OPINION | WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE! Editors admit they have to look things up

I celebrated National Grammar Day, March 4, the same way I mark many special days: I had a little milk chocolate.

The editors of The Associated Press Stylebook celebrated in a more cerebral way. They posted a question on Facebook to editors and writers around the country: "What grammar rule do you find yourself getting wrong no matter how many times you look it up?"

They received more than 800 answers detailing what The AP calls grammar kryptonite.

I have so many to write about that I'm declaring this National Grammar Month. (Also this gives me an excuse for not noting Grammar Day until more than halfway through March.)

I have written about nearly all these kryptonite items, but if professional writers and editors can't remember these rules, each certainly warrants review.

One person had to look up site, sight and cite every time.

A site is a location or a position. You vote at election sites, and you get vaccinated at vaccination sites. The place an accident happens might be called a crash site. A World Heritage Site is "a natural or cultural site that demonstrates influence or significance in a global context."

A sight is related to vision or seeing. It's something to look at.

A slew of idioms use sight.

You're a sight for sore eyes.

I can't imagine when an end will be in sight.

The burglar disappeared, sight unseen.

He set his sights on the red Jaguar.

I can see why sight can be confused with site. On a vacation, you might see the sights of a city or the city sites. I know the difference in my brain, but explaining it is difficult. Grammarist defines a sight as a place or thing worth seeing.

Another website has this advice for distinguishing site and sight: "To remember 'site' all you need to do is think about a 'website.' A website is a location that you go and visit on the internet. ...

"You can remember the meaning of 'sight' by thinking of the word 'light.' You need light in order to have sight."

That's not perfect, but it's better than anything I could think of. If you have an idea on how to distinguish the two more easily, let me know.

Cite is less difficult to explain. To cite something is to mention or refer to a name or movie or quote. In law cases, you cite precedents. In literature papers, you cite Shakespeare, Dickens or Hardy to try to prove a point. And, just for fun, you might cite your favorite John Prine line: "For I knew that topless lady had something up her sleeve."

Also, cite is nearly always a verb. American Heritage Dictionary says that cite as a noun is an informal word for a citation or quotation. But that's turning a verb into a noun, and I don't like to do that. It's as bad as saying, "I have a big ask" instead of saying, "I have to ask you something."

LAY VERSUS LIE

One person rewrote sentences to avoid figuring out whether to use lay or lie.

Lay shows action, the act of placing something somewhere.

I will lay the Key lime pie in the kitchen so I'm not tempted to eat any more.

Lie just means to recline.

After practicing "La donna è mobile" for hours, he had to lie down.

Most people use lie correctly, but lay is often misused.

You may lay the groundwork for something. You may lay a trap. You may lay bare a terrible crime.

But you would not say: "She lays on the beach until the tide comes in."

Now, just to throw a wrench into the works, I have to add that the past tense of lie is lay.

Right: He lay in wait for his favorite clown to appear. (He had a peculiar circus obsession.)

We have to forgive Eric Clapton for his song "Lay Down Sally."

He uses the wrong word in the title. He wants her to lie down, presumably with romantic intention. But he tells her to "lay down." Why do we forgive him? Because he is Eric Clapton.

WHO VERSUS WHOM

Many, many people don't know when to use whom. I often doubt myself about whether I should change a who to a whom. I have three editor friends who regularly back me up on whether who or whom is correct in a particular sentence.

I have had writers ask me to leave who in a sentence even though they acknowledge that whom is correct. They don't want to sound stuffy. I understand their feelings. I am unabashedly inclined to rewrite a sentence to avoid the use of whom.

Still, I will try to explain the usage.

When you're trying to decide whether to start a question with who or whom, ask yourself whether the answer would be he or him.

If you can answer the question with him, then use whom. I remember it because both him and whom end in m. (The answer could be she or her for women, but with no helpful m).

So, let's say you're trying to ask, "Who (or whom) do you love?"

The answer would be, "I love him." So that question needs whom.

But suppose you're trying to ask, "Who (or whom) is the boss?" The answer would be "She is the boss," so it's who.

Those were the top three grammar kryptonite items cited (ha!) in AP's posting. I'll write about many other frequent mistakes next week.

Sources include Associated Press Stylebook, National Park Service, American Heritage Dictionary, Grammarist, Stony Brook University. Reach Bernadette at

bkwordmonger@gmail.com

Upcoming Events