The misplaced “only”

“The word only is probably misplaced more often than any other modifier in legal and nonlegal writing.” So says preeminent grammar-and-usage expert Bryan Garner, whose cogent lesson on the subject deserves our careful attention. Check it out here.

UPDATE: I’ve fixed the broken link.

No problem

When did “no problem” worm its way into casual discourse as a response to “thank you”? It is such an inelegant substitute for “you’re welcome” or “my pleasure.” Please just avoid it. Thank you.

Three pronunciation blunders

1. Substantive is properly pronounced SUB-stant-iv, with the accent on the first syllable, not sub-STANT-iv, with the accent on the second syllable. If you listen, you will hear even well-educated, sophisticated speakers commit this annoying error.

2. Homogeneous consists of five syllables: ho-mo-JEE-nee-us. This is the word we use to describe something composed of parts or elements of the same kind — for example, a homogeneous population. Homogenous (without the e) is also a word, but it has a different meaning and a different pronunciation. It is a biological term that means corresponding in structure because of a common origin. It is pronounced ho-MODGE-uh-nus. It is increasingly common to hear — and see — the word homogenous when the speaker or writer obviously means homogeneous. Perhaps the confusion can be traced to the word homogenize, which means to make homogeneous and which sounds more like homogenous than homogeneous. Is the language evolving so that the distinction between the two words may someday disappear? Maybe. But until then (long after I’m gone, I hope), careful writers and speakers must take care to spell homogeneous with that critical e and pronounce it with the required five syllables.

3. Those who insist on using the French term chaise longue should pronounce it correctly as shays-long, not as shays-lounge. Look at the second word: the u comes after the g, not before the n. Decades of misuse may someday lead to broad acceptance of the boorish shays-lounge, but we should conscientiously object at every opportunity. The best path, of course, is avoid the French term altogether. There’s nothing wrong with lounge chair or even (if you find French terms irresistible) chaise without the longue.

Sure up

This trivial usage error barely warrants comment, but it crops up so frequently, and causes me so much irritation when it does, that I think it deserves a short post of its own. The correct expression for reinforcing or securing support for something is shore up, not sure up. This gross malapropism can be found regularly in the sports pages, which I suppose is not so surprising, but I am always shocked when I see it in presumably well-edited news articles on serious subjects. For example:

From the Washington Post: “Yes, a Petraeus pick would sure up questions regarding Romney’s expertise (or lack thereof) on matters of foreign policy and national security.” [The error here is compounded by incoherence: what the writer meant to say is that the pick would shore up Romney’s expertise, not that it would shore up questions regarding Romney’s expertise, which is the opposite of the writer’s intended meaning. And the parenthetical or lack thereof makes the entire sentence unintelligible.]

From the Hartford Business Journal: “The FDIC’s consent order demands that the bank take several steps to sure up its financial position . . . “

Those who make their living as writers should do a better job of writing prose free of embarrassing mistakes.

Sooner than later

I agree with Bryan Garner that the hackneyed expression sooner rather than later is redundant and should be avoided in favor of a simple soon. See Garner’s Modern American Usage, p. 759-60. But what I find truly annoying is the bastardized version sooner than later, which is not only redundant but also incoherent. Though it may be too late to eradicate this verbal weed, we should at least avoid propagating it ourselves, and we should condemn those who allow it to invade their speech or writing.

On the one hand

It is idiomatically preferable, in my view, to include the in both parts of the correlative expression On the one hand/on the other hand. I know that many competent writers omit the first the, so that the expression reads On one hand/on the other hand. And I understand the argument in favor of omitting it: after all, we do not normally insert the in comparable expressions. We would not typically say, in describing the contents of two grocery bags, In the one bag/in the other bag.(Or maybe we would; I certainly would not object to that expression.) I also acknowledge that On one hand may be at least as popular (in American English, though not in British English) as On the one hand.

But I nonetheless believe, for several reasons, that On the one hand is the better choice:

1. It has history on its side. On the one hand is the traditional idiom. It sounds familiar and natural. Why omit the when it is doing no harm?

2. Authoritative dictionaries treat On the one hand as the standard expression, meaning “from the first perspective” or “from one point of view.” Look it up (under the entry for hand).

3. There is a comforting balance and rhythm to the expression that is sacrificed when the is omitted.

4. The expression is figurative, not literal. We’re not talking about actual hands the way we might about actual grocery bags, so resort to comparable expressions does not carry much weight.

