Now here's a guy who takes his punctuation seriously.

This morning I received a message from a new e-friend, Tammy Lubbers, whose Facebook page is here.

“You wrote a book about punctuation?” she wrote. [She is referring to Comma Sense, a book that I don't think it immodest of me to acknowledge has made me famous throughout my house.] I KNEW I liked you! I’ve decided to begin a petition to eradicate apostrophes, as they are rarely used correctly. Want to join?”

I was appalled; I was aghast; I was mortified; I was eating a bowl of Life cereal, which is perfectly named since it’s not quite sweet enough.

Milk flying everywhere, I fired back this missile of a missive:

“God, no. I LOVE and constantly use the semicolon; I wholly depend upon it. SEE?! You start a club about how to use [the semicolon] correctly, and I’m your man. But eradicate it? No, no, no, no, no. We only have 13 punctuation marks, total. I NEED the semicolon. NEED, I SAY!!!”

My wife Catherine thinks I’m insane about punctuation. She’s wrong, of course. Period.

Now then. As a reader of my blog, I know that you are a literate: sophisticated, educated, knowledgable knowledgible smart. And Mrs. Lubbers, I happen to know, isn’t exactly a drooling admirer of shiny objects. So I ask: What think you of this move I have reason to know is burgeoning out there, of eradicating the semicolon? Are you for that? Is anyone? Do people really not know how to use this noblest (if most finicky) of punctuation marks?

If more of you vote for eradicating than saving the semicolon, I will swallow my protests, bow to your will, and see to it that the semicolon vanishes from use.

That’s right. I can do that. They don’t let just anybody write those books, you know.

So what say you, reader? Thumbs up or down for Ye Oldye Semicolon?

Related to this is my completely excellent When Punctuation Goes Really, Really Wrong.

**********************************************************************************************************
Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore
Befriend: http://www.facebook.com/john.shore1
Be Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s

How I Raised, Folded, Bluffed, Flirted, Cursed, and Won Millions at The World Series of Poker

Over the last few years, poker has exploded into the mainstream through shows like Celebrity Poker Showdown and the syndication of major tournaments like the World Series of Poker and the World Poker Tour.  Professional player Annie Duke has stood out from the crowd for breaking the gender barrier and her considerable playing skills.  Duke tells her story in this autobiographical book, co-written by David Diamond.

Image: Wikipedia.

Biographical Notes (adapted from Wikipedia)
Annie Duke (born Anne LaBarr Lederer; September 13, 1965) is a professional poker player and author who won a bracelet in the 2004 World Series of Poker $2,000 Omaha Hi-Low Split-8 or Better Event and was the winner of the 2004 World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, where she earned the Winner-Take-All prize of $2,000,000.

Annie went to Columbia University where she double-majored in English and psychology. Subsequent to her undergraduate years, Duke was awarded an NSF Fellowship to attend graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania to study psycholinguistics, a field within cognitive psychology.

In early 2004, Duke received considerable publicity for tutoring actor Ben Affleck, who then went on to win the 2004 California State Poker Championship. Before that time, one of her claims to poker fame was her 10th place finish in the 2000 World Series of Poker (WSOP) main event — one position short of the final table — while eight months pregnant with her third child. In the 2004 World Series of Poker, she eliminated her brother, Howard Lederer ‘82, from four separate events, including the World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, where she took first place and her brother took third. During this same World Series, she won her first gold bracelet, in an Omaha Hi-Lo tournament.

Image: Wikipedia.

In 2009, she appeared on the Donald Trump reality television show, Celebrity Apprentice. Throughout the season, each celebrity raised money for a charity of his or her choice. Duke raised more money for her charity, Refugees International, than any other contestant.

Summary
The narration alternates between her victorious run at the 2004 WSOP and the story of her life.  The book starts when she is young – the daughter of St. Paul’s School English teacher Richard Lederer – and her experiences growing up in a quirky, intelligent family.  Duke explains how she came to love poker and what drove her to leave her academic life behind to pursue a career in gambling.  She describes horrible losses and satisfying victories in her playing and her personal life.  The finale of the book, of course, is her two million dollar 20004 win, which she narrates with detail.

