Introducing the Gender-Neutral Pronoun “Zem”

I’ve finally reached my limit. I am sick and tired of having to say “he or she” and “him or her” in situations where I need to be gender-nonspecific.

The only alternative to these cumbersome phrases has been to say “them,” which is grammatically gauche when you’re talking about just one person.

In this egalitarian modern age, there is no reason why we, speakers of English, should not have invented a gender-neutral pronoun by now.

So Here’s Mine

I suggest “zem” as a gender-neutral pronoun. The adjectival version (like “their”) would be “zeir.” Examples of usage:

• I heard we hired a new tech director, but I haven’t met zem yet. Do you know zeir name?
• Each new employee may choose the health plan that is best for zem and zeir family.

Why “zem” is awesome:

• It sounds enough like both “him” and “them” as to jog our memories of what it means, during its adoption. And “zeir” rhymes with “their” for easy mnemonics too.
• It contains the end letter of “him” and the middle letter of “her” – one letter from each, how egalitarian!
• It’s nice and short, just like the original pronouns.
• Authors can have great fun with it. Just imagine, a whole introductory chapter where a character is described with “zem,” leaving you unsure of zeir gender. The ambiguity could be a lovely literary device.
• It solves the “he or she” conundrum once and for all!

So, now that the matter is settled, you may all start using “zem” and “zeir” now. There will be a quiz at the end of the hour.

Comments invited!

Can Spelling Make or Break Elections?

Can correct spelling of a candidate’s name make or break election results? Maybe so. This year’s Alaska senate race may tell us for sure.

Earlier this year, Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski lost her primary to a challenger. Undeterred, she decided to run as a write-in candidate. It’s taking a while to count the 90,000+ write-in ballots, but so far the numbers appear to favor Murkowski.

While Murkowski deserves kudos for this ballsy maneuver, it hasn’t been smooth sailing. Her campaign ran ads to instruct voters on how to spell her name, but even Murkowski’s campaign misspelled her name in one ad. Now, spelling problems continue to plague Murkowski, who, a week and a half after the election, is still waiting to find out whether she will keep her job in the Senate.

The New York Times has an excellent write-up of the situation here.

The Letter of the Law

So far, the Alaska Division of Elections has been counting misspelled write-in votes as long as the voter’s intent is clear. For example, if a voter wrote “Murkowsky” instead of “Murkowski,” then the vote still counts. Legal precedent in Alaska has emphasized the importance of voter intent in ballot disputes.

But now Murkowski’s opponent, Joe Miller, has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the state is violating Alaska law by counting misspelled votes for Murkowski. The law states that a vote for a write-in candidate must be written “as it appears” on the candidate’s registration form.

Is Intent More Important than Accuracy?

You think editors are anal about spelling? Nobody is more anal about spelling than lawyers. Lawyers know that one misspelled name or misplaced comma can change the entire meaning of a contract.

Is intent more important than accuracy? In legal contracts, the answer would appear to be no. Laws exist to protect us. If contracts are not as accurate as possible, then they do us a disservice.

But does your vote constitute a legal contract? There certainly are enough rules involved to make it seem like a contract. Proving your U.S. citizenship, registering by a certain date prior to an election, voting only during certain hours at a specific location, etc.

Even if voting is akin to a contract, being a bad speller should not nullify your right to vote. Or should it? Do voters have a responsibility to spell a write-in candidate’s name correctly? If you think you can’t remember the spelling of your candidate’s name, is it so much to ask that you write the candidate’s name across the palm of your hand or on a cheat sheet to bring to the polls with you?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I’ll be watching the outcome of Miller’s lawsuit with interest.

What’s It Really About?

Ultimately, this case may say more about spelling than about politics. It may even set a precedent for communications. If intent is more important than accuracy, then why should any of us care about correct spelling or grammar? Would a loss for Miller equal one more nail in the coffin of the English language? Or should voting and communications be held to different standards? What do you think?

We’ll Pay You to Read Our Newspaper

The UK’s Sun newspaper is running a promotion where they hide cash money inside their newspapers for a few lucky customers to find. Just like Willy Wonka with the Golden Tickets.

