5 big proofreading mistakes

Whether you're writing for publication or business--or both--don't send out your first draft. Even the most seasoned writers make mistakes. I've found them on my own blog posts--and hit myself in the forehead for them. Many errors can be eliminated by careful proofreading. Here are some things to do to begin the correction process.

• Read headlines and subheads. You'll be surprised at how many mistakes you might find there. I once sent out an $11K print job with a headline that had the word "Suprise" in it--in bright teal type. Of course, I meant "Surprise."
• Watch for word substitutions. For example, look out for their if you mean they're, then if you mean than, or who's if you mean whose.
• Root out wrong word choices, such as laying for lying, insure for ensure, or compliment for complement. All of these are commonly misused.
• Check your punctuation, particularly apostrophes and plurals. It's men's room, not mens' room. It's children's clothing, not childrens'. Be careful when it comes to the word it's. It's means it is or it has (It's my party, or It's been a long time ...); its means belonging to it (Its special features include ...). There is no such word as its'. Don't even think about it.
• Use your dictionary to make sure your spelling is correct. Just today, I received an e-mail with a great example of this simple rule. A restaurant posted a sign saying it was closed because the kitchen was out of meet. Oh, come on.

To get it right, you have to proofread several times. Different proofreaders have different styles, but some read once for headlines, subheads, and pull quotes only; once for street addresses, phone numbers, e-mail and web addresses, and other factual data; once more for numbers, figures, and page numbers; again for missing or repeated words or letters, and spacing errors; again for spelling; and finally for sense. Although that may seem like far too much work, proofreading goes quickly when you read for one thing at a time rather than trying to catch every kind of error during a more global look-see.

Paying attention will make your writing more polished and professional.

Closed captioning 2

After the last post, I found another lovely misuse on a caption. This one occurs a great deal in speech as well, so I thought I'd bring it up. You'll find it in the confused word pairs section of my book Talking Your Way to the Top.

Desperate Housewives voiceover caption: "What she didn't know was that the Calvary was on the way."

I don't think so. Let's look at the words being confused here: Calvary and cavalry.

Calvary is the place where Jesus was crucified.

Cavalry means troops that fight on horseback or in armored vehicles.

Usually it's the cavalry that rides to the rescue, not the Calvary. That place hasn't moved in millennia.

Because I was reading the caption and not listening to the voiceover, I'm not sure what was said, but I'd put down money that the reader got it right and the caption writer was the one who didn't know the difference. But someone in production should have been watching. Oversight seems to be lacking in the caption world.

Have to love closed captioning

Last night, as I was I was "reading" my TV to keep from wakening other members of the household, I saw an interesting ad caption. The product advertised was Nyquil. Three rather doltish characters were discussing another person's symptoms, which the caption indicated might be a result of his having "hoof in mouth disease."

This is a public announcement to the makers of Nyquil. If you're going to caption your ads, which you should, you also should make sure the captions are correct. There is no such disease as "hoof in mouth," unless a cloven-hooved animal has made a significant oral faux pas. Although humans may certainly have "foot in mouth" disease, animals have hoof and mouth disease.

And, by the way, hand-foot-and-mouth disease, which is common in children and not serious, is not related to hoof and mouth disease, which occurs in animals and can be fatal.

So, Nyquil folks, take your feet out of your mouths and fix the caption.

Write it right or don't write it at all

A few months ago, I wrote a post on the perils of using foreign phrases you don't understand (or may understand, but don't know how to spell). I found a beaut of an example on a Web site. The blogger wrote that someone had that certain "gene sa qua."

I believe she meant "je ne sais quoi," the French phrase meaning "I don't know what," and usually understood to mean an indefinable positive quality.

The usage was correct, but the writer didn't take the time to look it up and made herself look silly.

Online dictionaries make the task of choosing the right phrase quick and easy. Be memorable, not laughable.

A past tense confusion

Last week, I listened to the US ambassador to Zimbabwe discuss the deteriorating political scene in that country. He said that one of the embassy employees, a native of Zimbabwe, had been "drug from his car and beaten."

Of course, the most important aspect of this report was the description of lawlessness that has gripped the country. However, the ambassador needs to learn that the past tense of the word drag is dragged, not drug.

Drug is a noun meaning a medication or substance that affects the nervous system in various ways. It's never a verb. Although sometimes heard in colloquial speech, using drug this way can make you sound like a rube--and I'd expect more precise speech from one of our ambassadors. English is supposedly our national language, so our representatives should speak it well.

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.

