Who loves a grammar zealot? Holier-than-thou, self-appointed guardians of the High Church of English can be pretty obnoxious. I’m much too kind and tolerant to be one myself. But I have this alter ego—we’ll call him Grammar Ranter—who contends that our language needs some sacred conventions. Yeah, yeah, he buys into all that stuff about our language’s being fluid and constantly evolving. But at the same time, he just properly employed the possessive with the gerund “being” in the previous sentence, didn’t he? He also believes that “anything goes” weakens the language, hinders the art of communication, and can make writers look stupid.
Actually, Grammar Ranter is a pretty good guy to have on our side. (Actually, Grammar Ranter probably would not tolerate the use of “actually” in that sentence. It’s almost always a useless bit of fill. “But hey, Mr. Ranter—if it’s used to contradict a point of view, that’s cool, right?” He’ll grudgingly assent in this instance.
Grammar Ranter is a good guy to have on our side simply because good grammar—along with awareness of publishing style and conventions, and maniac obsessiveness about proofreading—all serve us well as freelance writers. We want our prose to be wearing its best suit and a nicely pressed shirt when we turn it in. It makes an impression.
By the way, Grammar Ranter doesn’t aim for low-hanging fruit. If you don’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re,” you’re on your own. Grammar Ranter prefers to point out blunders that even smart people (like writers and editors) make. He likes to afflict the comfortable.
Hence GR’s first rant. A simple one. It’s for Americans only. You Commonwealth denizens are off the hook for now. You can say and write “towards” and “amongst” to your highfalutin hearts’ content. But wake up, Americans. We’re not Brits, and we should not emulate their archaisms. They do not make us seem learned. We’re Americans, and we say “toward” and “among.” Did Lincoln say “With malice towards none, with charity for all”? Did he urge the nation to achieve a “lasting peace amongst ourselves and with all nations”? (Sacrilege italicized.) Darn right he didn’t.
What he said in that thrilling Second Inaugural was this:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
With malice toward none, including the Crown, Grammar Ranter, in awe of that soaring American oratory, rests his case.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the introduction via LinkedIn and directing me to your blog. I’ll come back and see what else you have to say. I’m just browsing for now. Curious to know what the Grammar Ranter will rant about next. Found you on Twitter as well, so if you’re being followed by a bikelady, that’s me.
Jackie
You’re the man, Grammar Ranter! While I concede at times to my peers in e-writers’ groups who suggest minimizing the use of commas and parentheses (usually mis-spelled), I believe that good grammar has begun to be sadly de-emphasized and its importance in writing minimized. I become the grammar nazi before I can bring myself to comment on content. Because I love to be educated more than I love to educate, I’m about to join your website and mention it often. –Rob.
More coming soon from the Grammar Ranter, who has been noticing a LOT of mistakes in normally reliable media. Just last week The New Yorker allowed a doozy: “…the camera HONES in…” The proper word is, of course, “homes.”