Scott McClellan's mistake

And I don't mean being press secretary to George Bush. I mean what I heard him say this morning while being interviewed about his new book What Happened. When speaking of President Bush, McClellan mentioned the great respect he held "for he [Bush] and his advisors."

No, Scott. For is a preposition. Correct usage dictates a prepositional object: "for him and his advisors." I don't think you ever would have said you had great respect for he, so, as I just said in a blog post a few days ago (which I guess you didn't read), if you wouldn't say it in the singular, don't say it in the plural either.

Is this mistake up there with some of the doozies of the past few years? Of course not, but it's the kind of error a former White House press secretary shouldn't make.

"Lay" and "lie." Why is this so hard?

I've resisted writing this post for a long time, but when I heard a colleague say that she had "lied in the sun," and she didn't mean she was outside telling an untruth, I figured it was time. This word pair is the one that is most often messed up, and myths abound about which is right and in what context.

I recently heard a radio call-in argument about the subject, and the host obviously had no idea which was correct. When a caller said that "things lay and people lie," the host said that was good enough for him and closed the discussion. How unfortunate that the caller was wrong. Things lie all the time. And people lay things. So let's start at the top.

Lay means "to put or place on a surface" and always requires an object--something put or placed. For example:

• I'll lay these reports (object) on the credenza in your office.
• When you've finished, lay your test booklets (object) in the box by the door.

If you use lay, you have to lay something. That's why, "I'm going to lay down for a while" is incorrect. There's nothing put or placed. However, "Now I lay me down to sleep" is correct because there's an object: me. However, in most cases we don't say, "I'm going to lay myself down," so lie is the correct word.

Lie means "to recline" or "to be positioned," and it doesn't take an object.

• Sue has to lie down in a dark room when she has a migraine.
• At this time of day, the sun lies just below the horizon.

When you want to talk about what happened in the past, the proper words are laid and lay.

• I laid the sweater (object) on the chair a couple of hours ago.
• Joe laid the report (object) on my credenza last week, but I can't find it.
• Sue lay down until her headache went away.
• The reports lay on the credenza for a month before anyone got around to reading them.

And the past participle (don't worry about the name; this isn't a grammar test) of these two words are laid and lain.

• I've laid the reports (object) on your credenza.
• I'd lain down for only a couple of minutes when the phone rang.

The present participle forms (the -ing form) are laying and lying.

• I'm laying tile (object) this morning.
• Don't call after noon. I'll be lying down. Tile work is exhausting.

The same rules apply to set/sit and raise/rise.

Set and raise always require an object. Sit and rise never have an object. For some reason, people don't have quite as much difficulty with these two as they do with lay/lie, although in my neck of the woods, I often hear, "Set down and make yourself comfortable." Here's how to use these word pairs.

• Please set the plant (object) in the corner.
• Please sit down.
• We'll raise the flag (object) at dawn.
• Please rise for the national anthem.

Because these words are misused so often, saying and writing them correctly may feel odd at first. Persevere. It's OK to be right.

A moment of shameless self-promotion

A Love for Learning: Motivation and the Gifted Child has been named an Arizona Best Book (education category) by the Arizona Book Publishing Association. And it also has won an Indie Award of Excellence (which honors books from independent publishers and small presses), once again for best education book. Carol Strip Whitney and I are very pleased and gratified. This book is for parents, grandparents, teachers, principals, counselors, psychologists, pediatricians, and anyone else who deals with gifted kids, both in school and out. It's easy to read and gives a lot of information about why gifted kids lose their motivation to learn in school--and what to do about it. The title is much more intimidating than the text. Before these two honors, the book had won an iParenting Award of Merit, so it's pretty heavily stickered!

One family

I'm going to digress from my usual preachments about usage and better English today. It's been a terrible few days for our fellow humans around the globe. Yesterday, a friend who has family in China sent me some pictures of the devastation that accompanied the earthquake. One picture struck me. It was Chinese firefighters resting before they went back to the grim task of trying to find survivors in the wreckage. They were identical to the pictures of American firefighters during and immediately after our own tragedy on 9/11.

There was also a picture of a woman holding up a crudely printed sign bearing the names of loved ones who were missing. Again, an eerie parallel to what we saw in New York.

And yesterday, I heard the most riveting radio I've listened to in a long time. An NPR reporter in China followed a couple who were looking for their son and his grandparents. I couldn't turn it off, even though it was horrifying when they found all three bodies. The survivors' grief was overwhelming--and universal. I cried just as I did when our own people were weeping.

If there ever has been a time when I felt the unity of the human family, it was through those pictures and that audiotape. And our family in Burma is also suffering; it's just being hidden from us.

What this all has to do with what I normally write about is this. When we are cruel in our words and actions, we're hurting ourselves, too. Because these truly are our brothers and sisters. We may eat different food, observe different customs, worship differently. But if the planet and life on it are to survive, we must be civil to one another. In words and in actions.