Equally bad

I was listening to the radio on the way to work when I heard a professor being interviewed about two writers. He stated that one wrote "equally as well" as the other.

Nope. Equally as well is redundant. What the good professor meant to say was that one wrote as well as the other or that they were equally good writers.

Like this:

• Emma and Sam are equally talented violinists.
• Emma is as talented as Sam.

Or:

• Jack is as tall as Michael.
• Jack and Michael are equally tall.

There's no need to pack the sentence with both equally and as. For clarity and precision, choose one or the other.

Word pairs still troublesome

Yesterday I received one of those "healthy living" magazines from a local hospital. It contained an article about rehydrating after exercise. The doctor is quoted as saying, "Follow a regular fluid regiment." Because the writer or the doctor (or both) chose the wrong word of a similar word pair, the sentence doesn't make sense.

A regiment is a military unit of two or more battalions. However, a regimen is a specially prescribed course, usually related to diet or exercise. And a regime is the government in power.

The embarrassment potential for misusing these words is high because many people know the difference between regimen and the other two. If you're confronted with a troublesome word pair or triplet, your best friend is a dictionary. These three words--regime, regimen, and regiment--follow each other, so it's easy to check which one to use.

The next few posts

Colleagues around my office have been asking me a lot of usage questions lately, so I think I'll address some of them.

Let's start with pronouns.

Which is correct?

• Give the report to she and her boss.
• Give the report to her and her boss.

If you answered "she and her boss," you're making a mistake that's more and more common. No matter how common, however, it's wrong. It's a big, honking mistake, and you run the risk of sounding, how shall I put it, less capable than you probably are.

Without getting into the grammar of the situation, which involves the use of objective and subjective pronouns--and that can be a yawn--let's just look at the way to solve the problem.

Would you say, "Give the papers to she"? Probably not. Then don't say "she and her boss." If you wouldn't say it in the singular, don't say it in the plural.

Let's try another.

• Her and I are going skiing.
• She and I are going skiing.

Same test. Would you say "Her is going skiing"? No. So don't say it just because the subject is plural. I repeat, if you wouldn't say it in the singular, don't say it in the plural.

Simple. Here's a little rhyme to help you remember:

"When plural pronouns give you doubt.

Take one away; then try it out."

You'll speak and write more confidently--today.

No matter how you try....

In the last post, I talked about "ethic" slurs. Hmmm. I wonder what those might be? Of course, it's "ethnic." I correct other people's mistakes for a living. It's just delightful to have to correct my own--in public.

However, there are Web site and blog issues more serious than typos. I read one site yesterday that went on for a bit and then began its last sentence, "Anyways." Deliver me from the final s in that one. Nonetheless, I soldiered on to the next page where the content read,"We're just chalk full of ideas." Chalk full? The only time I've even been "chalk full" was when I had to swallow barium for an x-ray. I don't recommend it.

"Chock" perhaps? As in full to the brim with ideas? That's better.

I gave a workshop today, the gist of which was that if you're not certain of the spelling or meaning of a word, for heaven's sake, look it up. Take a minute to do it right so you don't waste 10 minutes cleaning up the lousy first impression you made.

Jargon rears its ugly head ...

... but it's funny. One of my henchmen recently ran across a site that touts its new software as very useful for "backupping." Oh, come on. There's a perfectly good phrase--backing up--that has served several generations of technology users. What's the point of a word like "backupping"? It's ugly, doesn't work, and makes the perpetrator of the phrase look silly.

Another of my spies has found a perfectly lovely misplaced modifier that made me laugh:

"His last billed part was in 1956, though he appeared in an uncredited bit part after his death." I'll bet his performance was a little stiff, though.

I found another in a publication I'd been asked to work on:

"This set of instructional materials is very useful for teachers with children." But what about childless teachers? Might they find the materials helpful in their classrooms, too?

These are cute little object lessons that illuminate a bigger point. In careful speaking and writing, the details matter. Really. Read. And then read again.

A common mistake

One of the books I've written is called Talking Your Way to the Top: Business English that Works (http://www.prometheusbooks.com). The book contains several sections on mispronunciations, confused word pairs, buzzwords, euphemisms, jargon, and other mistakes that keep business English from being as clear as it might be. We're butchering the language daily, and it makes us sound pretentious and silly at the same time. Here's one I've heard frequently, the last time from a banker, who really should know better:

Promissary. Come on, Ms. Banker, the word is promissory. Remember that this word means a promise to pay money. One o in promise + one o in money = two o's in promissory. Now, wasn't that easy?