I am also a grammar geek; although I don't own a grammar book...or a library for that matter. I read the Oxford dictionary cover-to-cover. Does that make me a geek?

I've actually always wondered what the "rules" were surrounding semicolons. I never knew it was so opern-ended as that.

I must also be a grammar geek. Not only did I just save the "wonderful web site" link to my favourites, I saved it to the folder entitled "Entertainment".

Yesterday, I was wondering about whether the following billboard is grammatically correct:

Deluxe room.
King-size bed.

Shouldn’t it be “King-sized bed?” I’ve seen this a lot lately—-where it’s something size something. I would choose “sized,” but I don’t know if the other is wrong. If you ever run across this in your late night reading of grammar tomes, let me know.

Shouldn’t it be “King-sized bed?”

Ha! I knew what your question was going to be just from looking at the two phrases. Yes, I always think it ought to be "king-sized" as well. And "life-sized", etc. But I'm not 100% sure of it.

Another advertising-related phrase that bugs me is "conveniently located". Aside from the question "conventiently located for whom?", the construction of the phrase bugs me for some reason. For some reason, I'd prefer "convenient location" or some other similar construction.

Of course, I've always hated Nike's "Just do it", too, because the "it" in the sentence has no antecedent.

I recently read a hilarious series of letters in Harper's magazine (the June issue) in which a grammarian writes to the Coca-Cola Company explaining that the DaSani motto is incorrect: “Treat yourself well. Everyday.” Someone took the time to type it into their web site, courtesy of Harper’s… http://www.happyrobot.net/words/thewayiseeit.asp?backid=3338

It's a thing that, to me, is funny; I revel in violating grammar rules and recoil in horror when I spell in error. In a way, this point of view is illogical. When a spelling error is made, generally the meaning intended is still conveyed; communication still succeeds. Grammatical errors, however, often lead to real confusion.
JD, the "Just do it." phrase is intentionally ambiguously antecedentless. As far as Nike is concerned, "It" means everything you could possibly do with a pair of Nike shoes on. So, making it a catch-all pronoun is more impactful.

The "Just do it" phrase is intentionally ambiguous.

Yes, of course it is. I understand this. I even admire the cleverness required to create such a world-sweeping slogan. From a marketing standpoint, it's a brilliant sentence.

However, at the grammar level, the lack of an antecedent bugs me.

On an only semi-related note — and this may actually become a full-fledged weblog entry on its own — Lisa has pointed me to the wonderful web site for Brodart, purveyors of library supplies and furnishings. Book jackets! Shelving! Labels! Dare I say: heaven?

The one that bugs me is "Home for Sale". Now I know that there is nothing wrong with saying that but to me the home is dad mom and kids and all the people who live in the house. The house is for sale but the home should not be. Now, lest anyone feel the need to correct me, I know that the dictionary would say that the home is the house but I still don't like the sound of Home for Sale! Just ain't right in my book!

Actually, Tammy, though this isn't one that bugs me as a pet peeve, I understand your complaint. And I agree, "home" connotes the family, etc. This is a case where the denotation (the dictionary definition of a word) does not include the connotation (the accepted definition of a word in popular usage).

Another fun web site: Those Pesky Apostrophe's from the oft-amusing Spinnwebe.

I took Structural Grammar in Transformation at Willamette and have scars to prove it.

I sat next to Scott in Structural and Transformational Grammar at Willamette, and I have the photographs to prove it. (And photos of Karen Causbie sitting with us, too.)

Ken Nolley taught the class, which was part two of a two-part course.

The first part was History of the English Language, which featured an outstanding text book, the name of which I've forgotten. Again. (At one point, I e-mailed Nolley while he was on sabattical in Europe, and he replied with the name of the text. I never did track it down, though.)

The second part of the course was about Noam Chomsky's bizarre (IMHO) theory of univeral grammar, which states that "basic language structure resides internally and basic patterns are innate to human beings".

The Noam Chomsky stuff was dull, but the language history stuff was cool.

What's with me today, posting four comments to my own entry?

The only Noam Chomsky I've been exposed to was a fascinating multipart documentary about language and linguistic development on PBS 5 or 10 years ago.

One of the (many) points of the series was that the set of phonemes in use by any given human language is a subset of the set of phonemes that the human vocal equipment is capable of generating. And that the phoneme subset is not evenly distributed across the 'easy to generate' phonemes, but tends to cluster in certain lumps. This implies certain pre-defined areas or channels in whatever the brain's language mechanism is.

There are exceptions, of course, but the basic point is that the whole set of sounds built into human languages are statistically related to one another, even for languages that have had no historical developmental influence. This implies a biological mechanism at work...

I think that is great stuff. But perhaps it comes across better in video than in writing.

Tammy, you are right you cannot sell a ‘home’ only a ‘house’. I believe that this came up at a printing issue, fewer letters. Or maybe it is physiological, I would much rather buy a home, this that homely feeling, then a boring house.

The one that drives me crazy…fast food sizes! How can you have ‘Medium’ ‘Large’ and ‘Extra-Large’? Medium by the name has to be between two other sizes. What if I want a small? Do not even get me started on Starbucks.

Oooooh! I'll get started on Starbucks. Having just spent the afternoon there, I have some strong opinions. First, their AC system beats my 85 degree house hands down. Second, that "vente" or whatever the jumbo size calls itself is just plain scary. No one needs that much caffeine, sugar, or cream at once. When I got my smaller size, the coffee dude told me that I could get half again as much for only 50 cents. Nice to appeal to the "more for your money" American value, but how gigantic are portions going to get before we realize that we don't need that much food?