I'm "completely" fed up

My drive to and from work each day gives me such fodder for this blog. During the last 10 days, there was a cyclone in Myanmar and an earthquake in China. These are horrible tragedies, but the reporting about them is sometimes a little overwrought.

The word that causes the most trouble in the reports from those on the scene (or "on the ground," as the reporters like to say) is "completely." The village is "completely empty." I maintain that there's no degree of empty; something is empty or it still has something (or someone) in it. "Completely" isn't necessary to make the point.

Same thing with "completely destroyed." If something is destroyed, it's gone. Kaput. Finished. No need to qualify it. And "complete devastation"? Devastation paints the picture all by itself.

Simplicity carries the day and also makes the reporting more interesting and effective.

I'd like to ...

A few posts ago, I mentioned how the phrase "is designed to" clogs up the flow of writing. Here's another that does the same thing: "like to, " as in, "We'd like to introduce our new product."

This phrase makes it seems as if introducing the product is but a faint hope, a wish, a desire. It's almost as if there's a corollary: "We'd like to introduce our new product (but we can't)."

If you'd like to do something, do it. Say it. Own it.

• "Here's some information about the newest generation of widgets."
• "Introducing our new widgets."
• "The latest in widgets is here today. For you."

Isn't that stronger than, "We'd like to tell you about our new widgets"? (If only we could ... sigh.)

Business writing is full of these weak-kneed construction; they're as invasive as kudzu. To keep your verbal garden healthy, stamp out "like to" today.

The pitfalls of other languages

Yesterday I was reading a very nice professional Web site. One of its pages included a feature about branding, which, of course, is a hot topic again. This particular site said, "...an attractive logo and tagline that can be slapped on to stationery and signage, and viola, we have our brand."

Viola? I believe the writer was looking for the French word, "Voila," as in "lo and behold." (There's also an accent over the "a" in this word, but I can't get symbols into this post).

If you want to spice up your business collateral, posts, advertising, or other written product with a foreign phrase, careful proofreading is essential. If you're not attentive to making sure the word is the right one--and spelled correctly--the writing can sound foolish at best and insulting or obscene at worst.

Au revoir!

The reign in Spain

There's an interesting car commercial running now. It states that "Joan of Arc reigned only five years." Really? I was unaware she ever reigned. As a matter of fact, Joan's fondest desire was to put someone else on the throne. There's no doubt that Joan had a significant influence on the course of history, but she wasn't a sovereign, and she didn't reign.

Recently, I saw a similar use of this verb in the context of a college president's "reign" over the campus. I know academic regalia is cool, but it generally doesn't confer royal power. That's why college presidents are installed during an inauguration rather than a coronation.

English is a language of subtleties, and, to me, "reign" as a verb has the connotation of kingly (or queenly) rule. As an adjective, though, "reigning" often has the opposite connotation, meaning commonplace or popular, as in the "reigning" opinion or fashion of a particular time.

One more thing to remember is the spelling of reign v. rein. A "rein" is part of a bridle, used to hold a horse in check. However, I can't tell you how many times in the past few weeks I've seen the phrase "to reign him/her/it in." The right word in that context is "rein" because it means to exercise control over something or someone.

And don't forget to take your umbrella when it reigns.

A pair of troublesome word pairs

It seems I'm picking on professors lately. That's not my intent, but they're interviewed a lot on public radio, which I listen to during my half-hour commute to work. I heard a gaffe from one recently that surprised me; since then, though, I've heard it several more times (it's funny how these things seem to come in waves). The professor was talking about the weather and referred to "climactic" conditions.

Sorry, professor, but thanks for playing. The word he was looking for was "climatic," which means pertaining to climate. "Climactic" would, of course, mean pertaining to a climax. For example:

• The environmentalists were concerned about several recent climatic changes.
• John was late and missed the climactic moment of the play.

And one more. Could we please, please distinguish between "serve" and "service"?

"To serve" means to meet the needs of another, such as a customer.

"To service" means to maintain. It also can mean to bring a stud to a female for breeding.

So whenever I hear, "We service our customers, " I wonder if perhaps the company might be going a bit too far. A simple handshake is probably all that's necessary.

I guess someone thought that "serve" was too pedestrian and "service" more high-toned and elegant. But, in fact, "serve" serves just fine.

Be a better writer 1

I've been observing a recent trend, and I can't imagine how it started. I'm referring to placing a comma before the verb in a simple sentence. Here are a couple of examples ripped from the headlines, as they say. Actually, they're from big websites, the authors of which should know better.

• This recipe, makes 24 servings as an appetizer.
• The author's background, qualifies her to write with authority about this subject.

Huh? There's no need for a comma in either of these sentences. If there were some explanatory details between the subject and verb, a comma might be necessary. For example:

• This recipe, which came from my aunt's cookbook, makes 24 servings.
• The author's background, which includes 15 years as a gynecologist, qualifies her to write with authority.

I think writers do this because they aren't sure what the rules for commas are. They scatter them like snow throughout a piece of writing; the result is often a mess that's hard to read and harder still to understand.

The rule is subject-verb, not subject-comma-verb.