In the New York Times book review by Edmund Morris of Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves, Morris gives the following quote from the book: “If punctuation provides the traffic signals, words bang into each other and everyone ends up in Minehead,” (emphasis added by me). A few lines later, he writes, “Truss admits, ‘I am not a grammarian,’ and offers plenty of proof – as in ‘each other’ above.”
I’m at a complete loss. What is the grammatical mistake that Morris is pointing out here?
I’m not sure. “Each other” doesn’t sound outrageously incorrect to me. Perhaps the reviewer would prefer “one another”?
More to the point perhaps is that the quoted sentence itself doesn’t make much sense. Shouldn’t the first conditional clause be in the **negative ** i.e.
“If punctuation **does not provide ** the traffic signals, words bang into each other and everyone end up in Minehead”.
I believe “each other” denotes some kind of reciprocity; such as, "We did favors for each other. :dubious: "
Some grammarians prescribe the ‘each other’ is for two items (or, when in a group, each item interacts with only one other item at a time). And so, you would have:
The two shook each other’s hands.
The members of the group took time to shake each other’s hands.
However, when more than two are interacting with one another, then you use ‘one another.’ As in:
The three greeted one another with pleasantries.
The members of the group stood in a circle and held one another’s hands.
Mind you, that’s a prescriptionist talking. In common parlance, the distinction is almost gone from the language. Thus, a gammarian descriptionist will point out the many, many cites available of the breaking of the rule in formal language by educated speakers, thus proving that the distinction is now moot.
You’ll still see a few prescriptionist style books enforcing the distinction, though.
Peace.
each other
A few arbiters of usage continue to insist on each other for two things and one another for more than two things. There is no harm in observing such an a distinction, but also little to be gained from it, and, as Fowler long ago noted, the practice has no basis in historical usgae.
From Bryson’s Troublesome Words
One another would be correct in the example above. To use each other would indicate that you are speaking of two specific entities. While I couldn’t say that the difference makes much sense to me, one another certainly sounds more correct to my ears.
I have no idea, but can I just say that *Eats, Shoots and Leaves * is an amazing book? It is about punctuation, so you wouldn’t think so, but it is really funny. Anyone who has ever been annoyed with "the Smith’s invite you . . " needs to get a copy of this book NOW.
moriah beat me to the explaination. I was fully prepared to quote my Bedford Handbook, but oh well.
Woe Is I by Patricia O’Conner is another suprisingly hilarious book about punctuation and grammar.
Thanks moriah et al. That clears it up for me.
Would that make ‘bang into each other’ correct, then, assuming they crash in pairs?
This reminds me of the punctuation gag on The Simpsons. Lionel Hutz (attorney) told Bart and Lisa that he would require a retainer fee to take their case. Bart and Lisa objected, handing him his advertisement from the newspaper which read:
WORKS ON CONTINGENCY
NO FEE REQUIRED
Hutz said that the printer messed it up, then took a red pen to add punctionation, and handed it back to them:
WORKS ON CONTINGENCY?
NO, FEE REQUIRED!
Yes, if one held onto the prescriptions of a few grammarians.
However, the distiction is generally regarded as being moot.
Peace.
Yes, but it clears up the original question - apparently even if you ARE being picky, there’s nothing wrong with the sentance.