At the turn of the new year, I wrote post about Tom Torriglia, who’d managed to get a front-page article in the San Francisco Chronicle stating his opposition to pronouncing the year 2010 as “two thousand ten”. Torriglia, as it turns out, is the head of a group he calls NAGG (National Association for Good Grammar). He is also in the process of writing a book about all the various companies that NAGG has complained to about the grammar of their advertisements, and how (strangely) no one at the companies ever really listened. A draft of the book is available online. So I looked through it, and I can see why the companies never listened to his complaints: they’re mostly rubbish. A few examples:
Ordinal dates for cardinal dates – Torriglia complains about a Fox Sports Net ad for the MLB All-Star Game that had a date written as “March 5th”. Torriglia claims that the cardinal “March 5” is the only acceptable form in writing, and that the ordinal “March 5th” is speech improperly transcribed. If this were an error, it would be one with a long history: here is an example from the front-page of a 1740 sermon, here is an example in a 1773 from Colonel Burgess Ball, and here is a series of examples in an 1832 letter from Charles Darwin. It sure seems acceptable.
Me replacing I – The next complaint is about a children’s show called Buster and Me. Torriglia claims that this ought to be Buster and I. His rationale is a quote from grammarbook.com: “Subject pronouns are used when the pronoun is the subject of the sentence”, but this point is completely irrelevant because Buster and Me/I is not a sentence. The default case for English pronouns outside of sentences is the accusative (or object) case (me, him, her, etc.). If someone asks “Who wants ice cream?”, you can either reply with a full sentence “I do!” or the single word “Me!” Note that you cannot reply with the single word “I”, because it is not in the default case. In the absence of a full sentence* to assign a case to the noun phrase Buster and Me — as in the title — accusative me will be preferred over nominative I.
dead body is redundant – His rationale: “[T]he Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines body as a corpse.” If that is the only definition for body in the RHUD, then it’s not a very good dictionary; the online Oxford English Dictionary lists more that 30 definitions of the word, only one of which is “Short (or euphemistic) for ‘dead body’, corpse.” Yes, body can mean “corpse”, but it doesn’t have to. Here’s just one example of a live body:
(2) “whilst all the rest of my body is sore with cold.”
Strangely, Torriglia follows up his claim that dead body is redundant by noting that a body can, in fact, be alive. Perhaps the dictionary he’s using, in addition to defining body as “corpse”, defines redundant as “clarificatory”.
Slow is not an adverb – It is. See an earlier post on this matter if you don’t believe me.
Torriglia’s book is riddled with errors and absurd claims, so why am I confident that the book will be a best-seller? Simple: a successful popular grammar book is required to contain as many erroneous and unsubtantiated claims as possible. Plus, Torriglia’s got the style down just right. He starts by noting that “This book is a [sic] light-hearted in approach but serious in intent”, and adds the disclaimer “No advertising copywriters were harmed during the writing of this book although I really hope I get to strangle each and every one of them someday!”, as well as noting, in response to a poorly-written email, that “The grammar police had to snuff that guy.” Lynne Truss, you’ve got a competitor in anger!
—
*: Technically, it’s not a full sentence that assigns the case, but rather a case governor like an inflectional phrase (IP).
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 4, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Jonathon
Well, you can, but everybody would probably think you were pretty pretentious.
February 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Stan
From the book’s introduction, second paragraph: “it is always been important to adhere the written word’s current standards…”
Indeed, and with a [sic] on the double.
A little later: “The spoken language is an offshoot from the written language. Sometimes, you will hear deviances from the written language in the spoken language. This is not good.”
Such ill-informed nonsense. I don’t think I can bear any more of Torriglia’s peculiar brand of deviance — not to mention the snide, intolerant tone.
February 4, 2010 at 1:30 pm
goofy
“Long ago, the grammar police put forth a set of rules and guidelines for writers to adhere to.”
Wow.
February 4, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Nate
Great blog. I’m trying to teach myself grammar (God knows the university either will not or cannot) and this blog is the dessert to my daily consumption of painfully elementary verb tenses and agreements.
