Grammatical Pet Peeve of the Day

Those who know me, even peripherally, are well aware of my obsession with good grammar. I truly believe it is one of my missions to assist in saving the rapidly devolving English language in any small way that I can.

As lofty as this goal is, the best I can usually do is to surreptitiously correct my boss's emails, presentations, announcements etc. or to silently stew over poorly composed advertising copy.

Tip: An apostrophe NEVER MAKES IT PLURAL.

So, for the company currently advertising in the Toronto subway system about how they can get me out of debt (allowing me to rejoin the "have's"), please take note.

I'm not a stickler for everybody's grammar--if you send me an email, replete with spelling errors and grammatical missteps, I'm not going to think less of you or mock you (unless I'm feeling particularly saucy).

There are, however, people who should be held to a higher standard. People who should know better, based on their particular stations in life. People to whom proper grammar should be second nature and whose very livelihoods are based on their alleged expertise in these types of matters.

Journalists, for example, should not only be aware of proper grammar themselves, but the people in their employ whose job it is to check their work to ensure it's correct, should be even more well-versed in its application! Editors, copy editors, proof-readers etc. should be beyond reproach in this realm! There's no excuse for bad grammar or wrong word usage in a published piece. Or, rather, there should be no excuse....

It's important to note that I'm not talking about a writer's stylistic choices, or colloquialisms, used in writing, which may not adhere to traditional grammatical "rules."

I'm talking about big, bad, unambiguous mistakes.

For example, Peter Howell, an entertainment columnist for the Toronto Star, reviewed a movie a while back and tried to use the phrase "deus ex machina" to describe the events of the film.

Instead, the phrase that was printed was "deux ex machina."

Naturally, being a former drama major, I was appalled by this and felt compelled to write to Mr. Howell to inform him of this tragic mistake.

I generally have nothing against Peter Howell..he's a fairly benign presence at the Star (he doesn't regularly invoke my ire and incite my rage like, say, oh, I don't know..FESCHUK...) I usually agree with his assessments of films. I respect his opinions. But I still felt the need to point out this error. I mean--c'mon--you're reviewing films, you should at least know the proper term for the dramatic device you're describing!

Anyway, Mr. Howell emailed me back explaining that his "idiot copy editor" changed it to "deux" rather than "deus" and I was inclined to believe him.

Apparently the same copy editor is still in the Star's employ--yesterday, in discussing Danny Devito's drunken appearance on "The View", Mr. Howell described him as being "sauced." If you're liquored up, you're soused, not "sauced"--though, granted, the liquid by which you achieved your soused state could accurately be described as "The Sauce."

A slippery slope, I know, but one that writers must gingerly & regularly traverse.

I know this subject is something about which I tend to pontificate, and if you don't care and think I'm wasting my time, that's certainly your prerogative. However, if that is, in fact, the case, I can't fathom why you'd still be reading this post...

Anyway, I implore someone out there to give me a job as a copy editor. I'd be really good at it.

Plus, I'm a lot of fun at office parties...more fun than Britney Spears at an "I just got divorced and I'm foregoing panties for Hanukkah" party, in fact.

Call me!