Word up

I can't help it. I focus on detail, and have always been able to spell well, and that causes me to really pick out the errors in work I've read. It really grates on my sensibilities to see inappropriate word-use, grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation...

Oh, and the rampant use of cardinal numbers when ordinals should be chosen is literally ire-inducing to me. It seems more common these days than it used to, as far as my memory goes - but then I'm only 29, so my personal purview may not, shockingly enough, encompass the entirety of modern written English. I see it a lot, though - and hear it. Air New Zealand has YouTube adds which utilise the cardinal (1, 2, 3, 4...) instead of the ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...) when describing dates of expiry of current flight deals - and while the narrator for such ads is clear enough in his intent, I don't believe being clear is an acceptable approximation for being correct.

And it's that which irks me so: certainly I can understand someone when they say "which I don't even know if that's a good idea"; they clearly think something may not be a wise decision. However...what sticks with me is the inappropriate appearance of "which". It doesn't make sense. For it to do so the rest of the sentence would require modification: "which I don't know is a good idea".

It boils down to pronoun redundancy: if you use one pronoun ("which"), you do not then need another ("that"). You could use both if one functions as a pronoun and the other a determiner (which both are): "Which is the one that you like?" is a clunky, rough-edged but grammatically-sound sentence. "Which is that you like?", or "which that you like" (as a statement, not a question) are perhaps more archaic versions of saying the same thing - the odd phenomenon of words losing their broader communicative ability in more modern times, requiring the addition of more words to say the same thing. But that's an aside - one I may come back to, because it really is interesting. Back to the topic a hand, though, "which that you like" can also be said "that which you like" - a seeming reversal in word order that means the same thing, but actually a nice little trade-in: the sentences both begin with pronouns and have determiners as their second words. Because which and that are both pronouns and determiners, and can be used in combination provided one acts in one function and the other takes on the empty role, either can occupy first or second position. The actual word order itself isn't reversed - just the choice of words used changes. It's quite a nice example of how things aren't so cut-and-dry on the surface but actually still are if one cares to think about them.

(And I know, few people bother. There are other, arguably better things to do with one's time than argue about how to speak.)

Of course, I realise that spoken, unrehearsed language is subject to errors and is defensible in its inclusion thereof - it's not proofread and approved before going live. It still irks me, but I'm more able to understand mistakes made in the moment - unless they're derogations relating to groups of people. I'll point out the error with that in a forthright way, obviously with the understanding that because pop-culture has made it "acceptable" to say "don't be a girl", "men are stupid", "that's gay" and so on, people don't always think that what they're saying has impact on others. Such understanding of the trend doesn't mean I think any of these things are okay to say, though - I just don't assume someone meant to be offensive, but rather was uninformed. If they then choose to be a total jerk about it and not modify their choice of words thereafter, then I'm left with no assumptions but the definite knowledge that they are indeed meaning to be offensive and seem to think that, while they make a definite choice as to which words they use, they bear no responsibility for that choice. But here's the key point to life in general: a person may have certain freedoms, such as the freedom of speech - and that's great. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility for what is said, however, and it doesn't mean freedom from someone else exercising their freedom of speech by verbally tearing you to pieces for being insensitive.

That's a really good point for writers to remember, though: writers must know when to make it clear that their character thinks a certain way, rather than that they as the author do. As said above, while spoken words are not proofread (but should be chosen wisely anyway), written words most certainly are, or should be. It's easy to make a mistake by using the incorrect voice; if it's not clear you're describing something from the perspective of a character, you as the author risk describing it in the voice of the narrator - which is you.

I'm a type 1 diabetic, and have been since I was 11. I'm consistently amazed that people think diabetes in any form is caused by "eating too much sugar" - roughly akin to victim-blaming, for example: "if diabetics hadn't eaten so unhealthily they wouldn't have diabetes now, would they?" As a nurse I can unequivocally say that no, it isn't such a cause-and-effect situation. To say diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar ignores, for one thing, the sheer variety of diabetic conditions (type 1 is not type 2, gestational diabetes is not diabetes insipidus. Diabetes actually means "passer through", and medically communicates nothing more than the idea that large volumes of urine are being excreted); it also ignores the fact that our society/societies are not health-oriented, and don't encourage balanced lifestyles; it also ignores the fact that stress hormones decrease the efficacy of insulin, and stress also tends to be "coped with" by engaging in activities which further increase risk of ill-health: smoking, food-cravings, drinking, etc., etc.

So it'd be infuriating for me to read a book whose narrative voice described the eating habits of someone as those of a person heading for diabetic status. Luckily I never have read the words - it's just an example. Yet I'd be completely fine with a character who was otherwise presented as having little health-related knowledge saying such a thing - because the character is demonstrably ill-advised and ignorant. Neither being ill-advised or ignorant is a good thing, of course - but nobody has all information and knowledge. Even with the internet so readily available, knowledge is only accessible if it's meaningful and is sought out. An everyperson (which is a bit of a dismissive statement to those of us who are not average in every way possible) may not know what diabetes actually is - and so statements of ignorance are permissible because they demonstrate no truth other than that of that person's ignorance. The trick is to have that a defining feature of that character. A nurse or doctor should not be so characterised, but a politician, a stay-at-home parent, an artist or (ironically) a writer could be - because knowledge of diabetes would not be relevant to them. In any event, the author of the story is not permitted to be so uneducated, if they choose to write such things.

It's a matter of details. I might be focused on them, as I said earlier, but I would like to think that anyone trying to communicate in the wider world would be, too. It's just sensible to think that if one is going to write (or speak), one has some knowledge of what to write (or say), and how to phrase it.

I live in hope!