{"id":13692,"date":"2014-09-12T06:00:48","date_gmt":"2014-09-12T10:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/?p=13692"},"modified":"2014-09-12T06:00:48","modified_gmt":"2014-09-12T10:00:48","slug":"bad-grammar-in-books","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/?p=13692","title":{"rendered":"Bad Grammar in Books"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This is a tough era for readers who care about grammar. I try to tread a fair line between absolute purist (&#8220;bad grammar is something up with which I will not put&#8221;) and 21st-century slacker (&#8220;me and her went to the mall instead of diagramming sentences yesterday&#8221;). And I&#8217;ll confess that age has softened me somewhat; there&#8217;s only so much flailing against the tide of widely accepted modern usage a person can do before starting to feel like a Victorian schoolmarm.<br \/>\nHowever.<br \/>\nI don&#8217;t think it is too much to ask for copyeditors to be the last bastion of correct usage. When I come across &#8220;shrunk&#8221; and &#8220;drunk&#8221; being used as simple past tense, I don&#8217;t expect copyeditors to necessarily know that they are past participles, but I expect them to know how they should be used.<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nAs the good people at Grammarist.com explain so simply:<\/p>\n<h1>Sank vs. sunk<\/h1>\n<div>\n<strong><\/strong><em><strong>Sank<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>is the past tense (e.g.,\u00a0<em>the ship sank to the bottom of the sea<\/em>).\u00a0<strong><em>Sunk<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0is the past participle, so it\u2019s used in the perfect tenses (e.g.,\u00a0<em>the ship has sunk to the bottom of the sea<\/em>) and as an adjective (<em>the sunk ship is at the bottom of the sea<\/em>).<br \/>\n&#8220;Honey, I Shrunk the Kids&#8221; is ear-gratingly wrong, as is &#8220;He sunk to the bottom of the sea.&#8221; The latter is actual text (altered to disguise its origin) drawn from a September 2014 nonfiction picture book that has received at least two starred reviews, and will be used in countless classrooms fulfilling Common Core requirements. How can this clear and obvious a mistake make it through to the final book?\n<\/div>\n<p>Editors, I am mostly okay with vernacular speech in novels. I understand that authors are trying to sound like real people, and lots of real people are casual about grammar. I will say, though, that I personally know lots of children who do use grammar correctly and wouldn&#8217;t, say, start a sentence with &#8220;me and her.&#8221; Bad grammar begets worse grammar. No wonder people are losing any sense of what the actual rules are.<br \/>\nBut you lose me altogether when bad grammar slips past the gatekeepers of nonfiction, books we hold to a higher standard, books that are used by teachers (who themselves are confused about the rules of grammar these days). Lately, I&#8217;ve come across many fundamental grammatical mistakes in books. I can&#8217;t bring myself to order a book for the store when there are glaring grammatical errors in it, especially when it&#8217;s a nonfiction title. If the author and editors were lazy about basic grammar, what else in the book might they have gotten wrong?<br \/>\nAm I just being a curmudgeon? Or are there others out there who feel that grammar matters, that correct usage is graceful, and that there&#8217;s a difference between knowing correct usage and therefore making a deliberate vernacular choice, and simply not knowing what&#8217;s incorrect.<br \/>\nI know I sometimes ignore or have forgotten more grammar and usage rules than I ever knew,* and purists likely can point to all kinds of infelicities in my writing, perhaps in this very post. But books have editors and copyeditors, and as long as we haven&#8217;t thrown out the very hope for correct grammar in our children, let&#8217;s make a game effort on their behalf.<br \/>\n&nbsp;<br \/>\n*I often like to deliberately split infinitives. (See what I did?)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In which Elizabeth gripes about the decline of copyediting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13692","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.publishersweekly.com\/blogs\/shelftalker\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}