5. On the one hand is likely to be less noticeable, less jarring, than On one hand. Every time I see On one hand, I feel the need to insert the after on (just as I cannot keep myself from adding a missing of after couple in the expression couple of). Why risk calling needless negative attention to your writing?

Long story short

I am not fond of the hackneyed phrase to make a long story short (or its many trite cousins, including to cut to the chase and to get down to business). But it does not bother me all that much if used sparingly. What does grate on me is the truncated, slangy version long story short, as in these annoying examples:

From Time — Long story short, he quit his job to become a musician.

From The Atlantic — Long story short: our system of finance is irrational and disorganized and presents perverse incentives to doctors, hospitals, and communities.

Perhaps I’m being overly rigid: the shorthand version of the phrase, after years of irritating repetition, may have become idiomatically acceptable (like the even more irritating push the envelope). It certainly has the advantage of brevity. But I cannot help thinking less of writers who compound their banality with slovenliness.

My advice: avoid the phrase entirely, but, if you cannot help yourself, at least use the standard idiomatic expression and stay away from its bastard offspring.

Not only . . . but also

I cannot figure out why so many otherwise sophisticated writers are so prone to treating the phrase not only as a license to compose a run-on sentence. The traditional rule is that the conjunction not only should be paired with its correlative but also. For example:

I am not only a grumpmeister but also a happily retired lawyer.

The but also phrase is necessary to link the two clauses together to form a single sentence. Alternatively, it is perfectly acceptable to omit the but also formulation so long as the result is not a run-on sentence. For example:

I am not only a grumpmeister; I am also a happily retired lawyer.

Or:

I am not only a grumpmeister. I am also a happily retired lawyer.

In these examples, two independent clauses are linked together with a semicolon to form a single sentence or are written as two discrete sentences separated by a period. Either approach is permissible.

What is wholly impermissible is to link two independent clauses, each of which can stand alone as a separate sentence, using nothing but a comma, thereby forming precisely the sort of run-on sentence (or what some grammarians call a comma splice) that we learned to avoid in third or fourth grade. For example:

I am not only a grumpmeister, I am also a happily retired lawyer.

This is no more acceptable, in my view, than saying “I went to the store to buy milk, I also bought cereal.” Yet this gross error pervades contemporary writing. I see it everywhere, and it drives me nuts. My impression is that the use of not only is today more likely than not to trigger a run-on sentence. Here are just a few painful illustrations:

• For two centuries, America’s free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. [This is the opening sentence of President Obama’s January 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed.]
  • A possible rewrite: For two centuries, America’s free market has been not only the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, but also the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known.

• Not only will sanctions do no such thing, they will unite all of Iran’s political factions under a pro-nuclear banner, making talks impossible. [From an article in the (usually) exceptionally well-edited journal Foreign Affairs, entitled Sanctions Won’t End Iran’s Nuclear Program.]
  • A possible rewrite: Not only will sanctions do no such thing; on the contrary, they will unite all of Iran’s political factions under a pro-nuclear banner, making talks impossible.

• Not only was Ickes another friend of Douglas’s, he also disliked Wallace, with whom he had long fought turf battles inside the cabinet. [From Noah Feldman’s excellent book Scorpions, p. 192.]
  • A possible rewrite: Not only was Ickes another friend of Douglas’s; he also disliked Wallace, with whom he had long fought turf battles inside the cabinet.

• Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency. [From a March 2012 New York Times article entitled U.S. Inches Toward Goal of Energy Independence.]
  • A possible rewrite: The United States has not only reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years. It has also become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency.

• Further, proceedings must not only be fair, they must appear fair to all who observe them. [From Justice Breyer’s opinion for the Court in Indiana v. Edwards, 554 US 164 (2008).]
  • A possible rewrite: Further, proceedings must not only be fair, but also appear fair to all who observe them.

• [The majority] not only denies the D.C. Circuit the opportunity to assess the statute’s remedies, it refuses to do so itself. [From Chief Justice Roberts’s dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 US 723 (2008).]
  • A possible rewrite: The majority not only denies the D.C. Circuit the opportunity to assess the statute’s remedies, but also refuses to conduct the assessment itself.

• Not only did [the lower court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. [From the Supreme Court’s per curiam opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705 (2010), staying the televised broadcast of a federal trial involving a constitutional challenge to California’s prohibition of same-sex marriage.]
  • A possible rewrite: Not only did the lower court ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended. It also made clear that its purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.

