GrammarPhile Blog

Journalists and bloggers are flooded with press releases. It’s not uncommon for some to receive dozens in a single day. Only a few press releases stand out from the swarm, and not all of those are eye-catching in a good way. How can you ensure that yours makes the right impact and helps you get the coverage you need?

We asked writers and editors who cover many different industries to tell us how a press release can pique their interest – and what makes them dive for the “delete” key.

In the aftermath of the final showdown last night between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, we offer a different kind of post-debate coverage — a look into where our readers stand on three grammar, style and usage questions that have long generated controversy … and apparently still do to some extent. Here, we present a summary of the responses from last week’s poll, along with a sampling of the numerous comments we received.

The results for all three questions were heavily skewed to one side, but the arguments for both sides of each issue were reasonable, on point and well-articulated. Most of the 123 respondents staunchly defended their position, but more than a few surprisingly acknowledged they could go either way or that they had changed their views after a longtime adherence to the opposite position.

Given the hullabaloo that marked the first two presidential debates, which undoubtedly will continue through the final face-off next week and beyond, now seems a good time to look at a different kind of debate — those controversial grammar, style and usage questions that can incite even the most reserved among us to dig in, square off and argue our position to the end.

We present three of the many issues that rankle grammar and style arbiters far and wide, along with the primary arguments for each side, then ask you, our audience, to weigh in. In addition to recording your vote on each issue, you’ll have an opportunity to comment on why you prefer one approach over the other (assuming you have a choice and aren’t bound by, say, a company style guide). There are no right or wrong answers — we’re just curious to see where people land on these questions. Post-election results and commentary to follow in next week’s post.

If you use email as part of your job, you know what a pain it can be to sort through the daily onslaught. Endless “Re: re: re: re:” chains are just the tip of the iceberg – it just gets worse from there.

But here’s the important point: Everyone you email is in the same situation, and some of the messages they deem unimportant might be the ones you send. How do you get around that? How can you ensure that your message gets seen and understood by the intended recipients?

Professional proofreaders tend to focus on formal documents: books, news and feature articles, marketing copy, legal contracts, et cetera. But (as far as we know) nobody pays a proofreader to check their personal or work emails. They’re usually composed on the fly and sent without so much as a once-over. Because the brain tends to focus on concepts rather than details when you’re writing, even the most conscientious communicator can fall victim to typos.

Whether to use who or whom confounds a lot of people. The basic rule is easy enough, but even the most seasoned editors and writers can stumble over sentences like the following:

Think about who you want to cover and who is eligible for coverage.

Part of the problem is that the sentence sounds perfectly natural. And in fact, in everyday conversation, it’s fine. But in more formal contexts and to be grammatically correct, that first who should be whom.

Lawyers know better than most that the devil is in the details: One tiny error in a contract can upend a multimillion-dollar deal. That’s why lawyers and paralegals themselves are often natural proofreaders – they dedicate much of their time to reading reams of documents with an eagle eye.

Still, as proofreaders themselves will tell you, it’s invaluable to have an outsider’s perspective and a fresh set of eyes to catch errors you might overlook. That’s also why we have two proofreaders go through every document our clients submit – we have found that it greatly reduces the chances that a mistake will slip through.

In our last post , we suggested that correcting others’ grammar often isn’t a good idea, especially in casual conversation. That’s not to say you can’t mentally correct mistakes. For me, it happens involuntarily when I hear or see certain errors. You know the ones — those that make the hair on your neck bristle, your jaw tighten, your heart skip a beat.

The bounds of civility seem to be eroding faster than a sandcastle in a tsunami. Nowhere is this more evident than in social media. Any public forum in which readers can comment on another’s posting has become fertile ground for nit-picking, tongue-lashings, biting sarcasm and just plain rudeness — and more frequently, grammar bashing.

Many business disputes stem from misaligned expectations: Each party thinks it understands what should result from an agreed-upon transaction, but the results leave one or both parties unsatisfied. Proofreading is no exception, which is why it’s important to know going in what you can expect from your editors – and what you can’t.