And most people who are literate (in the sense of being able to read and write) know that a singular subject takes a singular verb, and a plural subject takes a plural verb, even though they might not be able to put it that way: few people would write “Joe are” or “Joe and I is.”

And yet.

Here are some examples that I’ve collected over the past year and a half:

“What I am opposed to is the innuendo and name-calling that
has become the hallmark of this controversy.”
From the Chatham Chatlist for January 28, 2012

“If (x,y) is the coordinates of a point within the unit square,…”
From the Wikipedia definition of “Hilbert curve.”

“Most importantly however it is the hyperbole and fear around containing these volatile records, of the cyber burglary, that increasingly yields assumptive logics that ultimately shape how we use networks and think about the right to information.”
From the website http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2012/02/the-transparency-grenade.php

“Her embellished belt, sparkly hair clip, and giant skirt was just a tad too much.”
Yahoo review of Louise Roe’s 2012 Oscar gown.

“In a culture where being social and outgoing are prized above all else, it can be difficult, even shameful, to be an introvert.”
From boingboing.net’s coverage of Susan Cain’s TED2012 talk.

“In the case of the subjects this pair of videos cover,…”
From boingboing.net’s coverage of Dan Bull’s “Bye Bye BPI.”

“…and this period shows little sign of slowing as economic growth and improved health care extends the life spans….”
Time magazine, March 12, 2012, article titled “Nature is Over.”

“Pampers Cruisers helps them do it.”
From a Pampers TV spot

Evil and Suffering Isn’t Evidence Against God
Timothy Keller: “The Reason for God,” Heading, page 22

Vouchers haven’t provided better results but it HAS exacerbated the problem.
From an addictiveinfo.org article entitled “20 Obvious Lies that Will Shock Conservatives if They Ever Bothered to Read a Book or Two”

The service was also free of charge in an age when U.K. phone calls, and therefore Internet access, was metered by the minute.
From boingboing.net’s coverage of the death of Ceefax Teletext in the UK

As rational as we are, and as committed to intellect as we are, innovation, creativity, development comes not from the ideas in our mind alone.
Bryan Stevenson, 2012 TED talk

“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.”

More guns and more unfettered access to guns is not the solution to prevent tragedies.
Stephen D. Foster Jr., addictinginfo.org, July 22, 2012

Some of the finest moments in his fiction is really nonfiction….
Cory Doctorow’s review of Neal Stephenson’s Some Remarks, August 7, 2012.

Open Library, a free online library which in the last 28 days have been visited nearly 2 million times.
Smashwords blog, August 9, 2012

…a person whose meanness and cynicism is cloaked in a kind of holier-than-thou brand of sarcasm…
The Onion, September 2, 2010

The six people in double-figures was a highlight…
Joanne P. McCallie, reporting on DWB victory over Franconville, August 15, 2012

The purchases were made with multiple stolen credit cards and involved fake customer accounts and was perpetrated by someone who created at least two affiliate accounts…
Smashwords site updates, August 18, 2012

Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this.
Republican state representative Chuck Winder, defending Idaho’s Double Ultrasound Bill

Although Christie’s words and tone was so much less visceral…
Michael Hayne, addictinginfo.org, August 28, 2012

The current data are quite preliminary and for the most part does not reflect the impact…
Jack Watkins, addictinginfo.org, September 8, 2012

The sole reason for undertaking an investigation are the claims…
Our University policy on research misconduct, as well as the federal regulation on which it is based, require…
Robert Price, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, UNC, in a September 3, 2012 letter responding to claims of “failure to credit” [plagiarism] by Terrence Deacon, professor of anthropology and chair of the anthropology department, UNC Berkeley

…the comments and response was a huge inspiration.
Mark Frauenfelder, item titled “Caine’s Arcade 2: The Global Cardboard Challenge & Imagination Foundation,” September 14, 2012, boingboing.net

In the modern world, the threat of cyber attacks are all too real.
…the sheer volume of them make sure…
Nathaniel Downes, addictinginfo.org, October 16, 2012

Hope and fear is a feeling with two sides. [This makes just as much sense as “Bob and Joe is a man with two faces.”]
Pema Chodron, www.facebook.com/Pema.Chodron/posts/10151396417188220

These story’s only contains characters over the age of 18.
Author’s blurb for a book self-published on Smashwords; I won’t identify further, because I can’t even.

