English will stand up straight

Oh, English, I know you must be tired. The constant abuse and negligence you suffer would cause the most stalwart language to slump in resignation. It's hardly surprising that I keep encountering signs of your weariness.





(I won't link to the next one, as it's a right-wing anti-immigration site. Of course, that makes the typo in the discussion about Hispanics who don't learn English all the more hilarious.)



Copyeditor General's ruling: Think about your posture, English. No one likes a slouchy language.

Nothing will dangle. Nothing at all.

I'm beginning to suspect it's possible to have an entire blog based around things that dangle; modifiers, participles, whatever. They're just so damn prevalent. And it's especially annoying when you understand the intended message and realize the end result is really just laziness.

This sign was in our hotel room in Aruba:



Is the hotel being courteous by thanking us for not smoking? Obviously not; but that's the literal meaning.

And today, this sentence, in (yet another) AP story:



It's a tad small, I know, so let me repeat:

And in Penn Hills, Pa., Nancy Monahan, 54, who creates floor displays for a discount chain, says her "real job" begins in the evening when she returns to her creaky yellow house and her black cat, Maxine, turns on her computer and starts sleuthing.

That, my friends, is one smart cat.

Copyeditor General's ruling: Don't let it dangle. That's how accidents happen.

Students will get some perspective

Many moons ago, when I was copyeditor of my college newspaper, I noticed an enthusiastic insistence on using the word "perspective" in place of "prospective."

A recent online exploration revealed that nothing has changed.





I know what you're thinking: Hey, they're just kids. They're still learning. Isn't that what college is for? So someone can teach them the right way to do it?

That would be a fine argument, except it appears the grown-ups know no better.







If you enjoy suffering, I encourage you too take a look at this rogue's gallery of similar grammatical affronts. I'd planned to post the whole thing here, but decided the image would take too long to load. Seriously.

We'll meet back here to console each other afterward.

One interesting anomaly is that, quite often, the offending phrase is only in the page title and/or filename.





This suggests one of two possibilities:
1) Most coders don't know the difference between "perspective" and "prospective," even when it's right there in the page content;
or
2) Savvy college marketers deliberately plant the misspelling so the pages show up in search results. Why? Because they recognize that no one knows the difference between "perspective" and "prospective" and may try searching on either one.

I'm not sure which option frightens me more.

Copyeditor General's ruling: The only time I expect to see perspective students is when they're learning about horizon lines and vanishing points.

Thoughts will not go unfinished

The AP is at it again. In this morning's news was a story about a Chinese government request to make Everest off limits so the Olympic torch can reach the summit unmolested.



Buried in the middle of the article was this intriguing note:



Did someone have more to say about China? Or was the writer having a senior moment, the journalistic equivalent of walking into a room and forgetting what you were looking for?

Copyeditor General's ruling: If there's an editorial counterpart to tying string around one's finger or making a knot in one's handkerchief, I suggest the AP look into it.

Surrogates will not be dipped in soy sauce

Last week's dinner at Royal East, venerable Cambridge Chinese restaurant, yielded this wise warning:



Yep, I have no idea what it means, either.

On a vaguely cuisine-related note--though admittedly accidental--we find this priceless example of Words Heard But Never Seen, from Slate's presidential-race blog post about Geraldine Ferarro's resignation from the Clinton campaign:



Copyeditor General's ruling: If wonton surrogates have to go, they should be replaced by scallion pancake surrogates. Or perhaps bloggers with a better grasp of linguistic subtleties.

**Update: Someone's paying attention over at Slate--the error is fixed, and respect duly given. Thanks for the love, kids!

There will be no spooky mysteries

Occasionally in my perusal of online content, I encounter a new error, a mistake I haven't seen before. And deep down in my grammatical gut, I know Something Bad is happening.

Such was the case this week, when I read a user-generated movie review that referred to a parodic film as "a spook of" another film.

A simple slip of the fingers? Not necessarily; hurried typing might produce "spoor" or "spood" or "spoog," but the "k" is on the other side of the keyboard.

