The Grumpy Grammarian

Some abuses of the language are apparently intractable.  No matter how much we grammarians rant about these abuses, they proliferate.

For example, nothing we do or say apparently has any impact whatever on people who misuse the apostrophe, either by omitting it where it does belong or inserting it where it doesn't.  Crusaders for proper use of the apostrophe have a website devoted exclusively to that goal (The Apostrophe Protection Society website), but it is probably frequented only by those who are upset by this abuse, not by those who engage in it.  The latter don't give a damn.

As another example (though this is more a matter of style than grammar), it is apparently impossible to wean writers – professionals included – of using the abominable phrase "when it comes to."  To get an idea of how ubiquitous this phrase is, enter "when it comes to" (in quotes) in a Google search.  You'll get more than 80 million hits.  Scanning those entries reveals that virtually every "when it comes to" is either wordy or utterly redundant.  Example:  "When it comes to the economy, the outlook is bleak."  Why not "The economic outlook is bleak"?  This roundabout phrasing appears even in headlines, which are supposed to be terse. 

Now that he has been elected, I plan to send Barack Obama a message asking him to cool it with the use of "when it comes to."  Despite his excellence as an orator (and I'll bet that, more than most politicians, he writes a good portion of his speeches), Obama frequently says, "When it comes to," as in, "When it comes to our economic policies, John McCain has stood with President Bush every step of the way."  Why not "John McCain has stood with President Bush every step of the way on economic policy"?  I'm looking forward to having a literate and articulate president for a change, so I'm hoping that he will wean himself of this bad habit.

Sorry, I digressed.  When it comes to "when it comes to," I tend to get carried away.  Let's look at some more of the grammatical blunders that seem to have become entrenched.

Will people ever learn to get the case of personal pronouns straight?  They seem unable to do this, particularly when a compound is involved.  Thus, we hear, "Mary and me had an argument," spoken by people who would never say, "Me had an argument with Mary."  Conversely, people blurt out, "The kids are visiting my wife and I this weekend," though they would never say, "The kids are visiting I this weekend."  Added to this is the misuse of the reflexive pronoun – "Send the check to Miss Smith or myself" – uttered by people who would never say, "Send the check to myself."  These are not just grammatical gaffes; they also defy logic.  There's no logical reason why the presence of another person in the sentence would alter the case of the pronoun.

Another goof that appears and is heard incessantly is the misplaced only, almost, or nearly.  People say, "It only costs $5."  Well, did it "only cost" or did it "cost only $5"?  Chances are that they mean the latter.  OK, this is nitpicking.  What about "He only earns $5 an hour"?  If you say, "He earns only $5 an hour," I understand that $5 is what he is paid.  However, if you say, "He only earns $5 an hour," I could deduce that he might be paid more than that, but he's a lazy bum, so he only earns $5.  Only part of his pay is earned; the rest is unearned.

It also seems impossible to get many people to recognize that certain similar words are not interchangeable.  I may, for example, make a remark about how tight someone is with money, whereupon the individual will ask, "Are you inferring that I'm cheap?"  The proper reply to that would be that I inferred nothing – I may have implied that the individual is cheap, but he or she does the inferring.  To imply is to send a hint; to infer is to receive it.

Another common confusion has to do with stating lack of interest in something.  People tell me, for example, that they are completely "disinterested" in English grammar.  While it may be true that they are disinterested (i.e., impartial), what they usually mean is uninterested (i.e., not interested).   During a trial, a judge is supposed to remain disinterested (taking neither side), but the judge must not remain uninterested – e.g., doing crossword puzzles while the lawyers present their cases.

While I can excuse occasional blunders, I become very annoyed when illogical and incorrect usage becomes accepted as "proper" just because it is widespread.  The reasoning is that a mistake is no longer a mistake if enough people make it.  Such is the case with "waited on," which almost everyone now seems to use as synonymous with "wait in" (as in, "I was waiting on line at the bank for an hour") and "wait for" (as in, "I waited on him for fifteen minutes, and he never showed up").  Neither is correct or logical.  One doesn't wait on anyone or anything unless one is a server in a restaurant or a clerk in a store.

Another that is creeping into widespread use, even in print, is "to graduate high school" or "to graduate college."  People who have made it through high school, and certainly those who have completed a college education, should know that they graduate from these institutions.  They do not graduate the institutions; the institutions graduate them.  Anything else is not logical.

Does any of this matter?  I believe it does.  The English language has dozens of idioms that defy logic (see Richard Lederer's books and articles, notably Crazy English, for numerous examples of how wacky the language can be).  However, despite its many peculiarities, English is, like any language, a logical construct.  When we discard so many rules and accepted uses of words that almost anything becomes "acceptable," we undermine the logic of language itself.  Without this logic, we would all be speaking gibberish.

To those who stand on the ramparts, defending against the onslaught of incorrect grammar and faulty usage, I say, "Keep fighting.  It may be a losing battle, but at least you can have the satisfaction of going down swinging, with your principles intact." 

[If some common blunder or abuse has the fingernails-on-the-blackboard effect on any of our readers, we invite them to submit it on our Grammar Discussion Board.  If we have enough, we may do a follow-up in a future column.]