“Will you find a fiver? A tenner? Or even a crisp 20-pound note inside your copy?” shouts the radio ad. “Get an early Christmas present. Only in tomorrow’s Sun!”

The Saturday we’re talking about is Saturday, November 6, 2010. So if you’re in the UK, try your luck, why don’t ya?

Bribed to Buy

It’s amazing what you can learn from listening to commercials on other countries’ radio stations (in this case, Absolute Classic Rock, which you can stream through iTunes). Usually it’s fairly mundane trivia, like “Neat, I didn’t know T-Mobile did business in the UK,” or “Wow, the Brits start their obnoxious holiday ads even earlier than we do,” or “Weird, they say ‘anticlockwise’ instead of ‘counterclockwise’ in England.”

In this case we’ve learned that UK citizens are increasingly getting their news just like Americans are. On their computers and iPhones, of course. Why else would a company bribe people to buy its newspaper?

Now, the Sun is not exactly highbrow journalism (today’s headline: “One Show Jason’s Twitter Sex Shame!”). It’s hard to imagine the New York Times ever doing such a thing. Or is it? They’re hurting financially just like every American newspaper is.

It will be interesting to see how this trend plays out in future years. Maybe we’ll see even odder bribes. “Play the Globe’s new Monopoly game. A game piece in every paper! One in three is an instant winner!” Or perhaps, “Find a Golden Ticket in your Sunday Tribune and win a tour of Blommer’s Chocolate Company along with a lifetime supply of chocolate.”

Pet Peeve of the Day: The “Double Is”

So, as a proofreader, I see lots of errors. Most of them don’t bother me. I mean, people make errors. No big deal. If it weren’t for them, I’d be out of a job.

But occasionally, one particular mistake really snags my shorts. Today, it is the “double is.” This is when, for no apparent reason, people insert an extra “is” (or another form of the verb “to be”) into their speech, with a pause between the two. Examples:

• “The truth is, is that I could not care less.”
• “The fact of the matter is, is that most people will vote on Tuesday.”
• “The reason being, is that I have a headache today.”

Today I heard it again. On NPR. From the mouth of an educated, articulate person who should be above such lazy speech.

But then I thought: Is it really incorrect? Is it some obscure type of clause that I didn’t know about before? Is it one of those slangy turns of phrase that has crept so far into the English language that it’s here to stay, correct or not?

“Double Copula”: Grammatical Error, or Oddball Architectural Feature?

I Googled it and discovered that somebody has given this speech pattern a name: the double copula. (A copula is what we all learned in school as a “linking verb,” as in the phrases “He is tall,” or “Something smells funny.”)

Wikipedia has a short summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_copula

I consulted Webster’s and the Chicago Manual of Style, but I couldn’t find a final word on whether the double is is actually incorrect, or just slangy, or what.

But wait! Didn’t I just use the word is twice in a row in that last sentence?!?! Yes, I did. And Microsoft Word dinged me for it, placing the squiggly red line beneath the second instance of is.

In some cases, using the word is twice in a row is 100% grammatically correct (despite what MS Word thinks). Examples of correct usage:

1. What the problem is is still unclear.
2. My inability to figure out what the solution is is really bugging me.

If sentences like those feel awkward, you can always reword them. For instance:

1. The nature of the problem is still unclear.
2. It’s really bugging me that I haven’t been able to figure out the solution.

So What’s the Final Answer?

Beats me! Grammar geek that I am, I will submit this as a question to the Q&A section of the Chicago Manual’s website. If they answer it, I’ll post it here.

Even Jane Austen Needed an Editor

It's so seldom that editing makes the news. Thank you, NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130838304

Oxford professor Kathryn Sutherland studied original, handwritten Jane Austen manuscripts. She found lots of mistakes, and even some crazy punctuation (or lack thereof).

It just goes to show ya. No matter how brilliant and lasting your ideas are, nobody's prose is perfect. Conversely, perfect editing does not make for brilliant prose. Editors and writers need one another and always will.

