What's the matter with that?

The word that has its uses, but when used unnecessarily, it has the same effect as eating a spoonful of peanut butter – it can gum things up in a hurry.

Used properly, that can act as an adjective, "That man is annoying me." It also can serve ably as a pronoun (a word that fills in for a noun), "That just steams me," or "This is a subject that I enjoy talking about."

Too often, though, that just wanders into a sentence and stands there, doing nothing and getting in the way. Such is the case with:

-- She said that she wanted to go home

-- The witness admitted that he lied.

-- Mary said that she's willing to do the report.

In each of these instances, you could strip that out of the sentence and not only would it be grammatically correct, it would read more smoothly.

The next time you're uncertain whether that is being used properly, try your copy without it. If it still reads correctly, have that stand aside for when it's really needed.

Toil and trouble

With this bit of text from Macbeth, I'll return to the Shakespeare reference that I used a couple of posts ago when I blogged about the difference between compare to and compare with. Here are a few more commonly confused words and phrases that, once you're aware of the simple rules that accompany them, should trouble you no more:

-- affect/effect: Affect is typically a verb, meaning to influence or cause. "The cold weather affected employees, prompting them to bundle up." Effect usually is a noun, meaning impact or consequence. "One effect of the cold weather is that employees dressed warmer."

-- all right/alright: Just remember this, it's not all right to write alright. Two words, not one.

-- underway/under way: Same here. Two words. "The ambitious project already is under way."

-- over/more than: Though this pair often is used interchangeably, there is a difference. Over refers to a spatial relationship, as in, "The cow jumped over the moon." More than is used when talking about specific numbers or quantities, as in, "More than 15 people missed work the day after the big game."

-- less/fewer: Use less when you're talking about bulk quantities that can't be counted or measured, and fewer when referring to quantities that can be counted or measured. Here's a sentence to help you remember: "I have fewer chores but less energy to do them." Chores, you can count. The amount of energy you have isn't something that can be counted or measured.

-- can/may: Use can when you want to establish a subject's ability to do something. "Can you win the race?" May is used to denote possibility or permission, as in, "May I have this dance?"

-- lend/loan: Lend is a verb, meaning to give someone something temporarily. "If you lend me your car, I'll put gas in it." Loan is usually a noun referring to a bank's providing you money that you agree to pay back.

Did you ever imagine there would be so many rules? There's plenty more, too.No wonder English has such a notorious reputation as being a difficult language to learn.

It's an ad, ad world

If you're tired of being swamped with ads, please raise your hand. That's what I thought. Ads are everywhere. When I pump gas, there's an ad on the pump handle, when I go to a restroom in a business, there's an ad hung over the urinal (makes you miss the obscene graffiti). Inside the corner, corporate-owned convenience store, the minimum-wage workers behind the counter are festooned with badges and other items hawking some product or service. Where's it going to end? To pay for my funeral, I'm considering selling space on my casket. What? That's already been done? Shucks.

Confronted with increasingly jaded consumers, many of whom are now armed with digital video recorders that allow them to speed through TV commercials, the ad world is becoming as desperate as a trailing politician on election day. They'll do anything to get your attention.

Now, they're trying to reach you via video-screen messages played in public. As described in a story in the Los Angeles Times, the ad industry is using flat-screen technology to pester you while you mosey down the aisles at the local grocer or devour a burger at your favorite fast-food spot. They're even slapping tiny screens on hand dryers in restrooms.

What does this have to do with writing? I think the contortions the ad industry is undergoing are good news for communicators who tell their stories the old fashioned way – one carefully crafted word at a time. Ads must engage. Yes, you can do that with splashy video, blaring music and graphics that come at you like a shotgun blast. But people are tiring of that. There's more and more room in advertising and marketing for quietly and convincingly persuading consumers with genuine stories told in an engaging manner.

So, wordsmiths, keep your pencils sharp and your vocabulary honed. The pen may not only be mightier than the sword, it may even vanquish the video screen.

How Shall I Compare Thee?

It's estimated that Shakespeare, the author of the memorable line above, had a vocabulary consisting of about 30,000 words, which is remarkable, especially when you compare the number of words he had at his command with the nearly 6,000-word vocabulary possessed by us less worthy wordsmiths.

Speaking of compare, I wonder how The Bard would have dealt with a common point of confusion among modern-day writers regarding that word: Should compare should be coupled with to or with, as in, "Authoring blog posts can be compared with/to putting money in the bank -- try to do both regularly." The answer is to.

Here's the rule (bet you didn't know there was one, did you?), use compare with when making a literal or statistical comparison, as I did in comparing Shakespeare's vocabulary count with the normal person's. Likewise, you might write, "Our sales figures this year are up when compared with last year's." Use compare to, when making figurative comparisons, as I did in comparing blog posting to saving money. Another example would be, "He compared finishing the long, difficult project to digging a ditch with a teaspoon.

English has a host of usage rules like the one for compare to/with. Mastering them all can be challenging. But if you succeed, people may start comparing thee to a wise old bird.

There's always hope(fully)

How many times today have you used the word hopefully? Hopefully, it won't rain today. I'll be home at 6, hopefully. Hopefully, I'll get that raise I've been wanting. Hopefully, our team will win.

