Advertisers and journalists mangle English, too

I ran across an article by Nancy Hylbert recently in the Rancho Bemardo Sun on "What has Happened to the English Language?" in which she takes aim at some ungrammatical English. It brought to mind a number of instances of bad English which, I feel are more egregious than hers because they appear in print in the public press. Are our advertisers and our journalists as ignorant as the student who mangles the English language? It would appear so — and it seems to be getting worse. Let me give you some examples I’ve picked up more or less at random over a two-week period while reading reputable newspapers and magazines.

    First let's get hopefully out of the way. I don’t believe I’ve heard anyone in the past 10 years use the word as I think it should be used. Hopefully is an adverb and should modify a verb or an adjective. "Hopefully this will be a good year for me" leaves me wondering what the adverb modifies. An adverb cannot modify a noun or pronoun (be hopefully, good hopefully?). What’s wrong with "I hope (that) that this ..."?

    Unfortunately, the dictionary now blurs its use, no doubt due to common usage.

    Next on my list is "Please RSVP." RSVP (repondez, s'il vous plait) means "please answer;" the extra please is redundant. In similar vein, I have seen on more than one restaurant menu "Roast beef au jus with gravy." Moral: Don't use foreign expressions unless you know what they mean.

    Then we come to healthy vs. healthful. I am glad to learn that certain foods are healthy. I wouldn't want to eat a sick food. Let's try "healthful diet" or "healthful food" for a change for the better.

    I must bring up the perennial lay vs. lie. No matter how many times someone explains that these are two different words, that lay takes an object (transitive) and lie does not (intransitive), most people say "lay down" to their pet. One can lay a book on a table or a hen may lay an egg but a dog lies down. (I refuse to get into the conjugation of these verbs.)

    It seems there is a concerted effort to eliminate the perfectly good word whom (which is the direct object of a transitive verb). "Who would you trust to back you up?" is one of many examples currently displayed in a national magazine ad. Are most copy writers illiterate?

    Many appear to have trouble with farther and further. The former refers to distance; the latter usually means "to a greater extent." For example, we drove farther than expected, but let's discuss this further at a later time. I must confess that the two words have been so intertwined that even the dictionary allows the words to be used more or less interchangeably.

    Lastly, let's hit the reflexives myself, yourself, etc. which are pronouns that refer (without a preposition) to the subject of a sentence. A full page ad in the Wall Street Journal recently said, " ... a hard-nosed executive like yourself." What’s wrong with you? But "I hurt myself" is OK.

    I am well aware of the explanation by many lexicographers that common usage determines and changes the meaning of words. Yet the shading of meanings of various words loses its effect when we continue to use words consistently incorrectly (such as lurid vs. livid), and certainly the new grammar seems to require elaborate explanations for new usage. Very few words have exactly the same meanings as other words, which is part of the beauty of our language. Some who write copy for the press deliberately misuse words, I believe, presumably to draw more attention to the ad. I know that Nancy Hylbert would agree with me in saying that this does not help our students or foreigners to learn English.

    Brage Golding, past president of SDSU, is the father of San Diego’s mayor.