Poker tips are sprinkled throughout the book in side boxes.  Readers will probably have more interest in the book if they have poker experience, but Duke avoids making the book too technical.

How I Raised, Folded, Bluffed, Flirted, Cursed, and Won Millions at The World Series of Poker is a whirlwind tale of interesting characters, terrible hardships, a gradual rise to fame, and a very intelligent woman.

Anything by Richard Lederer (you could start with “Anguished English“) … but we warn you … be somewhere you can laugh out loud!

The prescriptivists are on my last nerve.  Some of them really believe that there is something wrong with this sentence:

(1) One of the only things I liked about living in Ottawa was the strong film community.

Reasonable readers, can you find the error in (1)?  The construction that “doesn’t convey any information”, the one that Richard Lederer calls a “strange and illogical expression”, the one Robert Hartwell Fiske cites as “further evidence that people scarcely know what their words mean”? Give up? It’s one of the only!

Oh, you didn’t find that to be illogical?  You thought you got some information out of those words?  Well then, congratulations; you’re a normal speaker of English.  Honestly, I couldn’t see what could the problem with one of the only possibly be.  Well, let’s look at Lederer’s argument against it:

“This strange and illogical expression began showing up a few years ago, and English took a step backward when it did.  The expression has been defended on the basis that it is no worse than only two, because only means ‘one’ and only two is oxymoronic. A specious argument! It’s like saying that robbing a bank is okay because it’s no worse than robbing a jewelry store.  Moreover, only in the sense of ‘only two’ does not mean ‘one’; it means ‘no more than.’  There is no meaning of only that fits with one of the only.“

Well, that’s a kick in the gut of the facts — three kicks, in fact.  Kick the first is the claim that one of the only started showing up a few years ago.  Google Books reports it in two books around 1770, in The Dramatic Censor and The Sale of Authors, and reports hundreds of uses throughout the nineteenth century.  It’s more than a few years old, that’s for sure.

Kick the second is the idea that any reasonable person defends one of the only by noting that only two is oxymoronic.  I sure don’t, and I don’t understand who would.  There is nothing oxymoronic, nothing contradictory about the construction.  Only two is completely clear, comprehensible, standard, and logical — hundreds of pre-1800 usages of only two in Google Books attest to this.

Kick the third is Lederer’s definition of only.  Only two does not mean “no more than two” in standard usage.  If it meant “no more than two”, then (2) would be a totally acceptable sentence.

(2) *The cyclops has only two eyes.

With Lederer’s definition (2) is fine, because a cyclops has only one eye, and one is no more than two.  But a quick poll of the only two people in the apartment at the moment revealed that (2) is utterly unacceptable; clearly Lederer’s definition is insufficient.  The real definition of only in only two is something along the lines of “exactly”, but with the crucial additional implicature that this is a smaller number than expected.  Violating this implicature makes a sentence sound weird, as with (3b):

(3a) I was sad when only two people showed up at my cats’ wedding.
(3b) #I was sad when only one thousand people showed up at my cats’ wedding.

Now, the fact that one gets this implicature, that only two sounds so much better than only one thousand, ought to suggest that there is logic underlying the construction. This, coupled with Lederer’s crummy definition of only, should lead a reader to be skeptical of his claim that no meaning of only can fit in one of the only. I am curious as to what Lederer thinks the definitions of only are.

So what does one of the only mean?  What happens if we follow one critic’s request to “parse it if you will, and see what you get”?  Let’s look at the example in (1).  The only things I liked about living in Ottawa is a noun phrase, identifying the set of things the speaker liked about living in Ottawa, noting that this set is the complete set, and implying that it’s an awfully small set.  That’s what the quantifier only means, that’s what it’s meant for hundreds of years.  One of modifies a noun phrase, selecting one member of that set.  The two combined, as they are in (1), pick out a single member of the set of all things the speaker liked about living in Ottawa. So what exactly were we supposed to see when we parsed this?  That it works?  I’m fine with that.