Fearing the worst, I did a Google search on "a spook of." Among references to ghostly apparitions and CIA spies were the following frightening results:



What to make of this ghastly phenomenon? Is the word spoof falling out of use, rendering it essentially invisible? Are people reading less, so their exposure to the correct word is minimized? Or am I so out of touch with popular culture that I haven't noticed that The Kids are now using this phrase quite legitimately to refer to lampoons, parodies and pastiches?

Whichever it is, it scares me.

Copyeditor General's ruling: Stop scaring me.

Financial companies will not tax my patience

As Ben "C-Note" Franklin once said, "In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes."

Which means both are healthily competitive industries. Which means companies have to try a little harder to stand out. Which means, therefore, that they should be veeerrry careful to avoid appearing shoddy and unprofessional.

(You can tell I'm going somewhere with this, can'tcha?)

This is especially true in the case of financial service companies (see, that's where the taxes part comes in), whose credibility lies their mastery of detail.

However.

Exhibit A comes courtesy of the lovely Ashley, whose heightened awareness of grammatical faux pas has earned her the title of Deputy of the Week:



To confirm its correct what, exactly, H&R Block?

Over at A&E Financial Services, there's a two-fer: an errant apostrophe and confusion over whether the company is a singular or plural entity:



Not just an accountant; not a proofreader either.

But at least we should be grateful that someone there knows how to spell accountant, unlike the chaps at Matthews Hanton:



The prize, though, goes to Keith M. Earl, Certified Public Accountant:



Oh, I'm sorry; did I say "Certified Public Accountant"? My mistake.



Copyeditor General's ruling:When your business is built on attention to detail, your expertise in that area should shine through in everything you do. But if you can't be bothered to spellcheck your site, what are the chances you double-check your balance sheets?

News outlets will follow the lead of coffee chains

Perhaps Starbucks's confusion concerning "less" and "fewer" is forgivable; its people should rightly be more concerned with prompt delivery of my soy latte with sugar-free vanilla than with grammatical niceties.

However, I cannot extend the same benevolence to the Associated Press. While reading this:



I found this:



Oh dear me, Mark Jewell! Dear me again, AP editorial staff! You can spell bacteriophage but you can't follow your own rules?

Copyeditor General's ruling: The AP Stylebook's ruling:
fewer, less
In general, use fewer for individual items, less for bulk or quantity.

Coffee chains will make fewer mistakes

There are two reasons I rarely use a napkin when I go to Starbucks: first, it's an unnecessary waste of paper; second, this:



I don't know whether it's supposed to be a promise, a threat, or an admonishment. Either way, it annoys me every time.

Copyeditor General's ruling: Too much coffee can make one irritable. So can too many grammatical errors. I suggest Starbucks work on making fewer mistakes before they start thinking about fewer napkins.

Ninjas will have totally sweet editing skills

When I want to rant make constructive criticism on a topic that covers both food and words, I have a dilemma: do I get snarky outline my concerns here or on LimeyG Bends Yer Lughole, my other, more foodular blog?

This week, I wrote about bad restaurant website design on LimeyG. But I also found a site so loaded with typos, it was more suited to sharing here.



Maybe it's not fair to call out Ninja New York for grammatical incorrectness: the management team is Japanese, so can be forgiven for lack of fluency in English. But should that really be an excuse? Were there no proofreaders, no professional writers, no marketing-department members to suggest an edit here or there?



Copyeditor General's ruling: Ninja, I love you. Your creative food, your cozy caves, even the Magicain who asks my table. But please ask someone to take a look at the site before you make any updates. Oh, and please don't come after me with one of those big swords. Domo arigato gozaimasu.

All my exes will live in fear of typos

Q: What's more annoying than apostrophe misuse?
A: Selective apostrophe misuse.

These cutely titled address books sit in a gift store in Davis Square:



Who does this? Who understands what a plural noun looks like, recognizes that there's no apostrophe--and then decides there must be an exception to the rule?

Copyeditor General's ruling: The correct spelling is exes, as in "I count among my exes many misguided souls who don't own dictionaries."