The system and framework itself is preternaturally sound.
From “Let’s Cut Through the Bitcoin Hype: A Hacker-Entrepreneur’s Take,” by Dan Kaminsky, Wired, May 3, 2013

Here followeth a brief tutorial:

A THEORY is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

A HYPOTHESIS is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation; something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

In other words, to say that something is a scientific theory means that it is considered by scientists to be the best possible, tried, and tested explanation of that something. When people say that evolution, or global warming, or whatever, is “only a theory,” they seem to think they are saying that it is only a hypothesis, one of several competing hypotheses. This is not the case.

I’m not suggesting that people have to agree with any particular theory, but it might be helpful for them to know what the word actually means so that they can say what they actually mean to say.

In recent weeks, popular protests against ACTA have grown, and many nations are pulling back from ACTA.

IFPI doesn’t like this. In fact, it says that popular demonstrations calling for substantive treaty negotiations to take place in the open “silence the democratic process.”

In this statement, IFPI is using the term “democratic process” in a highly technical, specialized manner, citing a little-understood definition: “a process undertaken by corporate lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats without public oversight or transparency.”

Another specialized vocab use that’s interesting is the word “silencing,” which, again, is used in the rare technical sense of “marching in the streets in thousands-strong throngs asking lawmakers to oversee and publicly debate international agreements.”

As is this:

…on the basis of the ancient legal principle of fuck you I said so and I can afford more lawyers than you so shut up.

Here’s one from the Maddow Blog (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/) of May 7, 2013:

…but if policymakers in Washington expanded current laws in any way, Texas would ignore those changes — based on the “because I say so” theory of modern jurisprudence.

I’m a follower of Seth Roberts’ blog, which I recommend, and I’ve been doing some thinking about an issue recently addressed in it.

First, a disclaimer: I am not an expert on any of this, and I haven’t researched any of it. These are just some of my own thoughts, which may not even be original. Please view them as nothing more than my own gropings toward understanding.

It seems to me that there are two kinds of medical “problems”: the first is the kind for which we go to the doctor because it’s negatively affecting our quality of life: restless legs, migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome; and we go hoping for a treatment that will get rid of, or at least ameliorate, our symptoms, so as to improve our quality of life.

In these cases, it’s up to us to evaluate the recommended treatment and we are able to do so: first, based on cost, reported effectiveness, and possible side effects, are we willing to try it? second, if we do try it, how effective is it for us? and third, is it effective enough to outweigh any unpleasant side effects we may experience? In other words, we conduct self-experimentation to find the most effective treatment.

The second kind of “problem” is not one for which we seek medical help. Nobody goes to the doctor complaining of high cholesterol, for example. The “problem” of high cholesterol is, rather, brought to our attention by the doctor.

The doctor’s solution to this problem is (usually) a medication that will lower our high cholesterol.

Cholesterol may or may not be a contributing factor to death from heart disease; that’s a different discussion, one I’m not qualified to conduct or take part in. But nobody has ever suffered from poor quality of life, much less died, because of high cholesterol all by itself. Nobody even notices whether they have high cholesterol.

It follows that, for the patient, the lowering of the cholesterol number is not a good to be desired of itself, on a par with getting rid of restless legs or migraine pain or the unpleasant symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome.

The reason for lowering cholesterol is not just to have lower cholesterol; it’s to prevent heart disease and thus prolong life.

We can’t evaluate how effective lowered cholesterol is for us in preventing heart disease or in prolonging our life; therefore, we also can’t decide whether any side effects are worth it. We have to trust the doctor or do our own research (or both: trust, but verify).