There’re a lot more arguments that one of the only makes sense, and Jan Freeman has a wonderful column with a few of them.  Notably, Freeman points out that one of the only is attested cross-linguistically, further destroying the notion that one of the only is somehow illogical.  So in the end, I have to ask this of the prescriptivists: Do you really have nothing better to do in your lives than to ignore the well-known meanings of words so that you get to call other people stupid?  Are you really unable to think of a better pastime than claiming that a reasonable, well-worn construction is illogical and incomprehensible?  Are you really so committed to those goals that you’re unwilling to comprehend an easily comprehensible construction?

Or as I screamed into my computer after reading this junk: Why are you spending more effort trying to misunderstand someone than trying to understand them?

Summary: Prescriptivists insistently grouse that people don’t think enough when they write, but prescriptivists seem just as likely not to think when writing.  Case in point: the arguments against one of the only are positively absurd, based off of a wanton misinterpretation of what only means, and completely independent of historical usage in English and other languages.  Of course one of the only is fine, a fact that has been known since 1770.

[ L=Language | Index | N= Netiquette ]

Series: The ABC’s of Professionalism

“Abraham Lincoln became America’s greatest Precedent. Lincoln’s mother died in infancy, and he was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands. When Lincoln was President, he wore only a tall silk hat. He said, ‘In onion there is strength.’ Abraham Lincoln write the Gettysburg address while traveling from Washington to Gettysburg on the back of an envelope. He also signed the Emasculation Proclamation, and the Fourteenth Amendment gave the ex-Negroes citizenship. But the Clue Clux Clan would torcher and lynch the ex-Negroes and other innocent victims. On the night of April 14, 1865, Lincoln went to the theater and got shot in his seat by one of the actors in a moving picture show. The believed assinator was John Wilkes Booth, a supposedly insane actor. This ruined Booth’s career.”

– From a compilation of student bloopers and mistakes, attributed to Richard Lederer. (Source: http://www.innocentenglish.com)

Now that you’ve hopefully had a good laugh, let’s get serious about “mistakes.” Human beings are deeply flawed in two respects. First, we make countless mistakes every day. No surprise, right? The curious part is why we harbor fears about making more. Fear of imperfection is the second and far greater flaw.

“The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one.” — Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)

“To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the biggest mistake of all.” — Peter McWilliams, Life 101

“If you don’t make mistakes, you’re not working on hard enough problems. And that’s a big mistake.” — Frank Wilczek (1951- )

We fear mistakes because it reveals that we are imperfect.  But, everyone already knows that. So why do we think that makes us look bad?

“While one person hesitates because he feels inferior, the other is busy making mistakes and becoming superior.” — Henry C. Link

“I have learned the novice can often see things that the expert overlooks. All that is necessary is not to be afraid of making mistakes, or of appearing naive.” — Abraham Maslow, Psychologist

“Assert your right to make a few mistakes. If people can’t accept your imperfections, that’s their fault.” — Dr. David M. Burns

Mistakes should be welcomed and valued because they are opportunities to learn and improve.

“Mistakes, obviously, show us what needs improving. Without mistakes, how would we know what we had to work on?” — Peter McWilliams, Life 101

“An inventor fails 999 times, and if he succeeds once, he’s in. He treats failures simply as practice shots.” — Charles Franklin Kettering, inventor

What we learn from our mistakes they will guide us and nudge us along the path toward success.

“If I had to live my life again, I’d make the same mistakes, only sooner.” — Tallulah Bankhead (1903-1968 )

“If I had my life to live over… I’d dare to make more mistakes next time.” — Nadine Stair

“Would you like me to give you a formula for success? It’s quite simple, really. Double your rate of failure. You are thinking of failure as the enemy of success. But it isn’t as all. You can be discouraged by failure – or you can learn from it. So go ahead and make mistakes. Make all you can. Because, remember, that’s where you will find success.” — Thomas J. Watson

“A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.” — George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

“It’s a sad day when you find out that it’s not accident or time or fortune, but just yourself that kept things from you.” — Lillian Hellman (1905-1984)

If we are wise and able to suppress our arrogance, it is also possible to learn from the mistakes of others.