God will be in the details

Spotted on College Ave this week:



Is it possible to age in any other direction? Or is this congregation keeping something from the rest of us?

Copyeditor General's ruling: Just because you have extra letters, it doesn't mean you have to use them.

Auslandswörter werden richtig sein

Denkst du, dass diese Plakat auch in Europa gezeigt ist? Oder ist es nur in den Vereinten Staaten, dass niemand auf Deutsch schreiben kann?



Copyeditor General's ruling: If you don't know how to spell Schlussverkauf, you should just admit it. And then find a good German dictionary.

All online content will be proofread first

I know: a lofty goal, to be sure. And it would be wishful thinking on a fantastical level to expect every MySpace comment and blog response to be typo-free.

But it should certainly be true of, say, commercial ad copy posted in, say, Facebook--especially when the ad itself is so vague as to be meaningless:



Did they just finish breakfast or brunch?

Okay, perhaps we can excuse this; plucky online entrepreneurs may be so engaged in the whirlwind of their start-up that they forget to check spelling.

Massively successful, Google-owned video-sharing websites, on the other hand, should have a grammar gatekeeper to check for, say, dangling modifiers:



Copyeditor General's ruling: The Copyeditor General considers herself to be more or less completed already, thankyouverymuch.

Chicken will be victorious

Chicken and steak are approaching the finish line ...



Copyeditor General's ruling: Huzzah!

Thanks for the invitation

But I'm going to have to decline.

I think we all know why.

Online newspaper editors will lay off the nog

Yes, I know yesterday was Christmas, and today is Boxing Day, and between the mince pies and sherry and the hourly renditions of "Merry Xmas Everybody" (you know, this one), it's hard to know for sure: was the headline's painful apostrophe in the copy you gave to the designer, or did he throw it in there without thinking?

And why didn't anyone check the finished graphic?



Copyeditor General's ruling: It may not be culinary, but it's certainly one of the year's lowlights, Guardian Unlimited.

Small birds will be monogamous

I don't know what disturbs me most about this caption: the fact that these three bluebirds have been shacking up for the last two decades, or the fact that this report of avian immorality comes from the BBC News website ...



Copyeditor General's ruling: Hey, BBC online editor! Your participle is dangling!

Your Christmas gift will not be returnable

Copyeditor General knows what to give you for Christmas (or equivalent). Even though America would probably love Guitar Hero, there are many practical items that the country could really use. Think of them as the grammatical equivalent of tube socks.

To prevent paradigm shifts
Business jargon has slithered its way into everyday language. But new and frightening examples are always being spawned, as this business jargon dictionary demonstrates (facipulate, anyone?).

People who use such words to appear smart (it doesn't work) are getting a business jargon protest gift. Because they need a daily reminder that "our alliance stands alone in demonstrating the extensivity of integrated partnerships with other collaboratives" is meaningless.

To save the future from illiteracy
Between Teletubbies and text-messaging, the Kids of Today are surrounded by painful examples of language use. So Santa CG is bringing them How to Speak Politely and Why, the updated version of Munro Leaf's 1934 Grammar Can Be Fun. It isn't just for Lil' William Safire, but for any kidlet who stands a chance of learning to regard "ain't" and "gimme" with disdain.

The advice is offered gently and charmingly, and the illustrations are in that great '30s pen-and-ink style. Plus, Leaf was the author of Ferdinand, the story of the bull who preferred to sniff flowers than fight. So getting the kids to enjoy Leaf might lead to world peace. Oh, come on, it's Christmas. I can dream.

To show solidarity with other word nerds
They snort when TV talking-heads say mediums instead of media. They redline typos on menus. They reply to your email with the victorious observation that (dammit!) you misspelled a word ("What, exactly, is proofimg?").

They need something that weaves their derision, precision and Schadenfreude into a soft cotton garment, like this "Urge to Edit" shirt with Arthur Evans's (marked-up) quote: "Nothing, not love, not greed, not passion or hatred, is stronger than a writer's need to change another writer's copy."