Therefore, when the doctor prescribes a medication designed to lower our cholesterol, it seems to me that the question we should be asking is not, “What evidence do you have that  this treatment will lower my cholesterol?” but “What evidence do you have that this treatment will prolong my life?”

And I think our second question should be, “Were any of the studies you cite conducted on people my age?” And, in my own case, “Were any of them conducted on women?”

chaise longue – noun:  a chair, with or without arms, for reclining, having a seat lengthened to form a complete leg rest and sometimes an adjustable back.

Got that? Please note the spelling: the second word is LONGUE. The second word is not LOUNGE. I know, I know—the word LONGUE looks like LOUNGE. It even has the same letters, although in a different order, but it’s not the same word, it really isn’t.

CHAISE is a French word meaning “chair.” And the French word LONGUE does not mean “lounge,” it means “long.” So “chaise longue” is French for “long chair,” NOT “lounge chair.” Even though it’s a chair used for lounging.

You have two choices: you can call the “chair, with or without arms, for reclining, etc.,” either a chaise longue (note spelling) or a lounge chair. You may NOT call it a chaise lounge, which is neither good French nor good English and does not mean anything.

If you decide to call it a chaise longue, you should pronounce it “shez long,” rather than “shays long,” although I would always accept the latter in preference to “shays lounge.”

(For an explanation of catachresis, see the post for January 28.)

There is no Q in “barbecue”!

The letter group –QUE is not pronounced cue. The letter group –QUE is pronounced like K. For a number of words illustrating this fact, see this list.

The word “barbeque,” spelled with a Q, would be pronounced bar-BECK or possibly bar-BEEK.

To spell the word “barbecue” with a Q would require spelling it “barbequeue,” which I think we all want to avoid.

The word “barbecue” is often abbreviated “BBQ,” which is probably where the confusion comes from. I have no objection to this abbreviation (although, since nobody actually calls it “bee-bee-cue,” I prefer the abbreviation “Bar-B-Q”).

I do object to the misspelling of “barbecue.” There’s no reason for it: it’s not as if using a Q instead of a C made the word shorter. It’s simply evidence of ignorance and laziness.

Please don’t do it anymore.

(For an explanation of catachresis, see the post for January 28.)

1. He coupled the caboose onto the rear of the train.

2. The dancers were coupled according to height.

And it can be used as a noun:

3. Oswald and Adelaide make a lovely couple.

In sentence 3, “couple” could be replaced by “pair”:

4. Oswald and Adelaide make a lovely pair.

“Couple” used to mean “two of something.” Now its definition has expanded, and it’s often used to mean “several.” The word “pair” has not undergone a similar expansion and is limitied to the meaning “two of something.”

Because “couple” now tends to mean “several,” the phrase “a couple of socks” does not mean exactly the same as “a pair of socks.”

Also because of this meaning change, “pair” is generally—not always—considered as a unit and followed by a singular verb:

5. A pair of shoes costs only $10. [singular verb]

6. The pair of them are equally guilty. [plural verb]

“Couple” more often—though not always—takes a plural verb:

7. A couple of houses on that street are on the market. [plural verb]

8. A couple of extra days is all I’m asking. [singular verb]

In what follows, however, I am going to use “pair” as synonymous enough with “couple” for the purposes of demonstration.

Here are some examples of adjectives: red, long, ugly, sad, rural, legal, quiet. There are literally millions more. Each can be used to modify a noun: red house, long story, sad face, rural area, legal proceeding, quiet day. Each can be used to modify a singular noun, as shown, or a plural noun: red houses, long stories, sad faces, rural areas, legal proceedings, quiet days.

“Couple” is not an adjective, which is why I labeled this post “Department of No Such Word.” There is no adjective “couple.” This means that “couple” cannot be used to modify a noun. “Pair” is likewise not an adjective and cannot be used to modify a noun. In the following sentences, “pair” and “couple” are nouns:

9.

a. In his hand were a pair of aces.

b. In his hand were a couple of aces.

