I do not scour publications looking for these things. They just pop out at me. I also do not profess to be a skilled grammarian (and yes, I admit to having a typo problem.)
Most of what I know about this stuff I learned in grade school, effectively an eight-year frogmarch through spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, pronouns, prepositions, active and passive verbs and much else. By sixth grade, I was pretty tired of going through the same material over and over again, but it did come in handy later.
Now I wonder whether what I was taught is becoming irrelevant.
Here are some examples of clashes between current usage and my earlier understanding of the English language.
-----
"He may be the only billionaire who I've ever had contact with." (A quote from a
person with a law degree and 25 years of professional experience.)
Who is a nominative pronoun. If we straighten the sentence a bit,
it comes out like this:
it comes out like this:
"He may be the only billionaire with who I've ever had contact."
See? The sentence needs an objective pronoun: whom.
-----
"They want constant validation that they are a higher-value customer," he said. (A quote
from the COO of a cruise company that offers elite accommodations to very rich people.)
They is a plural pronoun that should refer to plural higher-value customers.
from the COO of a cruise company that offers elite accommodations to very rich people.)
They is a plural pronoun that should refer to plural higher-value customers.
-----
Caspersen, who's LinkedIn page also boasts ties to prominent private equity firm
Coller Capital, later tried to obtain an additional $20 million investment from the
same charitable foundation and a $50 million from a multinational private equity
firm headquartered in NY.
Who's is a contraction of the phrase who is. The possessive wanted here is whose.
-----
The freshman dance major was recruited by the university two years ago after they
saw her at a dance performance when she was in high school.
The antecedent here, the university, is not a plural personal pronoun, i.e., they.
The university did not see the dance major at a high school performance.
Better: The university recruited the dance major after its faculty members
were impressed by a high school performance of hers.
saw her at a dance performance when she was in high school.
The antecedent here, the university, is not a plural personal pronoun, i.e., they.
The university did not see the dance major at a high school performance.
Better: The university recruited the dance major after its faculty members
were impressed by a high school performance of hers.
-----
-----
-----
I entered the hospital room late at night, thinking it would either be empty or if not,
the patient would be asleep. They weren’t. (The room had a single bed.)
Again, the antecedent is patient, singular, and the pronoun, they, is plural.
Better: I entered the hospital room late at night, thinking its single bed
either would be empty or its patient asleep. The patient was awake.
-----the patient would be asleep. They weren’t. (The room had a single bed.)
Again, the antecedent is patient, singular, and the pronoun, they, is plural.
Better: I entered the hospital room late at night, thinking its single bed
either would be empty or its patient asleep. The patient was awake.
It’s easy to underestimate the company on the basis of its relatively small scale in the
market: their goal is to produce 80–90k units. . . . If you think about it, the competition
has already had 10 years to counter Tesla’s moves, yet they haven’t. What’s going on?
A company is not a plural noun; in second reference, the possessive its
is correct, but the next reference to their goal is a plural possessive. Why?
The next sentence does it again: The antecedent, competition, becomes they.
market: their goal is to produce 80–90k units. . . . If you think about it, the competition
has already had 10 years to counter Tesla’s moves, yet they haven’t. What’s going on?
A company is not a plural noun; in second reference, the possessive its
is correct, but the next reference to their goal is a plural possessive. Why?
The next sentence does it again: The antecedent, competition, becomes they.
Whole Foods has been under siege lately as supermarkets and big-box stores are
dedicating more shelf space to organic food, and often doing it at lower prices. With 365,
they hope to fight back and broaden that kind of customer they cater to.
Here we have three nouns: Whole Foods, supermarkets and big-box stores;
it is hard to tell which is the antecedent for "With 365, they hope to fight
back and broaden that kind of customer base they cater to." My guess is
that the plural they refers to the only singular noun of the three.
The second sentence would be easier to decode if it went like this:
"With 365, Whole Foods hopes to fight back and broaden that kind of
customer it caters to."
(Also "broaden that kind of customer base they cater to" suggests something
humorous, most likely unintentionally. Leave aside the business of ending
the sentence with a preposition.)
dedicating more shelf space to organic food, and often doing it at lower prices. With 365,
they hope to fight back and broaden that kind of customer they cater to.
