Editor Gone Wild: Defining “Good Enough”

frustrated editorIn the field of technical communication, “good enough” documentation is becoming the norm. For me as an INFJ writer, this is a difficult concept to master. I want documentation to be as good as it can be. As an NF, I’m passionate about effective communication. As a judging type, I want to see style rules applied consistently. So when you tell me that my task as an editor is to make the document “good enough,” I go into stress mode. For an INFJ, this means the inferior sensing function surfaces. I may avoid the task by indulging in an activity that engages the senses, like getting a snack or playing Scramble on my iPod. If I try to edit, I may become obsessed with mundane details. Every sentence sounds wrong.

It used to be that working as an editor meant proofreading and ensuring consistency. It meant helping writers to better organize the material and to identify sentences that could be better written. Those things seem like a luxury now. Two technological developments have changed the role of the editor, perhaps forever:

Continue reading “Editor Gone Wild: Defining “Good Enough””

Can the U.S. Possess?

I received a question from a reader this week about how to express the possessive of U.S. Several possibilities exist, including the following:

  • U.S.’s
  • US’s
  • US’

My instinct was to choose U.S.’s, but I consulted my usual sources to be sure. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any guidance on how to form the possessive of an abbreviation that ends with an s followed by a period. (While both U.S. and US are acceptable abbreviations, U.S. is more common in the United States and US in the rest of the world.)

What I did find, though, is that when a proper noun is used as an adjective, it’s not a possessive, and therefore doesn’t require an apostrophe. So, for example, it would be proper to write U.S. interests rather than U.S.’s interests. My recommendation is to follow this usage and avoid the problem of the possessive altogether. For instance, instead of writing the U.S.’s first president, you could use the first U.S. president. It looks much cleaner.

If United States is spelled out, the possessive is formed with an apostrophe but no s (for example, The United States’ first president was George Washington.) Since United States is plural in formation, it’s treated as a plural noun, even though it’s singular in usage.

I submitted a question to the Chicago Style Q&A to see what they recommend for the possessive of U.S. If they answer it, I’ll update this post with their reply.

Breaking the Rules: Question Marks in Dialogue and Informal Communication

When it comes to writing, rules can be a wonderful thing. They help ensure consistency, and they relieve writers from having to make endless decisions about mundane questions like which punctuation mark to use. Sometimes, though, usage rules can get in the way of clear communication. In creative writing or informal communication like email, writers have the freedom to reject those rules if they don’t find them useful.

The rules say to use a question mark in the following situations:

  • At the end of a direct question: Whose meatball is that?
  • To express doubt or uncertainty: Leona was born in 1960[?], which would mean her current age is 49.
  • To express confusion or disbelief: You call that a sandwich?

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, a “courtesy question” does not require a question mark. For example, “Will you please remove your shoes before entering the sanctuary” is a statement, not a question.

In Modern American Usage, Bryan Garner puts it this way: “A question mark follows every question that expects an answer.”

Sometimes, though, I expect an answer even if I don’t phrase the sentence as a question. Consider the following: “I wonder if I have time to stop at the post office before lunch?” This is the reverse of a courtesy question: it’s a question phrased as a statement. What I mean is, “I want to stop at the post office before lunch. Do you mind?” But this phrasing makes it awkward for someone to say, “I’ve got a 1:00 meeting.  I was hoping everyone could be at the restaurant by noon.” So I cloak my desire in an absent sort of wondering to make it easier for someone to tell me no. Continue reading “Breaking the Rules: Question Marks in Dialogue and Informal Communication”

Forceable vs. Forcible

library shelfMicrosoft Word 2003 tried to tell me today that forceable in the phrase forceable input should read forcible. But I’ve never been one to take Word’s word for anything. I checked a few online dictionaries and received little guidance. Most didn’t list forceable. Those that did, however, didn’t indicate that it was a variant of forcible.  Only that it was the adjective form of force. So what’s the relationship between these two words? Is forcible the preferred spelling?

Thank goodness for Bryan Garner. In Modern American Usage, he explains that forceable is not, in fact, a needless variant. Forcible means “effected by physical force against resistance,” as in forcible entry. By contrast, forceable simply means “able to be forced.” So in technical writing, an input that can be forced to change state is forceable.