To reduce confusion on the cheap
The Plain English Campaign's mission is to eradicate gobbledygook, jargon and misleading language, especially in content created for the general public (example: a sign at Gatwick Airport that reads "Passenger shoe repatriation area only").

Their A to Z of alternative words (PDF) is a handy reminder that "often" is just as clear as "on numerous occasions," and that "quickly" can replace "with the minimum of delay" with no loss of meaning. It will be printed, bound and dropped down the chimney of every bureaucrat, office manager, consultant and communications professional. Ho ho ho.

Copyeditor General's ruling: It turns out you already know what you want for Christmas! According to Ask.com's review of top searches for 2007, the second most common search term this year was "dictionary." I'll leave aside the disturbing news that people are also searching for MySpace and Google (why?) and just say how proud I am that you're making an effort to check spelling and definitions.

American Heritages for everyone! It's going to be a happy Christmas after all!

Word nerds will always get what they want

As I was coming out of the subway station the other day, I heard a street musician playing the Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

Actually, playing isn't really the right word. Moidalizing (said in Bronx goon voice) is more like it.

I'm not the biggest Stones fan, but still, this guy's ineptitude really bugged me. How can anyone claim to be a musician and not know the words to the chorus, fer pete's sake? It's not that hard; the song turns up on every oldies station at least hourly. You don't even have to pay attention; you can absorb it, osmosis-style.

I wasn't annoyed that he was ruining my favorite song; I was annoyed because he just. Didn't. Care.

And then I realized I was experiencing the same emotion I feel when I see a poorly constructed sentence, or a heinous typo. And that led to the following revelatory analogy, which may offer insight into my reasons for ranting, and which I encourage you to share with those who claim that good grammar is unimportant:

Think about your favorite song by your favorite band.

Got it? Good.

You've listened to it a thousand times. You'll listen to it a thousand more. It hits you in just the right way. It's perfect.

Now imagine that everywhere you go, you hear cover versions of your favorite song. In stores. In cafes. In the subway.

But every version is just ... slightly ... wrong.

Sometimes the verses are in the wrong order. Sometimes the singer makes up the words--or forgets them altogether. Sometimes the chord changes are out of synch, or go in the wrong direction. Sometimes there's a completely pointless drum solo right in the middle of the most important passage.

You hear it in every supermarket. In every elevator. In every taxi.

Wouldn't that make you a little sad, a little angry? Frustrated that this beautiful, meaningful song was held in such low regard that people couldn't even get the chorus right? That they couldn't take the time to track down the lyrics, listen to the CD, buy sheet music, learn the damn song before they plugged in their guitars?

That's how I feel about misuses of grammar: every time someone writes "perspective" when they mean "prospective," or "cliché" instead of "clichéd," or makes up words (such as "empt" when they mean "apt"--true story), or admits, with a giggle, that they "never really got the hang of punctuation"--also a true story--I feel sad.

Because there are countless methods for learning the tune, endless opportunities to hear it played correctly, a wealth of resources for keeping the beat and hitting the right note.

And yet so many people are content to thrash though a song they can't be bothered to rehearse.

Copyeditor General's ruling: This one goes out to the Davis Square T guitarist: If you can't always get what you want, how is it possible that if you try sometimes you just might find you can't get what you need?

Good URLs will go to heaven (and I'll stop with the puns)

You know when you meet someone for the first time and you realize it was just meant to be?

That was the mood at CGHQ today with the discovery of Good URL Bad URL, the creation of self-confessed nerd and URL-aholic Aaron Goldman. He knows how URLs should be presented for maximum readability and comprehension, so it drives him nuts when he sees addresses that are broken up, illegible or just way too long.

He takes pictures! He points out what needs fixing! He's a little obsessed! And he's okay with that!

Copyeditor General's ruling: Call off the search for the Associate Copyeditor General in charge of URLs. We have a winner. Everyone else, go read the list of best practices on GoodURLBadURL.com and apply what you learn. Let the poor guy take a break.

