The Other Sandy

I subscribe to Barnes & Noble's Nook Daily Find newsletter. February 29th's email contained this gem in the description of Keep Quiet by Lisa Scottoline: "It’s an emotionally gripping story about how far you can, and should go to protect those you love from bestselling author Lisa Scottoline."

Are we supposed to be protecting our loved ones from Lisa Scottoline's books, or from Lisa Scottoline herself?

Dear Avengers Fan Fic Writers Everywhere,

If you plan to write in the Marvel Avengers universe much, you will probably find yourself using the word 'shield' a lot. After all, Captain America carries a shield, and the Avengers all work either for or with S.H.I.E.L.D. So for the love of all that is holy, please learn to spell it.

Write it on a post-it note. Stick it on your computer. You'll find it a very handy reference.

No love,

Sandy (no, the other one)

Okay, seriously people, it's "duct tape," as in tape for taping ducts, not "duck tape," which I suppose would be used for taping ducks, assuming you ever wanted to tape a duck, which I don't know why you would. I don't imagine the duck would be all that thrilled about it either.

And yes, I do know that there's a brand of duct tape called Duck Tape, but if you want to refer to that specific brand name, then it needs to be capitalized as befits a proper name.

The substitute news reader at the radio station I listen to was having a bad morning. She was reading a report about the building collapse that killed two firefighters in the city yesterday, and in the space of about 10 seconds managed to say that the two firefighters "selfishly" gave their lives in the performance of their duties and that the building owner had been cited for having a "detective" roof in 2007.

"Mean librarian salaries up 2% in 2008." --American Libraries Direct, 8/13/08

What was the increase for nice librarians? ;-)

Okay, so awhile ago I made a grammar-related post in which I denied being a grammar nazi. Well, apparently I was in denial. As much as it pains me to admit it, any time a person sees a grammar error in print and is immediately thrown out of the text for five minutes as her brain begins spontaneously composing instructional grammar LJ posts, she's probably a grammar nazi. So, I've decided to stop fighting and roll with it.

Grammar errors seem to come and go like fashion. There'll be an error that I never see, then all of a sudden it's everywhere. It's almost like one person committed a particular grammar error, and everyone else saw it and said to themselves, 'well, it's in print, so it must be right.' Yeah. Not necessarily.

The latest grammar error that I'm suddenly seeing everywhere involves attaching dependent clauses to a part of the sentence other than the subject of the clause.

EXAMPLE: John rested his chin on Rodney's shoulder, who continued to type obliviously.

Attaching the dependent clause to 'shoulder' makes 'shoulder' the subject of the clause. However, Rodney's shoulder is not a who, it's a what, and it can't type. There are a couple of ways to rearrange this sentence to make it work.

1) John rested his chin on the shoulder of Rodney, who continued to type obliviously.

This is correct, but it's also stilted and awkward.

2) John propped his chin on Rodney, who continued to type obliviously.

This is correct, but it doesn't tell the reader where exactly John is propping his chin, which may or may not be important for setting the scene.

3) John rested his chin on Rodney's shoulder. Rodney continued to type obliviously.

Sometimes, you just have to give up and go with two sentences. There's nothing wrong with that.


There. I feel so much better now.