I have never seen a coherent defense — indeed, I have never seen any defense — of not only run-on sentences. One possible explanation is that not only has begun to take on the characteristics of a subordinating conjunction, either instead of or in addition to its traditional role as a correlative conjunction. A subordinating conjunction links a dependent clause (which may contain a subject and a verb but cannot operate as a separate sentence) to an independent clause (which contains both a subject and a verb and can operate as a separate sentence). Some common subordinating conjunctions are after, although, because, since, before, until, while, unless. In the sentence After I left work, I drove to the market to pick up some milk, the opening clause (After I left work) is dependent, introduced by the subordinating conjunction After. Unlike the second clause (I drove to the market to pick up some milk), it cannot stand as a separate sentence. Because only one of the two clauses can survive as a separate sentence, we can separate the clauses with a comma without thereby creating a run-on sentence.

If not only were a subordinating conjunction, we might be able to justify omitting but also and using a mere comma to separate the first and second clauses in a sentence like I am not only a grumpmeister, I am also a happily retired lawyer. On that theory, the sentence would be the grammatical equivalent of Although I am a grumpmeister, I am also a happily retired lawyer, with not only serving the same subordinating role as although.

Though this may be a plausible explanation, I do not consider it an acceptable justification for the use of not only in a single sentence without its correlative but also and with only a comma separating the clauses. First, including not only in a clause does not make it dependent. Unlike Although I am a grumpmeister, the clause I am not only a grumpmeister can function as an independent sentence; it is not dependent on I am also a happily retired lawyer. The two clauses therefore require a linking conjunction and cannot be separated merely with a comma. Second, I have found no dictionary or usage guide that even hints at the possibility that not only may properly serve as a subordinating conjunction. If popular usage is heading in that direction, perhaps we will someday see authoritative style and usage manuals endorsing the practice. Until then, we should insist on the correlative but also as a linking device, and we should unapologetically enforce the rule against run-on sentences, condemning as a violation of that rule any not only sentence that uses a bare comma to separate two independent clauses.

*     *     *     *     *

Despite this long-winded entry, I am not done with not only. I will come back to the phrase in a future posting to complain about the apparent inability of many writers to use correlative conjunctions correctly to frame structurally identical sentence parts.

Lingering honorifics

I object to the convention of calling former public officeholders by their erstwhile titles. Governor Romney? Senator Santorum? Speaker Gingrich? Governor Palin? No, no, no, and no. That these characters once served in those positions does not mean that their former honorifics attach to them for life. What is wrong with Mr. Romney or Ms. Palin?

My view is entirely bipartisan. I object no less to President Clinton, Governor Dukakis, and Senator Bayh. Clinton is no longer president (to his everlasting regret); Dukakis hasn’t been governor in more than 20 years; neither Birch nor Evan Bayh is a sitting senator. It is not in the slightest disrespectful to call each of them Mr.

These lingering honorifics can get out of hand. Last week on the PBS Newshour, Judy Woodruff was interviewing David Boren, who spent four years as Governor of Oklahoma and 16 years as a Senator, and who now serves as president of the University of Oklahoma. Woodruff got all tangled up trying to figure out whether to call him Governor, Senator, or President, when a nice simple Mr. would have done just fine. She was also interviewing Christie Whitman, who followed her service as Governor of New Jersey with a term as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Woodruff felt the need to call her Governor, but why not Administrator?

At our nation’s founding, we rejected the British tradition of bestowing titles on the rich and powerful. We have no dukes or earls; we do not call anyone “your excellency” or “your lordship.” We dilute that salutary principle when we treat former public officeholders as if they have ascended permanently to a peerage.

Perhaps I’m overreacting in this season of politics, with so many former public officials parading around the political platform and performing in the media circus. But if I had my way, I would criminalize all this oozing obsequiousness toward those who once held but who no longer occupy high public office.

For a more extensive (and more nuanced) treatment of this burning issue, take a look at Emily Yoffe’s Slate article entitled You Are Not the Speaker — Politicians like Newt Gingrich who cling to their old titles are pretentious, incorrect, and un-American.

Between you and I — Redux

I expressed my views on between you and I in an earlier post (which you can read here). If you find the subject even marginally interesting, I recommend that you listen to this thoughtful (and balanced) podcast at Slate’s Lexicon Valley. The podcast includes a reference to this old New York Times column, in which Russell Baker explicates, with characteristic style, Shakespeare’s blunder in writing between you and I in The Merchant of Venice.