True beauty will be in proofread copy

Despite my best efforts to be a girly girl, I'm not. And when I go to Sephora, the beauty-supply-and-makeup mecca, I feel as though I need to keep my head down and avoid eye contact with the flawless salesclerks, lest they figure out that I don't know my glossing cream from my brightening serum and laugh me out of the store.

So it was with some relief that I noticed this sign while perusing the beauty tools:



"Unique, pinch-free, compact design makes this pinch-free compact design for go anywhere tool."

Yes, ladies, you're very pretty. But you might want to read your display labels before you put them out.

Copyeditor General's ruling: Small, pointless victories are beautiful in the eye of the beholder.

Facebook users will not fear basic sentences

One of my favorite things about Facebook is the status update, the editable sentence that gives a quick snapshot into each person's life at the moment they wrote it. The functionality is set up as $name + "is" + $message, with the mandatory verb forcing a particular sentence structure:

Carolyn is watching leaves fall.
Carolyn is currently catupon.
Carolyn is asking you to vote parmo.



I enjoy the challenge of fitting my spontaneous updates into a predetermined grammatical form. But apparently not everyone does. As reported on the allfacebook blog and covered in news outlets from Wired to Salon to the UK's Daily Telegraph site, Facebook is giving in to user pressure and removing the verb from status updates.

What's the big deal, you wonder? Doesn't this allow for greater creativity, enabling users to say how they really feel instead of being straitjacketed into the third-person singular of to be?

You'd think so. But given that the FB crowd already struggles with the simple "is" format--ignoring it altogether and writing things like "John is I hate school" and "Sarah is got a new job!!!" and "Lucy is can't get TiVo to work"--I don't hold out much hope that this new flexibility will improve their language use.

The discovery of a Facebook group called "I die a little bit inside when I see grammatically incorrect status updates" did assauge my fear that no-one else had noticed.

What bugs me most is that the Facebook group pushing for the change, "Campaign to lose the mandatory 'is' from status updates," has 64,000 members. A population equivalent to the City of Portland, Maine, thinks it's just too difficult to start a sentence with "(username) is" and would rather complain about it than figure out how to work with it.

Copyeditor General's ruling: CG is going to continue using the verb to be in status updates.

Fortune cookies will not need to be told twice

Oh, come on! Is someone trying to tell me something?



Copyeditor General's ruling: Actually, blind stubbornness seems to be a prerequisite for holders of political office, doesn't it?

Fortune cookies will not pass judgement

Copyeditor General's ruling: Oh, you want nonverbal cues, pal? I'll give you nonverbal cues, all right!

Steven Seagal will keep his juices to himself

Has this ever happened to you: it's a sweltering summer day, you're feeling a little tired, and you think--perhaps not for the first time--why hasn't the star of Marked for Death, Half Past Dead and Today You Die created a delicious energy drink?

Well, wake up and smell the goji berries, baby, because I bring good news: he has.



(You can't see it on the still image, but the lines around the logo above actually throw out pulsating bolts of light energy. It's electrifying.)

According to the website for Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt Energy Drink, the neck-punching actor spent years traveling Asia to collect the ingredients for his all-natural beverage.

Unfortunately, someone spent considerably less time creating the website.

I could analyze everything that's hilariously wrong (or wrongly hilarious) about the site, but I'm a busy person. Instead, I'll just point out (and laugh at) the best parts. I invite you to laugh along.

Steven Seagal now can add “Energy Drink formulator” to a list of talents that already includes veteran actor, singer/songwriter, guitarist, and Aikido black belt [...] His album, Songs from the Crystal Cave, released earlier this year, has already hit the pop charts in Europe."

"...hit the pop charts in Europe." Did real well, too.

... Steven Seagal is a popular action movie hero ...

(which is why 11 of his last 17 movies were self-produced and made for video).

... whose films combine spiritual concepts and social/environmental consciousness with high-voltage violence."

He saves cleans up toxic waste *and* kicks a guy in the throat!

What else? Ah yes:



Should I mention the apostrophic nightmare? Moving on:

Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt is an energy drink as unique as the man who created it. It has pioneered the way for nutritional, all natural energy drinks and emerged as many “firsts” ...