10.

a. There was a pair of shoes under the bed.

b. There were a couple of shoes under the bed.

These pairs of sentences do not mean quite the same thing, but they are parallel enough to show the point we have slowly been working toward, stated above and restated here:

“Couple” cannot be used to modify a noun.

In practice, this means that you have to put “of” between “couple” and the following noun, just as you have to put “of” between “pair” and the following noun. Sentences 11, 12, 13, and 14 are equally incorrect and for the same reason:

11.

a. *In his hand were a pair aces.¹

b. *In his hand were a couple aces.

12.

a. *There was a pair shoes under the bed.

b. *There were a couple shoes under the bed.

13.   *A couple houses on that street are on the market.

14.    *A couple extra days is all I’m asking.

Please note again that all the sentences preceded by an asterisk are WRONG. They are incorrect. They are ungrammatical. Using “couple” without a following “of” is wrong, and if you do it, it will be assumed that you do not know proper grammar. The fix is easy; the choice is yours.

(For an explanation of catachresis, see the post for January 28.)

¹ In linguistics, an asterisk in front of a word, phrase, or sentence indicates that the following material is ungrammatical, misspelled, or otherwise incorrect.

Now say it fast.

If it sounds like the word you use to mean ‘the man [or woman] who owns the restaurant,’ you are totally out to lunch.

There is no such word as *restauranteur, usually pronounced “restarontoor.”

The man who owns the restaurant is correctly referred to as the restaurateur.* Look, Ma, no Ns.

Yes, I know restaurant has an N in it. It’s still restaurateur with no N.

I could give a long involved explanation about French verbs and participles, but I’m not going to unless somebody asks. Meanwhile, please just take my word for it.

And, for those who don’t speak French, the correct pronunciation of restaurateur is “rest oh rah TURR.”

(For an explanation of catachresis, see the post for January 28.)

*The woman who owns the restaurant would corretly be called the restaurateuse, but we’re not even going to go there.

Let me repeat that. There is no such word as *alot. MSWord won’t even let me write *alot; it automatically inserts a space, which I have been removing by hand each time I type *alot.

Look at the following sentences:

1.            a. She has a bunch of friends.

1.             b. She has a lot of friends.

2.            a. They have a pile of money.

2.             b. They have a lot of money.

3.            a. He’s in a world of trouble.

3.             b. He’s in a lot of trouble.

You certainly wouldn’t write *abunch, or *apile, or *aworld. (You wouldn’t, would you? Nah.) So why would you write *alot, which is wrong in exactly the same way, for exactly the same reason?

So please stop doing it. Thank you.

(For an explanation of catachresis, see the post for January 28.)

¹ In linguistics, an asterisk in front of a word, phrase, or sentence indicates that the following material is ungrammatical or otherwise incorrect.

That page, though of course fascinating and informative, will unfortunately not help them.

So this post is intended to fill that gap.

Canute, or Cnut, son of the king of Denmark, was born in approximately 995. After a lot of battles and political maneuvering, he became king of England in 1016 and also ruled, at various times, most of Scandinavia. He died in 1035.

The reason I invoked his name, and the reason that people (other than medieval historians) have heard of him, is a possibly apocryphal story first written down in 1130.

King Canute, known in his day as “the Great,” was a mighty and powerful ruler and, unsurprisingly, had a lot of sycophantic courtiers, who were always telling him that he was the greatest and most powerful of kings.

He got so tired of their false flattery that, one day at the beach when the tide was coming in, he marched to the edge of the water and ordered the waves to stop their advance.

Of course the waves did not obey him, and the tide came in anyway. At which point he probably turned to the courtiers and said, “See?” or “How do you like them apples?” or, possibly, “Who among you dareth now to call me all-powerful?”

My point was that it’s probably as useless for me to try to combat the spread of those false etymologies as it was for Canute to try to stop the rising tide.

Too bad for me.