February 5, 2010 at 2:50 am
Cecily
I’ve only had a quick look at Torriglia’s draft, but I was struck by this intriguing statement:
“Speaking is an extension of writing”
Whilst that is nonsense in many respects, even in the way he means it (that if you write correctly, you should also speak correctly), it ignores context/audience and also overlooks the fact that there are plenty of people who speak in non standard ways because that is how they write as well, i.e. they don’t know (or don’t care) what is appropriate.
The other thing I noticed is that although there are plenty of examples of “errors” he’s found, he gives very few sources for the rules he asserts. Mind you, in some cases, he’d struggle to find any.
February 6, 2010 at 9:06 am
Angry Editor
I write a blog about English grammar in Chinese, for Chinese people that write English. I love Motivated Grammar; it keeps my prescriptivism in check, and so is very helpful for my blog. Thank you.
February 9, 2010 at 11:24 am
Bill S.
Torriglia’s material is just bad enough that I have to wonder if he’s being deliberately satirical — and adopting “N.A.G.G.” for an organization name would be in keeping with that. The torrent of complaint letters to companies would be, too — it might be prescriptivism as performance art. If he rescues himself from the “Buster and Me” claim by arguing that the phrase is obviously the object of an elided verb, rather than the subject, he’ll have blown his cover.
February 25, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Michael Sappir
I’m totally with you and this guy is either a really good comedy writer or an idiot who is also a douchebag. However, I gotta protest on the first point, the one about ordinal and cardinal dates. That one is simply not a question of which usage is well established, but of convention. It is a convention to omit the ordinal suffix in writing, and quite possibly a useful one. Whether or not you agree with the convention, a sermon from the 18th century is not in any way relevant for making your case. His mistake is not advocating convention from which usage has fluctuated for centuries, his mistake is to act as if these conventions are set in stone and crucial to uphold, and possibly in missing the point of what convention is and how it is different from other things, such as laws.
But anyway, this blog is a pleasure to read and I’m glad to have heard about this amusing book, above dissent notwithstanding.
May 5, 2010 at 8:53 pm
tom torriglia
Hi
Thanks for taking the time to write about my book back in February. You make some really valid points.
May 8, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Tom S. Fox
Am I wrong or does Tom Torrigila keep using dangling participles?
For example: ”But, as a cadet in the grammar academy I know you’ll never make this common error.“
Whom does he mean by ”cadet“? Himself or the reader?
May 8, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Vance
While not a participle, that one certainly dangles. There’s also a rhetorical problem — does “cadet” emphasize that you are (or, just conceivably, he is) a beginner, or that you’re a committed student?
March 19, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Allen Garvin
This has to be satire. Take the following passage!
“The dictionary provides you with meanings of words. My friend Peter Kretzman, a grammar guru, taught me long ago that the dictionary provides us with correct definitions and more correct definitions. How do you determine what is more correct from correct? The first definition given in the dictionary for a word is the more correct meaning. Let us put it this way, if a dictionary could only give one definition for a word what would that definition be? 10 times out of 10, it is going to be the first one you see.
Our example word is hard. The first definition you see at dictionary.com is: not soft; solid and firm to the touch; unyielding to pressure and impenetrable or almost impenetrable. Ditto the Merriam Webster dictionary which states: not easily penetrated: not easily yielding to pressure of cheese not capable of being spread: very firm.
So, that is the definition I have in mind when I hear, write or speak the word hard. If someone just comes up to me and says out of context- that is hard, Tom. I understand him or her to mean that he or she is referring to something solid to the touch. Not, for example, something difficult to complete like a nuclear reactor math problem –even though people use difficult and hard interchangeably in some instances. But we don’t, do we. We have one meaning for one word—the more correct meaning. ”
Needless to say, Mr. Torriglia violates his “hard” rule on more than one occasion. The only time he uses “hard” in its “correct” definition is in that little section.
Surely it’s humor–very very subtle humor.
January 6, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Thomas Voß
By the way, the link in the post is dead, but here is a mirror: http://www.mistergrammar.com/grammarbooknodates.htm