Can a single item "emerge as many firsts"? What does that look like? And does it hurt?

The first "first" is that the drink contains the Tibetan goji berry. Little-known fact: this is another name for the wolfberry, which is apparently a common ingredient in energy brews. Here's one, though the name is a little off-putting. But the name of this one actually means wolfberry, which should have been a bit of a giveaway.

It is also one of the very few energy drinks to be offered in multiple flavors ...

Yeah, it's always a good idea to check before making a statement like that. I did. And hey, looky!

XS Gear drinks comes in three flavors, just like Stevie's brew.

Zipfizz also has a trio of taste sensations.

Naked Juice has kicked it up a notch (but probably not using nunchaku).

My favorite is Odwalla; I'm currently celebrating the seasonal return of their Super Protein Pumpkin drink, which tastes like punkin pie and is only available through the holiday season (after which the stupid government takes it away).

But I digress. Suffice it to say that a quick Goog for natural energy drink flavors throws doubt on "first-emergence" claims.



The name "Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt" was an inevitable afterthought?

Okay, kids, as we're online, let's check dictionary.com:

af·ter·thought /ˈæftərˌθɔt, ˈɑf-/ –noun
1. a later or second thought; reconsideration.
2. reflection after an act; an appropriate explanation, answer, expedient, or the like, conceived of too late for the occasion.
3. something added, as a part or feature, that was not included in the original plan or design: The vestry was added to the church as an afterthought.

Or, as it were, the name was hastily appended to the energy drink as an afterthought. Inevitable, really.

When Steven Seagal finished creating a drink that holds untold natural power, there was only one equivalent in nature - The Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt.

Let me make sure I understand: Seagal created a potentially supernatural drink that has only one equivalent in nature: the drink he created. Wow, maybe the man is a god ...

Both mysterious and powerful, it's a symbol of the untold energy the earth has to offer - Such is Steven Seagals Lightning Bolt energy drink.

It's mysterious! It's powerful! Its mystery is exceeded only by its power!

Its name was an inevitable afterthought!

Oh, and I love that the "Latest news" has been updated twice: in October 2005 and January 2006. Overdue for another announcement, aren't we?

Copyeditor General's ruling: While the audience for this beverage undoubtedly expresses a preference for head-butting action and awesome pecs over careful grammar and factual accuracy, and while Steven Seagal could probably turn CGHQ into a pile of smoking rubble in seconds, websites promoting products intended for human ingestion should project a strong, consistent tone of authority and credibility.

Oh, and if some big dude with a ponytail comes around asking questions, you haven't seen me.

The thought will not be what counts

There's a reason some greetings cards end up in the discount bin. Here's one, supplied by Al, owner of the blog Stuff to Think About:



Gah! All I know is that if any child of mine sent me this awful missive, and didn't do so with a generous side-salad of irony, they'd be written out of the will.

(Wait--I don't have a will. Joke's on them! Ha!)

Thanks, Al, for recognizing, correctly, that this would cause me to shriek in horror. You'd get a Deputy of the Week t-shirt if such a thing existed.

And here's a little something The Boy and I found in Building 19 1/17 a few years back. We got two for a buck, if memory serves.



(The caption under the photo on the notepaper reads Treasure of memory.) I know, one shouldn't mock; this one was made in Korea, so theoretically gets a pass. Not from me, though.

Copyeditor General's ruling: If I ever find Hallmark doing stuff like this, there's gonna be trouble.

Emergency instructions will not cause panic

Spotted in an elevator:



How many ambiguities can you find, kids? Here's my list:

1) The sentence is hard to parse: I had to read it a couple of times to make sense of it. ("To operate emergency elevator, phone depress button"? "To operate emergency, elevator phone depress, button and hold"?)

2) "Depress button." Do I really have to bring the button down, man? Can't I just press it? Or push it?

3) "Depress button." But which one? Not shown in the photo are the seven buttons on the control panel: the numbers 1 through 4, the "open" and "close" buttons, and one marked "alarm." By a process of elimination, it appears the latter is the appropriate choice. Still, the label suggests it's intended to trigger a noise, not initiate a phone call.