“You must learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.” — Sam Levenson (1911-1980)

To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes, the wise and the good learn wisdom for the future.” — Plutarch, Historian

Still, one’s own mistakes handled professionally are the best-learned lessons.

“Don’t argue for other people’s weaknesses. Don’t argue for your own. When you make a mistake, admit it, correct it, and learn from it immediately.” — Stephen R. Covey, Author and Speaker

“It’s always helpful to learn from your mistakes because then your mistakes seem worthwhile.” — Garry Marshall, ‘Wake Me When It’s Funny’

There are proper and improper responses to mistakes.

“Laughing at our mistakes can lengthen our own life. Laughing at someone else’s can shorten it.” — Cullen Hightower

“When you make a mistake, there are only three things you should ever do about it: admit it, learn from it, and don’t repeat it.” — Paul “Bear” Bryant, “I Ain’t Never Been Nothing but a Winner”

History has proven there’s an undeniable connection between mistakes and innovation.

“Mistakes are the portals of discovery.” — James Joyce (1882-1941)

“He who never made a mistake never made a discovery.” — Samuel Smiles

“Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations.” — Steve Jobs

Here’s the lesson. Forgive yourself for your mistakes, then commit to improvement. As long as your intentions were moral and ethical and your efforts were careful and thorough, there is no valid reason to feel guilty about a mistake, even if it caused harm. Of course when harm has occurred the whole matter of forgiveness and reparations must take place. After that, there’s not much else you can do but move on and do better.

“How unhappy is he who cannot forgive himself.” — Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)

“Life is an adventure in forgiveness.” — Norman Cousins (1915-1990)

“Forgiveness does not always lead to a healed relationship. Some people are not capable of love, and it might be wise to let them go along with your anger. Wish them well, and let them go their way.” — Real Live Preacher, RealLivePreacher.com Weblog, July 7, 2003

The worst thing is to allow one mistake to turn into more.

“A man who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it, is committing another mistake.” — Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC)

“If you have made mistakes, even serious ones, there is always another chance for you. What we call failure is not the falling down but the staying down.” — Mary Pickford (1893-1979)

Accepting our limits and imperfections as humans is not the same as being cavalier about mistakes. Errors are inevitable and they are serious business. Learning to deal properly with mistakes is the mark of a professional.

“Mistakes are part of the dues one pays for a full life” — Sophia Loren

God bless,

– CC

[ L=Language | Index | N= Netiquette ]

© Copyright October 2008, Clancy Cross. All rights reserved.
Read more “Clancy’s Quotes” at: ClancyCross.WordPress.com

 I spent today with an auditorium full of non-profit marketers as I co-chaired the American Marketing Association’s 10th Annual Cause Conference.  There were many smart speakers who shared ideas about branding, marketing, and even social media marketing that Not For Profit organizations can take back and use immediately in their jobs.  The day’s most amusing speaker had to be Elaine Fogel.  Elaine is a senior contributor for MarketingProfs Daily Fix, and today she previewed her lunchtime keynote speech on marketing mistakes.  See her post for two examples of copy-writing gaffes.

How you communicate with your customers/clients/donors is critical to how they view your organization.  Whether the communication is written or verbal, brand impressions are made at each interaction.  So – take a few minutes to review that email  you are sending to multiple clients.  Have someone else read over your copy for that newsletter article.  Check those call center scripts for plain English!

Make each interaction count.  Your customers will thank you for it.

Fun detour: If you enjoy reading other people’s English errors or just like word play, you should grab a copy of one of Richard Lederer’s books.  His book Anguished English is a riot!  That said, in some ways it is kind of disturbing as well…

Because of a book about punctuation called “Comma Sense” that I co-authored with extremely famous Grammarian Guy Richard Lederer (author of the unbelievably hilarious Anguished English series), I sometimes get e-mails from people pondering punctuational problems. A few days ago I received one such note from a young man in high school, who wrote to ask why in the world anyone should really have to learn punctuation.

“It seems like such a waste,” he said. “Who really cares where commas or periods go? As long as the meaning comes across, that’s all that matters.”

Let me answer that young man (and you know who you are, Kyle!) here, since I know he reads this blog. Young man (I love saying that, for some obnoxious reason or the other), the problem is that meaning is inextricably bound to punctuation. You goof up the punctuation of a sentence, and you’ve goofed up the meaning of that sentence. Doubt it? Oh, yeah? Really?

Well, fear me–if you dare!

Below is an example (taken from “Comma Sense”) of the same letter, punctuated in two different ways. After reading them both, I think you’ll agree that proper punctuation can spell the difference between … well, in this case, a second date and a restraining order.

Here’s the first letter:

My Dear Pat,

The dinner we shared the other night — it was absolutely lovely! Not in my wildest dreams could I ever imagine anyone as perfect as you are. Could you — if only for a moment – think of our being together forever? What a cruel joke to have you come into my life only to leave again; it would be heaven denied. The possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy with joy. I face the time we are apart with great sadness.

John

P.S.: I would like to tell you that I love you. I can’t stop thinking that you are one of the prettiest women on earth.

And now here’s the same letter, punctuated differently:

My Dear,

Pat the dinner we shared the other night. It was absolutely lovely — not! In my wildest dreams, could I ever imagine anyone? As perfect as you are, could you — if only for a moment — think? Of our being together forever: what a cruel joke! To have you come into my life only to leave again: it would be heaven! Denied the possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy. With joy I face the time we are apart.

With great “sadness,”

John

P.S.: I would like to tell you that I love you. I can’t. Stop thinking that you are one of the prettiest women on earth.

And I think that settles that.
**********************************************************************************************************
Follow: http://twitter.com/johnshore
Befriend: http://www.facebook.com/john.shore1
Be Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Shore/89494795412?ref=s

Because of a book about punctuation called “Comma Sense” that I co-authored with extremely famous Grammarian Guy Richard Lederer (author of the unbelievably hilarious Anguished English series), I sometimes get e-mails from people pondering punctuational problems. A few days ago, I received one such note from a young man in high school, who wrote to ask why in the world anyone should really have to learn punctuation. “It seems like such a waste,” he said. “Who really cares where commas or periods go? As long as the meaning comes across, that’s all that matters.”

Let me answer that young man (and you know who you are, Kyle!) here, since I know he reads this blog. Young man (I love saying that, for some obnoxious reason or the other), the problem is that meaning is inextricably bound to punctuation. You goof up the punctuation of a sentence, and you’ve goofed up the meaning of that sentence. Doubt it? Oh, yeah? Really?

Well, FEAR ME–if you dare!

Below is an example (taken from “Comma Sense”) of the same letter, punctuated in two different ways. After reading them both, I think you’ll agree that proper punctuation can spell the difference between … well, in this case, between a second date, and a restraining order.

Here’s the first letter: 

My Dear Pat,

The dinner we shared the other night — it was absolutely lovely! Not in my wildest dreams could I ever imagine anyone as perfect as you are. Could you — if only for a moment – think of our being together forever? What a cruel joke to have you come into my life only to leave again; it would be heaven denied. The possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy with joy. I face the time we are apart with great sadness.

John

P.S.: I would like to tell you that I love you. I can’t stop thinking that you are one of the prettiest women on earth.

And now here’s the same letter, punctuated differently:

My Dear,

Pat the dinner we shared the other night. It was absolutely lovely — not! In my wildest dreams, could I ever imagine anyone? As perfect as you are, could you — if only for a moment — think? Of our being together forever: what a cruel joke! To have you come into my life only to leave again: it would be heaven! Denied the possibility of seeing you again makes me giddy. With joy I face the time we are apart.

With great “sadness,”

John

P.S.: I would like to tell you that I love you. I can’t. Stop thinking that you are one of the prettiest women on earth.

And I think that settles that.