Fowler’s Modern English Usage highlights other words where the meaning changes depending on whether the -able or -ible suffix is used. For instance, a disease is contractable, but elastic is contractible. Tea is infusable (infuse+able), while rubies are infusible (in+fusible). Many dictionaries seem to be losing these subtle distinctions, choosing one spelling or the other for both meanings. Let’s hope that Microsoft Word doesn’t become the ultimate arbiter.

Eminent Judge Sotomayor Is Not in Imminent Danger

During her Senate hearing this week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor seemed to make no major gaffe that would threaten her confirmation as the next justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, one of the few errors ascribed to her was her use of the word eminent rather than imminent. When asked about the right of self-defense, she replied that the law permits self-defense in situations presenting an eminent danger.

While listening to the exchange, I felt a brief twinge of confusion, but I didn’t consciously notice the error. My brain adjusted, replacing the offending word with the correct, similar-sounding one. The human mind is remarkably agile that way.

While this is true of word usage, it’s less true when it comes to grammar—such as when an adjective is used instead of an adverb. Think of usage as a curtain and grammar as the rod: A curtain remains functional even if it doesn’t quite match the decor. But when the rod’s integrity is compromised, it will tumble down, taking the most beautiful curtains with it.

When someone of Judge Sotomayor’s education and intellect misspeaks, it reminds us that we’re all fallible. Little errors like this are nothing to fret about. They don’t generally impede communication. In writing, however, such errors are more obvious and less excusable. One advantage of writing over speaking is the opportunity to edit. Make the most of it.

Don’t Worry, Be Happy: Anxious vs. Eager

I  hate to pick on CNN, but it happened again. I heard another grammatical error from a broadcaster who should know better: Wolf Blitzer used the word anxious today when he meant eager. In standard usage, to be anxious is to be filled with anxiety. A person who is looking forward to an event with pleasure, rather than gnawing uncertainty, is eager.

Does it matter? In casual conversation, probably not. Most people don’t know the difference, which suggests that the distinction will be lost before long. But eager is the more precise word. It doesn’t lend overtones of worry or distress. So if you’re trying to convey unwavering happiness, use eager.

In some circumstances, though, the ambiguity of anxious can work in your favor. It can add an undercurrent of tension to an otherwise benign or celebratory mood. In an essay, it can be ironic. In dialogue, it can betray a character’s nervousness about what ought to be a happy event: “I’m anxious to pick out my wedding dress!”

In most discourse, however, eager is the better choice. To grammarphiles like me, anxious sounds wrong; to sticklers, it is wrong, and they may  fault you for it. If you break the rules, at least do it knowingly so you won’t be caught off guard.

It’s Not Alright with Me…But Maybe It Should Be

You can understand why the average English speaker might not know that “all right” is supposed to be two words.  After all, the spelling “alright” is ubiquitous. It follows the same pattern as “already” and “altogether.” But usage experts still claim that it’s substandard.

I use “all right” exclusively, because I know what the experts say. Yet I question their wisdom. There’s more going on here than just spelling. “Alright” is an idiomatic expression. It doesn’t mean that all is right. Consider the following sentences:

This Wikipedia article is all wrong.

This Wikipedia article is all right.

This Wikipedia article is alright.

The first and second sentences seem to function as opposites of one another, while the third lies in between. If you wanted to rigorously follow usage rules, yet still avoid any chance of misunderstanding, you’d have to rewrite the last two sentences:

This Wikipedia article is correct.

This Wikipedia article is OK.

What’s the point of even having a word if you can’t use it?

The acceptance of a different spelling to accompany the different meaning strikes me as logical and useful, and the prohibition against it as pedantic and ultimately indefensible. The old spelling has nothing but history in its favor. Furthermore, the original spelling hasn’t got that much of a historical advantage. According to Fowler’s Modern English Usage, the idiom is first recorded in 1837, and the variant spelling in 1893. That’s a mere 56 years to evolve from two words to one—a long time by today’s standards, but back then, they mailed letters and read newspapers. Written language flowed at a slower pace.

So if you’re counting votes, put me down for “alright.” Even if I’m too much of a coward to use it.