2) "Hold until answering service answers." Um, isn't that what you'd expect from an answering service? And do we really need that extra detail? I suspect someone felt it important to explain that the response wouldn't come from inside the building--that Mr. Stucky Unlucky shouldn't expect help to arrive within minutes. But to me, it suggests an impersonal, and possibly uncaring, distance. Where exactly is this answering service? New York? Ohio? Bangalore?

3) "Indicating your location." Yeah, hello? I'm inside the elevator. I don't remember seeing the details elsewhere inside the metal box, but the info they're looking for--building address, elevator number, or anything else that might help a rescue crew locate a trapped vertical traveler--isn't posted near the sign.

So let's review: you're in the elevator. The doors have closed, you're descending slowly--and then, with a gentle lurch, you come to a halt. You wait a while, panic building (you were the last one to leave the office! It's Friday night! On a long weekend!). And then you read the sign a couple of times, check the buttons, look around to make sure there aren't any other buttons you should push instead, and finally, sadly, depress the alarm. You have a brief conversation with a disembodied voice.

And then you wait.

After a while, you take out a Sharpie and write on the metal wall:

"If you need help, push the "alarm" button and hold until someone answers. You'll be okay."

Copyeditor General's ruling: Signs directing behavior in unusual, unexpected and potentially frightening situations should be simple, clear and devoid of unnecessary detail. Also, it's always a good idea to carry a granola bar. Just in case.

Monkeys will not be employed as signwriters

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm starting to sense a link between grammar and animals:

When you put the two together, one will be wrong.

And as there's no such thing as a wrong animal (apart, of course, from the duck-billed platypus--don't get me started), the wrongness must be on the wordy side of the fence.

For previous evidence, spurious though it undoubtedly is, may I remind you of the "No Live Parking" sign in the Stone Zoo parking lot. And the dog-related signage from a couple of posts back.

And now here's Exhibit C: a trio of signs from Franklin Park Zoo. The first shows a marked reluctance to use the space bar:



I translate this as "Open door slowly; people, perhaps, have gone to heaven."

Next, we have a lesson in stating the obvious:



Because otherwise we'd call it a wall.

Finally, the lamest excuse I've ever seen:



So you can only feed the miniature goats on the days when there's no weather? How often does that happen?

I think this episode riled me especially because zoos (for better or worse) often have kids wandering the grounds. And while their behavior occasionally offends me (the way they scream at skittish animals, bang their tiny, hard fists against glass next to "please do not bang on glass" signs and throw rocks at anything not sufficiently animated to entertain them), I'd still prefer it if they grew up with some understanding of, and respect for, correct language use.

Copyeditor General's ruling: Gorillas should be kept out of the signwriting shop and left to do what they do best: eat fruit, fling poo and create abstract art.

Winners will just be winners

During the Red Sox-Angels playoff game earlier this week, one of the announcers mentioned that both Josh Beckett and John Lackey were among "the winningest pitchers" in the American League this year.

Winningest.

I yelled at the TV, of course. What was I supposed to do?

Not that this was the first time I've encountered the phrase (or the last; today's Metro GameDay notes that on this day in 2001, the Mariners became "the winningest team in American League history").

But why? No, really, why?

Is the player who steals most bases the stealingest? Is the hitter with the most bunts the buntiest? Is the Gold Glove winner the catchiest?

(Please, no comments about the technical inaccuracy of my examples. Kyle, I'm looking in your direction.)

You get my point, though, right? Is there such a dearth of ways to describe the most capable, the most sucessful, the most athletic and agile, that we're forced to create these mutants?

Oh, you may say, but this isn't made up; it's right there in the dictionary. (Merriam-Webster, how could you?).

I prefer to side with the likes of The Grammarphobia Blog, which notes: "The American Heritage entry classifies [winningest] as 'informal' usage. The 'informal' gives all right-thinking people a good excuse to avoid it."

Copyeditor General's ruling: Don't even get me started on "to medal."