“Could Care Less” vs. “Couldn’t Care Less”: The Eternal Debate

If you have time to kill, read the comments after this article:

"Could Care Less" vs. Couldn't Care Less" by Maeve Maddox

The comments show just how impassioned people can become regarding which version of this phrase is correct.

The article was posted in August 2007 and was still getting new comments as of this week. Apparently the debate over "could care less," which has been raging for decades, rages on today.

But Which One IS Correct?!

The phrase is supposed to mean that you don't care about something at all. Logically, saying "I could care less" implies that you do care a little bit, making it an inaccurate way to express that you don't care at all. Whereas saying "I couldn't care less" leaves no doubt that you couldn't possibly care any less than you do.

I'd wager that about 80% of people say "I could care less," and the other 20% say "I couldn't care less." The 20% flinch when they hear someone say "I could care less," thinking how idiotic the person sounds. The other 80% say it that way because that's the way they always heard it.

Maybe They're Both Correct

This comment from the above-linked article makes a very interesting point:

john Ireland on August 10, 2007 3:53 pm
In the late 1950's, a verbose variation on the term "I couldn't care less" was spoken: "I suppose I could care less, but I don't see how." Words were dropped over the next few years until "I could care less" was all that was left. Those too young to know the history of the saying likely cringe and think it is nonsense. Those who know its derivation mentally hear the unspoken words and accept its meaning without concern.

If that's true, then maybe this matter is settled. Maybe the people who say "I could care less" aren't throwing logic to the wind after all. Nor should they be subject to the scorn of grammatical purists who insist on the more accurate "I couldn't care less."

I'd love to hear from someone who knows whether this John Ireland guy is correct. If someone backs him up, I'd feel confident that we can declare this issue a dead horse once and for all. Comments please!

Favorite Author Shout Out: Emily Giffin

Do you have an author who, while reading a book of theirs for the first time, you immediately said to yourself, “I MUST read every book that this person ever wrote!”?

Emily Giffin is that sort of author for me, along with Sharyn McCrumb, Clyde Edgerton, Douglas Adams, Greg Bear, and Tracy Chevalier.

My favorite thing about Giffin's books is her appealingly imperfect characters. Each protagonist has some peculiarly human flaw, maybe one that we have ourselves but don’t want to admit (hubris, lust/infidelity, stubbornness, an inability to let go of the past). The flaw leads the character into sticky situations that make you ask yourself, “What would I do if it were me?”

Giffin delves so deeply into each main character’s emotions and motivations that, by the end, you feel like you’ve lived a part of someone else’s life from inside their head. She does character so well that the plots are sort of beside the point. (I’d say the same about Clyde Edgerton.) That may seem like a strange compliment for an author, but I think it’s a remarkable talent.

Loving City Life

In Giffin’s book Love the One You’re With, a married couple decides to move from New York City to Atlanta. The husband is thrilled, because Atlanta is his hometown. The wife is ambivalent, because she loves New York.

This passage rings true for a lot of big cities, including Chicago. It sums up perfectly why I'll be sad if/when I ever move out of the city.

…It’s the little things that get to me the most as we wind down our affairs in the city and hurtle toward our June closing date. It’s the rich fabric of my daily life—things that barely registered before but that now feel sentimental. It’s my walk to work and the silent camaraderie of other commuters swelling in the crosswalks around me. … It’s our dry cleaner’s deep frown lines as he determinedly knots the plastic around Andy’s shirts and then tells us to have a nice day in his Turkish accent, and my Korean manicurist’s chipper command to “pick polish,” even though she must know by now that I always bring my own. It’s the sway of the subway careening efficiently along the tracks, and the satisfaction of flagging down a cab on a bustling weekend night in the Village. It’s the burgers at P.J. Clarke’s, the dim sum at Chinatown Brasserie, and the bagels at my corner bodega. It’s knowing that when I walk out of our brownstone, I will see something new every single day. It’s the diversity of choices and people, the raw urban beauty, the endless hum of possibility everywhere.