Inappropriate correction

[RoxyNotFoxy]

In the song lyrics thread we had examples of what someone called "hyper-correction" - which is where someone changes correct grammar into incorrect grammar (the perils of half an education).

An example I can think of that seriously annoyed me was one where I ended up looking like the culprit. I'd uploaded a program to a shareware distribution site, and included a description that tells the user "it comprises x, y and z". Some misguided pedant who controls the product pages took it on himself to change my text to "comprises of".

There's also such a thing as inappropriate correction - where the amendment is strictly speaking correct, but wrong for other reasons. Someone must have told Michael Caine that "a lot of" was grammatically incorrect when talking about numbers. So he titled his autobiograpy Not Many People Know That. I saw it in the library and nearly yelled out loud (and some pedant better not ask how you could yell in silence). If he couldn't bring himself to use the original form that has passed into legend - "not a lot of people know that" - then he should have thought up another title. The way it is, that correction is as ridiculous as putting a top-hat on a tramp.

Probably the worst example of inappropriate correction I know of is where Kingsley Amis used the title of a song as the title of one of his novels, but made a one-word amendment so pedantic that no one but an English professor would see the point of it - The Folks that Live on the Hill. Why he changed "who" into "that" is something you would only know if you know the difference between a defining and a non-defining clause. (I'll explain, but only if you insist.) At any rate, it's ridiculous.

There are also examples of inappropriate correction where the correctness is not grammatical, but political:

"She is a mistress of the art of..." (Radio 4 book review)

"One person's meat is another person's poison" (also Radio 4, I think)

Ooo I hate that 'comprises of' - as if it is another way of saying 'consists of' or 'is composed of'.
n another subject, our local morning radio DJ used to have a competition whereby he and the weathergirl would each say a statement and we could ring in to say which one was true. Every morning he would say 'myself and colleen will each say a statement' ...I emailled him to complain that it should be 'colleen and I' or at the very least 'me and colleen...' - this is local radio after all.

At least he didn't say "my good self".

In the days before mass use of PCs for notices in schools, I'd spent some time creating a neatly-lettered notice which incorporated the word "yours." A colleague came along with a marker pen and added an apostrophe!!!!!! I had to write the whole thing out again, as to have used tippex might have looked like I'd realised my own mistake. AND I had to explain WHY it didn't need an apostrophe! To a teacher, for God's sake.

This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.

My (otherwise rather erudite and educated) dad pretty much had me convinced that 'me and x' was never EVER right; I was well into my English degree before I realised that it's perfectly valid. Sometimes.

My dad is of the same ilk. He once corrected my 18 month old niece when she asked "can I have a gikky (biscuit)?" by saying, "Do you mean 'may I?'"

I don't know why the "me and x" misconception is so common. One I read not so long ago was "they voted Lilian and I onto the committee". To see what's wrong with it, just drop Lilian from the sentence, and you end up with: "They voted I onto the committee". No one would ever say that. But just introduce a second object and people's grammar goes haywire. But the grammar isn't changed just because there are two objects. If "me" or "her" or "him" is right by itself, then they're right in combination.

I was sitting next to my boss this morning, reading his notes over his arm: '... talk to Karen or I'. I resisted*.

It seems to come from people being corrected as children when they say 'Bob and me went to the park' or similar, without anyone ever telling them exactly what is wrong about it. They get the message that 'x and me' is ALWAYS wrong.

• mind you, we are just about in the West Country, 'talk to I' may well be correct about these parts.

My BIL says our family is the only one he's ever met where, in an argument/heated debate/frank and robust exchange of views, no-one can get to the end of a sentence without someone else leaping in to correct their grammar. I'd never noticed, but he's absolutely right. I think we must do it as the ultimate put-down.

Of course, as I said in my first post, there are sometimes reasons for overriding the rules of grammar. The most important rule of good English is that it's something that shouldn't be noticed. If you're being correct, you shouldn't draw attention to it. I'd much rather say "She's taller than me" than be correct and say "She's taller than I". These days that would sound unforgiveably bumptious.

Um ... but 'she's taller than I' isn't correct, is it?

My FIL does the 'overcorrection' thing, with "X and me" and it drives me mental. I haven't said anything yet, I'm always just horrified in silence ...

Ok, did some digging, and apparently it is 'she's taller than I' if you're being formal, only nobody actually says it.

I think the taller thing comes from "she is taller than I am" and we have just dropped the 'am'

On a slightly tangental note, you know that SKY (?) show "America's Most Smartest Model", do you think they've called it that tongue in cheek, or do they really think it's right? What worries me most is that even if it is tongue in cheek a lot of people will think that it's correct.

(BTW I haven't seen it, honest, but it is advertised a lot on 'normal' Sky channels)

It's probably their idea of being satirical. But despite the stereotype, I don't think models are any dumber than the rest of the population. Though of course the air is a bit thinner at nose-level than it is with the rest of us, so the brain might get starved of oxygen.