In Plain English
Pet Peeves of Improper English Usage
Readers sound off on pet peeves of their own.
By Mary Barnard Ray
Some time ago, I invited readers to send their pet peeves of improper
English usage for inclusion in a future writing column. The authors of
these "peeves" wish to remain anonymous, and so they shall. Their voices
are their own. My comments, if any, are clearly identified.
To those who sent in these "peeves," and to everyone who has
contributed to the mailbag, thank you. Please continue to write. It's
gratifying, as an author, to hear from readers.
Reader: Here's my grammatical pet peeve: people in
advertising who don't know the difference between the plural and the
singular. For example: Using "they" when referring to a business like
Phil Tolkan Pontiac. Frequently the writer will switch back and forth
between the singular and the plural. It is very annoying.
Ms. Ray: Good choice! This indifference to numbers
can be annoying and misleading. Sometimes the problem may stem from
ignorance or indifference, but often it is done as a flawed attempt to
avoid gender-biased language. But it creates ambiguity and offends the
trained English ear; legal writers should not resort to the habit. There
are better ways to avoid gender-biased language.
Using the plural form throughout a text avoids the need for "he or
she" without violating numerical logic.
"Attorneys choosing to exercise this option should submit their
completed applications by June 6, 1999."
When the plural form cannot be used without sacrificing precision,
then try rephrasing to reduce the number of references to the person
involved.
"Any attorney who uses this form should include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope."
When this is not possible, use "he or she."
"If a stockholder has not received a written notice by Sept. 1, 1999,
then he or she should contact... ."
Even if "he or she" occasionally seems cumbersome and distracting to
you as a writer, it will not be as cumbersome or distracting to the
careful reader as inconsistent numbers and subject/pronoun
disagreement.
|
 Mary Barnard Ray is a legal writing
lecturer and director of the Legal Writing Individualized Instruction
Services at the U.W. Law School. She has taught writing workshops and
offered individual sessions for law students; she also taught advanced
writing and commenting and conferencing techniques in the training
course for the legal writing teaching assistants. She has taught and
spoken nationally at many seminars and conferences of legal and college
writing instructors. Her publications include two coauthored legal
writing books, Getting It Right and Getting It Written and
Beyond the Basics, published by West Publishing Co.
If you have a writing problem that you can't resolve, email or send your question to
Ms. Ray, c/o Wisconsin Lawyer, State Bar of Wisconsin, P.O. Box 7158,
Madison, WI 53707-7158. Your question and Ms. Ray's response will be
published in this column. Readers who object to their names being
mentioned should state so in their letters.
|
Reader: I have lots of peeves, but a few of my pet
ones are these:
- Using "impact" as a verb.
- Using "quality" without a qualifier (as in, "It's a quality
product," instead of "It's a high-quality product").
- Not using a comma before "and" or "or" in a list. This drives me
nuts, because it can change the meaning of a sentence. In legal
drafting, we always use that comma to avoid any misunderstandings. I
think the teachers in elementary schools now teach students
affirmatively not to use that comma, because the young attorneys we get
in the office have to be "deprogrammed."
- One I see all the time in everyday writing and speaking is the
overzealous avoidance of ending a sentence with a preposition. I don't
know how it happened, but suddenly everyone thinks it is improper to end
a sentence with a preposition. (It's like the incorrect avoidance of
using "me" when "me" is correct, instead of "I.")
People are afraid of looking ignorant, when in fact the usage is
wrong.
Wisconsin Lawyer