Here we have three nouns: Whole Foods, supermarkets and big-box stores;
it is hard to tell which is the antecedent for "With 365, they hope to fight
back and broaden that kind of customer base they cater to." My guess is
that the plural they refers to the only singular noun of the three.
The second sentence would be easier to decode if it went like this:
"With 365, Whole Foods hopes to fight back and broaden that kind of
customer it caters to."
(Also "broaden that kind of customer base they cater to" suggests something
humorous, most likely unintentionally. Leave aside the business of ending
the sentence with a preposition.)
-----
Michael Kors has positioned themselves to have superior brand recognition through key
celebrity endorsements.
Michale Kors could be a reference to the designer or to his company. Even
with the s on the end, either is singular. Themselves is plural; Himself or
itself is what is needed. Even better would be a simpler sentence.
-----
(Quote from a professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.)
Simple problem: Successor is singular; them is plural.
------
We have contacted local law enforcement, informed them of the allegations, and are
committed to assisting them in their investigation. (Quote from a letter from a letter
sent by an elite Northeastern prep school.)
Here we go again. Law enforcement agencies is plural, but
law enforcement is singular. Calling "law enforcement agencies"
them on second reference makes my teeth hurt; calling "law
enforcement" them is even worse.
committed to assisting them in their investigation. (Quote from a letter from a letter
sent by an elite Northeastern prep school.)
Here we go again. Law enforcement agencies is plural, but
law enforcement is singular. Calling "law enforcement agencies"
them on second reference makes my teeth hurt; calling "law
enforcement" them is even worse.
-----
. . . the other passenger could have moved to an empty seat in another part of the plane
but they refused.
Here we have one passenger in one seat, and in second reference, the
single passenger is they. There are better ways to express this.
but they refused.
Here we have one passenger in one seat, and in second reference, the
single passenger is they. There are better ways to express this.
-----
When a celebrity emerges on the red carpet of the Met Gala, there is the distinct possibility
that their carefully-crafted look might become a style staple for several decades to come.
Again, celebrity is singular, and their (as in "look") is plural.
(Plus, saying a celebrity "emerges on the red carpet" makes me think of an
insect emerging from a pupa. And "carefully-crafted" doesn't need a hyphen.)
that their carefully-crafted look might become a style staple for several decades to come.
Again, celebrity is singular, and their (as in "look") is plural.
(Plus, saying a celebrity "emerges on the red carpet" makes me think of an
insect emerging from a pupa. And "carefully-crafted" doesn't need a hyphen.)
-----
Coach has been underperforming over the past five years, with their competitors greatly
outperforming them.
Coach is currently undervalued as it has lackluster revenue growth and increasing operating
expenses once oil rebounds. Despite Coach trying to re-brand themselves and bring value to
the shareholders, lack of revenue growth will continue to leave them underperforming
compared to their competitors. Since Coach has been careless about improving their
position, new competitors have started to emerge and will continue to take away market share
from them.
First Coach, a singular entity, has their competitors beating them, then it has
lackluster growth and is trying to rebrand themselves, then has concerns about them underperforming competitors and fearing that new competitors will take
market share from them. Got it? Me neither.
outperforming them.
Coach is currently undervalued as it has lackluster revenue growth and increasing operating
expenses once oil rebounds. Despite Coach trying to re-brand themselves and bring value to
the shareholders, lack of revenue growth will continue to leave them underperforming
compared to their competitors. Since Coach has been careless about improving their
position, new competitors have started to emerge and will continue to take away market share
from them.
First Coach, a singular entity, has their competitors beating them, then it has
lackluster growth and is trying to rebrand themselves, then has concerns about them underperforming competitors and fearing that new competitors will take
market share from them. Got it? Me neither.
I don't want to get too het up about this. Our country has bigger problems than the misuse of pronouns.
Sloppy constructions like those above would undermine your reputation in a country that takes its language seriously. Think France.
Even here, it can be difficult to take seriously the ideas that come from the mouths and keyboards of people who can't express themselves coherently. In addition to the distraction, the mishmash mangles the message.
Pronouns are interesting for another reason: They are the face of the evolution of standard English. Much of what I flagged above is on its way to being normalized. In addition, some of our self-styled betters are preparing a whole new batch of pronouns to add to the ones that already give us so much trouble.
I will take up these two matters in the next week or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment