Z")
Preview is your friend. :smack: read “nothing”! ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/183 "2003-05-23T15:33:02Z")
I can always count on **DanielWithrow** to point out little errors. But beware, friends! He’s a grammar rebel, and that might imply he flouts rules and standards on occasion. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/184 "2003-05-23T16:26:05Z")
I meant to post this one days ago and just remembered it. It’s bad enough in regular speech, but I see journalists use it sometimes too: untracked. “We have to get this thing untracked, people!” It’s ON TRACK. ON. TRACK. You can track something, but that has zip to do with the context. In fact, while you can track something, you can’t un-track it anyway. Why can’t people hear? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/185 "2003-05-23T16:51:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*I can always count on **DanielWithrow** to point out little errors. But beware, friends! He’s a grammar rebel, and that might imply he flouts rules and standards on occasion. \*\* Heh. To be fair, my guess is that you were actually responding to the point **litost** was trying to make, that he simply reversed word order. The rule he described – **“We were told that a comma does not go after ‘and’”** – is so self-evident that I’m thinking he meant to say what you actually responded to. **Floater** said: > [@](#): > > True, but you would say “I went to the movie and, as he had nohing better to do, Brian came with me”. yes, which is why I’d said: > [@](#): > > Some other rule may necessitate the comma, however, as pulykamell described. Just as there’s no rule that the word “marzipan” should be followed by the word “explosion,” there’s no rule that the word “and” should be followed by a comma. That doesn’t mean that there’s a mistake in the sentence, “Velma went to the party even though she hadn’t been invited and, to make matters worse, wore a dress that made her look like a hideous marzipan explosion.” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/186 "2003-05-23T16:52:40Z")
Jever notice that those who use the word “pedantic” usually are? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/187 "2003-05-23T16:54:14Z")
Yes, jdid. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/188 "2003-05-23T17:05:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pulykamell \* > **litost** - I thought “fishes” was always right. “Fish” is the collectivel, and “fishes” is the plural. Sort of like the distinction between “money” and “moneys.” I’ve searched, and I couldn’t find any usage manual or dictionary which claims “fishes” is incorrect. In fact, my Oxford American dictionary states to “use the plural form fishes especially when you mean two or more species or kinds.” What about referring to a collection of fish in general? Would you say" “hey, look 'ere fellaws, I got ‘ere a bunch o’ fish” OR "“hey, look 'ere fellaws, I got ‘ere a bunch o’ fishes” > [@](#): > > As for the first part of you response, well, this is how language evolves. From Chauncer to now is fine by me. But, I am talking evolution over ten years, Makes me feel terribly old. > [@](#): > > “Avoid writing in the first person.” This is pretty outmoded. For certain types of writing, authors do refer to themselves in the third person, as in “it is in this author’s opinion.” I agree but cannot bring myself to change. First person sounds too informal for my tastes. It feels like I am writing a letter to a friend as opposed to a technical document. Classic examples are: “It was clear to me” vs. “One could see that…” “I did not find it useful” vs “That paper was not of much use” > [@](#): > > Following the same tense IS generally a good idea. But there will be times when you need to pull out the past perfect, the present or the future. If you’re writing about a book, referencing the story line in the past tense, and then want to compare it to a present real-world situation, you would use the present, of course. In a literary work, all rules are off. I am talking about “technical” writing, particularly for academic distribution, and other forms of serious writing, such as the print media. > [@](#): > > Commas generally don’t go after “and,” except in certain circumstances. How about this one: “Bob is a nice guy and, judging by the looks of things, exceptionally tidy.” Bob is a nice guy, and, judging by the looks of things… The multiple commas isolate the conjunction. This is how I was taught! One example where I have found the “comma after and” rule perfectly OK is this: “The corporations that sponsored this senseless program are Kraft, Nabisco, and, Deloitte and Touche.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/189 "2003-05-23T17:15:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*The multiple commas isolate the conjunction. This is how I was taught! One example where I have found the “comma after and” rule perfectly OK is this: > “The corporations that sponsored this senseless program are Kraft, Nabisco, and, Deloitte and Touche.” \*\* 😕 That’s definitely incorrect, as near as I know. I do see what you’re saying, though: without the last comma, is it “Nabisco & Deloitte, and Touche” or “Nabisco, and Deloitte and Touche”? However, the solution to that is the Harvard Comma (I’ve also heard it called the Cambridge Comma, I think): put a comma directly before the “and,” and the sentence’s meaning is clear. An example that I like: “Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter and jelly and tuna.” Put the comma in there, and the sentence is clearer: either “Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter, and jelly and tuna.” or (more likely, but less interestingly): “Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter and jelly, and tuna.” Apply the same principle to your example sentence. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/190 "2003-05-23T17:24:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*Bob is a nice guy, and, judging by the looks of things… > > The multiple commas isolate the conjunction. This is how I was taught!\*\* I want to touch on this: the reasoning here is incorrect. There’s such a thing as a nonrestrictive phrase. This is a set of words in a sentence that don’t fundamentally change the meaning of the sentence. You set nonrestrictive phrases off with commas. **The students, who were revolting, were carried away in nets.** Note that in this sentence, all “the students” were carried away; it means substantially the same thing as **The students were carried away in nets.** On the other hand, if the sentence were: **The students who were revolting were carried away in nets.** You get the sense that only the revolting students were carried away: the ones who weren’t revolting were left alone (or carried away in Tupperware containers or something). The commas in the first sentence are used to set off a restrictive phrase; they make it clear that “who were revolting” doesn’t change the sentence’s meaning, but rather offers additional information. Now let’s get back to our example sentence: **Bob is a nice guy and, judging by the looks of things, exceptionally tidy.** This means substantially the same thing as **Bob is a nice guy and exceptionally tidy.** The commas in the first sentence set off the nonrestrictive phrase, “judging by the looks of things.” With me? There no reason in the first sentence to put a comma BEFORE “and.” None at all. A comma there is incorrectly placed, according to the rules of standard English. HOWEVER, we can rewrite the sentence such that a comma is allowed there: **Bob is a nice guy, and, judging by the looks of things, he is exceptionally tidy.** The comma is now appropriate because it’s joining two independent clauses (an independent clause is basically just a sentence): **Bob is a nice guy** and **Judging by the looks of things, he is exceptionally tidy.** Does that make sense? Commas may surround a conjunction, but they are never there for the purpose of isolating the conjunction from the rest of the sentence. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/191 "2003-05-23T17:56:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > 😕 That’s definitely incorrect, as near as I know. I do see what you’re saying, though: without the last comma, is it “Nabisco & Deloitte, and Touche” or “Nabisco, and Deloitte and Touche”? The idea is to explain that Deloitte and Touche is one corporation, not two. In your examples below, you explicitly mention the number five. Without that, how would the audience know if Joe made 5 or 6 sandwiches? Your last example is the only one that clearly tells me Joe made five sandwiches. But, I was more interested in the case when one would want to write peanut butter and jelly last in the sequence? * * * “Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter and jelly and tuna.” “Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter, and jelly and tuna.” or (more likely, but less interestingly): ## “Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter and jelly, and tuna.” ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/192 "2003-05-23T18:24:04Z")
“Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter and jelly, and tuna.” ^ correct Each comma signifies the conclusion of one “thing” - which is why it’s important to have it before the “and.” Otherwise, the reader might assume there were only four sandwiches, with the last one being a peanut butter-jelly-tuna mess. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/193 "2003-05-23T18:49:33Z")
\>efil tegrof ot seirT .seye sesolc\< dlrow otnadep no llits ,puY \>seye snepo\< ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/194 "2003-05-23T18:53:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*“Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, peanut butter and jelly, and tuna.” > > ^ correct > > Each comma signifies the conclusion of one “thing” - which is why it’s important to have it before the “and.” Otherwise, the reader might assume there were only four sandwiches, with the last one being a peanut butter-jelly-tuna mess. \*\* Let me ask again. What if I wanted to mention peanut butter and jelly last in the sequence? ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/195 "2003-05-23T19:09:27Z")
“Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, tuna, and peanut butter and jelly.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/196 "2003-05-23T19:23:15Z")
**Litost** , there’s a rule you may be forgetting: - In a list of three or more items, join only the last two items with “and.” The following sentence is incorrect: **Joe fixed some sandwiches for lunch: cheese and salami and ham and tuna and peanut butter and jelly.** The following sentence is correct: **Joe fixed some sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, tuna, and peanut butter and jelly.** Note that “peanut butter and jelly” is almost like a nested list inside of the bigger list: it’s a single sandwich time consisting of two ingredients, and the two ingredients are joined by the word “and.” That’s fine: as long as “and” isn’t there as part of the overall list, as long as there’s a different reason for its presence, it doesn’t throw the grammar out of whack. Just in case you want it to be more confusing, what if the last sandwich Joe fixes is “peanut butter, banana, and honey”? In that case, there’s a new rule: - When a list of three or more items contains at least one item with a comma, separate the items in the list with semicolons instead of commas. **Joe fixed some sandwiches for lunch: cheese; salami; ham; tuna; and peanut butter, banana, and honey.** Clear? Daniel tihw eno yrtnadep sih rof gnizigolopa ton ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/197 "2003-05-23T20:07:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*“Joe fixed five sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, tuna, and peanut butter and jelly.” \*\* OK. That _implies_ that peanut butter and jelly are a single unit (as **DanielWithrow** also mentioned) but is this wrong: “Joe fixed some sandwiches for lunch: cheese, salami, ham, tuna and, peanut butter and jelly.” You remove the comma before the “and” place it after. Now that I recall, the comma before the “and” is what I was taught to avoid (again as DW pointed out) Actually, I got side-tracked with the above example. The example I really wanted to use as an illustration consists of only two items in the list. Joe fixed a couple of sandwiches for lunch: cheese and peanut butter and jelly. Where do I place the commas? As per previous logic, it should be: “…cheese, and peanut butter and jelly.” and not: “…cheese and, peanut butter and jelly” though I find the latter clearer. ---
**Author:** ![overlyverbose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9dc877/32.png) [@overlyverbose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/overlyverbose)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/198 "2003-05-23T20:15:41Z")
'Scuse me - I’m gonna go ahead and fix to fry me up some 'taters. Irregardless of whether or not I have salt, I will utilize pepper. Or, “Will you check the matrix and make sure that it reads correctly?” “Uh you mean the spreadsheet?” I hate when people misuse the word matrix, even more than when they go ahead and go or fix to fry things. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/199 "2003-05-23T20:30:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*Actually, I got side-tracked with the above example. The example I really wanted to use as an illustration consists of only two items in the list. > > Joe fixed a couple of sandwiches for lunch: cheese and peanut butter and jelly. > > Where do I place the commas? > > As per previous logic, it should be: > “…cheese, and peanut butter and jelly.” > > and not: > “…cheese and, peanut butter and jelly” > though I find the latter clearer. \*\* Oooh, good question! I’ll preface this by saying that in my writing tutor days, I used to spend my downtime (as I waited for students to show up) reading the guidelines on the use of commas in different grammar guides. I still think that commas are the hardest aspect of written English for native English users to get right. That said, I’m afraid I’m going to have to refer you to [a weaselly little comma rule](http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm) which will appear at the end of most lists of reasons to use a comma: **Use a comma to avoid confusion.** In your sample sentence, you rightly point out that a comma is necessary to show whether the peanut butter is on the cheese sandwich or the jelly sandwich. In this case, the comma should appear just after “cheese”: **Joe fixed a couple of sandwiches for lunch: cheese, and peanut butter and jelly.** The reason for this, again, is that a comma does not follow a conjunction unless some other rule is calling for it. In this case, you’re not using any other rule to call for the comma just after “and”: **peanut butter and jelly** isn’t a nonrestrictive clause, it’s not an appositive, it’s not an independent clause, and so forth. Lemme refer you again to [this page on comma use](http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm). Generally this is a fantastic, clearly-written Web site dealing with various grammatical issues; I highly recommend it. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991/200 "2003-05-23T20:47:38Z")
I heard a story about Katharine Hepburn speaking with a feature writer. In the course of the interview she mentioned that she liked cats. She also enjoyed both shooting and embroidery. The story as written said she “liked shooting cats and embroidery.” The lack of a needed comma caused her to be bombarded with hate mail from cat-lovers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gross-abuses-of-the-english-language/174991.md?page=11)