If you uttered any sentences using this popular adverb in this fashion, you're wrong! Or at least that's what some grammarians would insist. "When Words Collide," the excellent book on grammar and usage that I use in my writing class, calls hopefully "possibly the single most abused word in our language." "When Words Collide" goes on to explain that most of the misuse of hopefully occurs when people use it to mean "it is hoped" or "let us hope," and that's incorrect, the book proclaims.

Hopefully is an adverb that is intended to describe how a subject feels – hopeful. So, when used properly, hopefully means "with hope" or "in a hopeful manner." A proper usage would be, "Hopefully, the underdogs took to the field, looking for a win."

But not everyone agrees with Lauren Kessler and Duncan McDonald, the authors of "When Words Collide." Patricia T. O'Conner, who wrote the popular "Woe Is I," says it's "hopeless to resist the evolution of hopefully." Go ahead and use it to mean "it is hoped" or "let us hope," O'Conner breezily advises her readers. Her point is that language is always changing and we must accept that. Those who think otherwise are derided by O'Conner as sticklers and purists.

O'Conner – whose book I like – is certainly right about the evolving nature of language and it's likely that the misuse of hopefully is now permanent. But these conflicting opinions regarding hopefully touch on the broader, ongoing issue of whether changes in the language should be accepted with little more than some feeble grumbling from a few blue-haired malcontents who read the Oxford dictionary for fun.

Should language change slowly, like the wording of the Constitution, or should it be treated like tabloid copy, subject to whims and splashy fads that change daily? I prefer the glacial approach, though I also try not to be snobbish about it.

As is often the case, the difference between writing and speaking correctly is a matter of first becoming aware of the correct way and then focusing on adhering to it. Since becoming aware of the proper use of hopefully, I've adjusted my speaking and writing accordingly. Like a person trying to stop swearing, I commit the occasional slip-up, but I use the word correctly most of the time now, and when I really want to say "it is hoped," I say that. At least I hope I do.

Thus quoth...the client

I like Dan Santow's advice to public relations practitioners and copywriters who are tasked with assembling a quote for a client.

Dan provides such helpful tips as making sure the quote advances the "story," that it sounds like something that someone might have actually said and that it doesn't make the client sound like a moron.

I'd like to add two more:

-- Make the quote colorful, if possible. In other words, don't have the client utter something stale like, "We're pleased about being named XYZ Corp.'s top vendor." Instead, try, "Being named XYZ Corp.'s top vendor has all of us walking a little taller these days."

-- Avoid using cliches in a quote (or in any other part of your copy), as in, "We expect this product to sell like hot cakes." Even if people use cliches in their everyday speech, these empty, overworked phrases aren't memorable and they say little. When writing a quote for a news release, the hope is that the resulting news story will include it. Using a cliche greatly reduces the chance of that occurring.

Next question! Interviewing tips

In my last post, I talked about how effective communication seems to be more and more scarce. One practical form of communicating is interviewing, a task writers in any number of settings are often required to undertake. A reporter quizzes a cop to collect details for a crime story. A copywriter questions a client to corral details about a product. A public relations practitioner interviews sources to mine the raw material for news releases, speeches and articles.

As with other types of communication, interviewing is subject to rules that if followed will make the process go more smoothly and will produce better results. Here are a few that are appropriate in a business or organizational setting:

-- Prepare yourself. Review research material. Develop a list of questions. But remember that just because you have a list of questions, you should be willing to depart from it if your subject's answers suggest a new line of inquiry.

-- Urge your subject to express him or herself in terms you understand. Many people being questioned cling to the lingo of their job or speciality with the doggedness of a prosecutor grilling a witness. If you understand the jargon, that's okay. You can simplify or explain it, if necessary, when you write. But if not, make them explain. You can't write what you don't understand.

-- Collect more details than you think you'll need. When you sit down to write, it's better to have more material than not enough. Plus, you can't always be sure of the full scope of your piece until you start pounding away at the keyboard.

-- Don't assume. Seldom a good idea and certainly not when you're collecting details for a writing project. It's better to ask what may seem like an obvious question than to guess that you know what someone's saying.

-- Take good notes. Sounds obvious, but not everyone does. "I'll remember that later," the careless interviewer thinks. Not always and maybe not accurately. Not only do I try to take thorough notes, I annotate them with a red pen as soon as possible after the interview to clarify my often sloppy scrawl. (I envy those who know shorthand or can swiftly jot notes.)

-- Tape recorders. Some writers use them routinely. I rarely do and for several reasons. First of all, they're subject to breaking or suffering some other malfunction, so if you're wise, you'll take careful notes anyway. Secondly, if you rely on a tape recorder, you need to scroll back through the tape to check quotes and other details your subject provided, which is a waste of time. Tape recorders also can cause some interview subjects to freeze up. They don't like the idea of their every word being recorded. I'm not saying using tape recorders is wrong. They can be a helpful backup to your notes. But always take good notes.

-- Double-check name spellings and titles. Submitting copy, even in rough draft form, with a misspelled name or an incorrect title marks you as a sloppy writer. "What else did he get wrong?" people who read the piece might wonder.

-- Don't be afraid to follow up after the interview to clarify information. Many writers hesitate to do this, thinking it makes them look unprofessional or inattentive. But the opposite is true. Most interview subjects will respect your thoroughness and attention to detail.