A Little Slice of Heaven Q. I've heard that the phrase "pie in the sky" was coined by the radical labor leader Joe Hill. Is that true? — Carl Faith via email A. That's not a "pie in the sky" folk tale. It IS true! Joe Hill, a member of the radical union Industrial …Read more. Getting Possessive About Nouns Q. I recently told a fellow Steinway Society board member that no apostrophe is needed in "winners recital" (a concert featuring several pianists) any more than one is needed in "teachers union." What we have here is a noun modifying another noun. …Read more. 'If Not' Poses Knotty Questions In crafting a college recommendation for a student recently, I unintentionally sailed into the murky mist of ambiguity by writing: "She is very bright, if not brilliant." Hmm... Does this mean she's very bright but not brilliant, or very bright and …Read more. If the 'T' Fits, Wear It Q. Why do we say something "fits to a T"? — Al Cohen, Newington, Conn. A. Well, this idiom definitely doesn't come from "fits to a T-shirt," because every T-shirt I've worn lately is either too baggy or too tight. A large T-shirt makes me look …Read more.more articles
Couples Are People Too
Q. My local TV news people are suddenly making many collective nouns neutral. Example: "The couple and its three sons." I think this should be "their three sons," since the people had names and were not a couple of bookends. What is the rule governing this usage? — Roberta Werbaneth, Allison Park, Pa.
A. While it seems natural to refer to certain collective entities, such as a team, a board or a faculty, as a single unit (the team held its first practice), it's jarring to refer to something as human as a couple or a family with an impersonal, gender-neutral pronoun ("the family held its annual party"). As you point out, we tend to think of couples and families as people, not as bookends, no matter how bookish those families might be.
That's why it's not uncommon to see sentences with "couple" or "family" as the subject followed by a singular verb but a plural pronoun, e.g. "the couple is selling their condominium," "the family is returning to their home state."
While technically ungrammatical, these sentences are preferable to "the couple is selling its condominium," "the family is moving back to its home state," and, yes, "the couple and its three sons watched TV news people who imposed pronoun agreement too rigidly."
Q. From today's newspaper: "Not blinking, Wood says, 'can mean that you're disinterested and that you've checked out.'" Has this use of "disinterested" for "uninterested" reached the tipping point? — Larry Bulgier, Suffield, Conn.
"Disinterested" and "uninterested" share a curious history. "Disinterested" originally meant "not interested," and "uninterested" originally meant "impartial."
But about a century ago, the two terms switched definitions, and since then traditionalists have insisted that "disinterested" be reserved to mean "impartial," as in "disinterested observer."
Given the similarity of these two words, it's understandable that more and more people think it's totally tubular to use "disinterested" to mean "not interested, as in "the students were disruptive and disinterested," and "she became disinterested in coin collecting."
Nevertheless, the "impartial" meaning of "disinterested" is still up on that surfboard, hanging 10 (well, maybe five), and most experts continue to regard the use of "disinterested" to mean "not interested" as a linguistic wipeout.
Rob Kyff, a teacher and writer in West Hartford, Conn., invites your language sightings. Send your reports of misuse and abuse, as well as examples of good writing, via e-mail to Wordguy@aol.com or by regular mail to Rob Kyff, Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. To find out more about Rob Kyff and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.