A Word, Please: Casting a little shade on common grammar grievances

One reader wanted to vent about “on accident” vs. “by accident.” Another had a bone to pick with Wall Street Journal editors who don’t keep straight “that” and “which.” Another complained about people who add the word “right” after every sentence, while yet another felt that inserting the word “like” was the real problem.

These commenters were among the 1,100 or so readers who replied online to an article that wasn’t about “that” and “which,” “on accident” or linguistic tics like “right” — and that didn’t even appear in the Wall Street Journal.

That’s what happens when you talk about grammar in a public forum: Language grievances will demand their moment in the sun. So let’s address some of the comments on Michael Dirda’s April 25, 2024, review of the Anne Curzan grammar book “Says Who?”

“Makes me crazy that the Wall Street Journal in particular constantly confuses ‘that’ and ‘which,’ ‘that’ and ‘who,’ and ‘who’ and ‘whom,’” a reader called Local NYer posted. “Clearly nothing is subject to copy-editing anymore.”

“That” and “which” aren’t as rigid as NYer seems to think. Some major editing styles have long said that “that” is for restrictive clauses and “which” for nonrestrictive. A restrictive clause narrows down the range of nouns it refers to. Compare: “The cookies that get gobbled up fast contain chocolate chips” and “The cookies, which get gobbled up fast, contain chocolate chips.” See how in the first sentence we’re talking only about the cookies that get eaten first? That’s because the “that” clause narrows the range of cookies we’re talking about. But in the second example, “which get gobbled up fast” isn’t there to specify which cookies we’re talking about. Instead, “the cookies” — all of them — get gobbled up fast and also contain chocolate chips. But unlike in publishing, in the real world, there’s no rule that says you can never use “which” in place of “that,” especially because the commas usually make clear enough whether a clause is restrictive. So instead of a firm rule, this is just a good reminder to write clearly.

Opinion

A Word, Please: In a nod to English, the ‘idiot’s apostrophe’ gets sanctioned in Germany

Many languages indicate ownership of something by using the word “of.” But English often uses an apostrophe and S, sometimes unnecessarily.

Oct. 22, 2024

“That” and “who” pose a similar issue. Editors usually feel that “who” is better to refer to people than “that” because it’s specific to people: “the man who I saw” vs. “the man that I saw.” I agree. But it’s OK to use “that” if you want.

As for using “who” in place of “whom,” that can be a tough call. Sometimes “whom” sounds so stuffy and formal that it distracts from your message. Precision language is nice, so I use “whom” when it suits, but getting your message across is what’s most important.

As for “on accident,” this is a case in which no rule of syntax applies. “The proper preposition is a matter of idiom,” wrote Theodore Bernstein in his 1965 guide “The Careful Writer.” When choosing between prepositions like “on” and “by,” go with the one that comes naturally or check a dictionary. If those methods fail, Bernstein wrote, “the only thing to do is to consult three knowing friends and get a consensus.” So no one can say “on accident” is ungrammatical, but you can count me among your friends who say “by accident” is better.

A reader going by Speedostat added this comment: “This latest fad drives me nuts: using the word ‘right?’ after every statement someone utters. Geez, don’t get me started, right?”

Interjections like “right?” are a matter of taste, but a user called dkb50 found another reason to take a swipe at Speedostat: “Latest? That was annoying me as a kid in the ‘60s.”

That’s how it goes when you write about grammar in a public space: Even nitpicks get nitpicked.

June Casagrande is the author of “The Joy of Syntax: A Simple Guide to All the Grammar You Know You Should Know.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.