I think the Fast Food restaurants are pretending the sizes are Regular, Large, and Super Sized/Extra Large.

Which means Regular is small, large is medium, and extra-large is large. Double-Plus Good for the whole family!

Mmmmm. I think that when Regular (a.k.a. small) is 16 ounces of sugary goodness, it's not so small anymore. What if I really only want a small soda? It's impossible to find these days, but 44 ounces--no problem!

...if I really only want a small soda? It's impossible to find...

My rapidly expanding waistline is in complete agreement with you. :/

Okay, here's another grammar pet peeve of mine, though I can't actually find any documentation to back me. The following sentence construction is awkward:

The reason why I went to town was to buy some milk.

Better is the following:

The reason I went to town was to buy some milk.

To me, the phrase "the reason why" is redundant. Or, if not redundant, quite awkward. When you say "the reason", the "why" is implied.

Another pet peeve of mine — which Dana and Pam and Joel and Kris probably know — is when people use "in my opinion" or "I think" or "I feel" in writing. Dana, Pam, et. al. believe that failure to qualify one's opinion implies that the writer (or speaker) believes that his is the final word on the subject, that the writer sees things in black and white.

I disagree.

According to my handy grammar text, and to everything I've ever been taught about writing, the author's opinion is implied. Stating "in my opinion" or "I think", etc. simply weakens the writing.

From The HarperCollins Concise Handbook for Writers:

When you write an opinion about something, it is usually quite clear that you are stating your opinion, and to say so merely points out the obvious.

...

To point out that you are giving your opinion states the obvious and makes you sound less sure of yourself.

...

In some cultures, expressions of humility are expected of a writer, but in English they should be used sparingly. If it won't be clear to your reader that a statement is just your opinion, say so. But when it is clear, don't use qualifying phrases to point out the obvious.

Sample sentences from the text which they say ought not be qualified include:

• "This course requires too much work." (Kris doesn't like it when I say "It's too hot." — "You mean it's too hot for you," she says, to which I reply, "Obviously.")
• "The Orioles will win the pennant next year."
• "We should hold an election within the next six months."

According to my handy grammar text, and to everything I've ever been taught about writing, the author's opinion is implied. Stating "in my opinion" or "I think", etc. simply weakens the writing.

As I've said before, What kind of writing? Letters are different than blogs are different than legal documents are different from journalistic articles are different from editorials are different from essays are different from research papers are different from poetry are different from fiction.

You need to make a distinction between the techniques appropriate for fiction or persuasive writing from the pseudo-journalistic/pseudo-journalling techniques appropriate for blogging and communicative writing (ie, letters and e-mail).

IMHO, obviously. :)

Also, this is not solely a feature of your writing. You SPEAK in this sort of dogmatic way, too, in my experience.

Here's something to think about: You say this sort of qualification weakens writing. I use it extensively. At the same time, you've told me that you think I write well and should start a blog of my own. Do I write well in spite of using these 'weakening constructions', or would my writing be even better without them?

I definitely overqualify too much- but I use adverbs! Generally, I tend to often and usually construct a hazy sort of notion of the relative frequency of things. I guess (and here's some more techniques, "I guess..." "I suppose..." "I am in the process of thinking that..." "Cogitationally...") the idea behind this (other than just habituation) is to reassure the audience that I am willing to tolerate exceptions, that I am sure I am wrong about some instances. As you say, JD, weak. But then again, weakness also springs forth from mercy, justice, and... some other virtue (chastity?).
Perhaps entertaining other positions would be a good way to be less dogmatic. Of course, this is just another rhetorical technique, to argue the other side ("Now some would say that 85 degrees isn't all that hot, especially when you consider that organic proteins don't denature until at least 114 degrees...") in a lame or ridiculous fashion and then counter it with a more rational rationale.

I strongly prefer to communicate with people who make it clear that they are willing to qualify an opinion as an opinion. While it's true that everything someone says or writes is ultimately an opinion, I am often unsure whether he or she is open to discussion. There are plenty of people out there who are stating things with the intention of persuading me rather than discussing with me. A speaker or writer who prefaces potentially controversial opinions with "I think" gives me a little more information about his or her stance.

Often, particularly in spoken conversations, I just won't take up a discussion with someone who hasn't made it clear that they are willing to see other sides of an issue. Why bother?

That said, too many "I think" statements certainly weaken written material. But in social writing and speaking, I believe that those qualifiers have a legitimate use.

I think it comes down to intention. Do you intend to communicate clearly, or are you trying to 'write good'? Good writing is not always clear, unambiguous communication.

So, while qualified speach may make you cringe, it also reduces the chance that someone reading it will mistake your intentions. Every sentence and statement doesn't need to end with an "IMHO" or an "I think", but I feel it's necessary to provide enough contextual hints to remove ambiguity about which things you think are opinions, which you believe are facts, and how authoritative your sources might be.

Which is basically what Lisa is saying, too, I think.

Of course, there's also the fact that if so many of my smart friends (Kris, Dana, Joel, Lisa, Pam, etc.), whose opinions I respect, all believe a certain thing (effective communication requires opinions be labelled as such), perhaps I ought to yield to their combined wealth of knowledge! :)

This isn't what I was looking for, but it's pretty interesting, anyway.

This is also not what I was looking for, and is even further afield from the current topic, but it's absolutely fascinating, and relevant to my own work experience...

Hurm.

BTW, J.D., in the _Handbook of Technical Writing_ under "Conciceness/Wordiness" the authors specifically point out "the reason is because" as redundant. I think you can logically extend their support to "the reason why" as well. (If you want an official source for you pet peeve...)