‘More than’ a bit disappointing

So in the latest bastardization of the English language, AP Stylebook editors have now deemed that “over” is now an acceptable usage for “more than” when referring to numerical values.

Here’s AP’s explanation for the change:

We decided on the change because it has become common usage. We’re not dictating that people use ‘over’ – only that they may use it as well as “more than” to indicate greater numerical value.

This is now OK to the AP because “over” has apparently crept into “common usage” as a replacement for “more than.” The problem is that, as the AP well knows, “over,” like “around,” is a spacial term, not a way to estimate amounts.Amendments to the Stylebook such as this set a dangerous precedent for the English language. What if the unwitting public comes to no longer sees a distinction between “their,” “they’re” and “there.” What about “its” and “it’s?” Will AP eventually do away with these and other distinctions? Are we one day just going to let reporters use those words interchangeably just because the public can’t write their way out of a wet paper sack? Just because a word has become “common usage” in a certain context, are we just going to open the flood gates to the rabble’s terrible English? Apparently so, and so much for journalists as keepers of the language.

All you need to know about these: —,!,,(),;, and, or …

As I read a lot of news Web sites, blogs and magazines, it’s not hard to spot instances of bad grammar or punctuation, even in sources that should have a firm grasp of rudimentary punctuation rules, such as using a comma to join two independent clauses (A subject and verb on both sides of “and” or “but” consist of two sentences that could, in theory, standalone. Without a comma, such a conjoined sentence becomes a run-on sentence.)

But then again, I’m a bit of a prude when it comes to errors in printed type. Of course, saying that opens the way for someone to nitpick every sentence I’ve written sleepy and after midnight since 2008. I understand that we’re all human, but it really is distracting seeing stuff like “Jones said he lost his job, because he had a disagreement with his boss.” So, here are a few of the more common errors that I find in general writing and from sources which should know better. I should keep a running list — like this delightful site — but I’m afraid I would need a completely separate blog. If you’re curious, here are some basics.

  • Because — No comma before “because” ever. Ever. Ever. Why? Because it looks hideous and doesn’t make any sense. And because the writing gods say so.
  • And and or — Use a comma before “and” or “or” if two complete sentences appear on both sides of “and” or “or.” That means a subject and verb. Don’t use a comma if one clause is independent and the other is dependent (not a complete sentence on its own). This one is serious.
  • Their, they’re, there — “Their” is a pronoun. “They’re” is “they are.” Even more serious.
  • Its, it’s — “Its” is a pronoun. “It’s” is “it is.” Super-cereal serious.
  • Whose, who’s — “Whose” is an adjective or pronoun. “Who’s” is “who is.” Falls into the cereal category of serious.
  • Which, witch, bomb, baum, bow, beau, bough, bear, bare, hour, our, sell, sale, cent, scent, break, brake, seem, seam, etc. — Examples of English language debris.
  • ! — Use once or twice in your lifetime. That’s your limit.
  • , — Most misunderstood, misused, abused and mangled mark in the history of written language.
  • ; — Most useless mark in the history of written language and what smart people use when they want to feel smarter. Or, as Kurt Vonnegut said: “If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don’t have the nerve to be a homosexual, the least you can do is go into the arts. But do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites, standing for absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college.”
  • — Denotes a sudden break in thought inside a sentence. I have this one — this is my favorite punctuation mark — down pat! I just reached my exclamation mark limit for the next 50 years.
  • () — Denotes extra information inside a sentence that could be excluded but is included anyway because the writer, in all his language prowess (See Faulkner and Milton, the latter of whom often included entire paragraphs of parenthetical text inside a single sentence. Now that’s talent! … [Lifetime exclamation quota met.]), seeks to make his text as belabored, chunky and hard to muddle through as possible.

There’s more, of course — for the record, starting a sentence with “there” or “its” is lazy writing — but I wore myself out on that last bullet point, thus the lazy writing. For your amusement, here’s one case of many in which an ill-placed apostrophe can be weep-inducing … or funny. Take your pick.

That Fried Oreo Is Deep and It Owns Something

Credit: Apostrophe Catastrophes