Bloody Well Write

Leave it to one-time vice-presidential-hopeful Sarah Palin to continually provide grammar fodder for the media, as well as for bloggers (such as yours truly), Facebook addicts and Twitter hounds alike.

This past Sunday, Palin tweeted the following:

“Ground Zero Mosque supporters, doesn’t it stab you in the heart as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, please refudiate.”

The popular assumption running around the Internet is that someone pointed the fact that “refudiate” isn’t a dictionary-recognized word out to Palin, who then deleted the first tweet and entered a new, presumably more-correct version:

“Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.”

But the second version isn’t much better than the first — and that’s without even getting into the politics of what she’s trying, very unsuccessfully, to get across.

Palin was probably trying to use “repudiate” but may have been thinking about the word “refute” and, not fully comprehending (ahem) the distinction between the two, instead blended them into “refudiate.” Whether by accident or on purpose, the tweeted goof made far-reaching news and comedy gold.

Anyone taking wagers that Shakespeare is turning over in his grave right about now? (photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrs_logic/3597539711/)

Let’s look at the three words:

Refudiate = Not a recognized word. (If you don’t believe me, check with Merriam-Webster or your favorite dictionary. It ain’t in there.)

Refute = According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, the transitive verb means “to prove wrong by argument or evidence (show to be false or erroneous).” A secondary definition means “to deny the truth or accuracy of” something.

Repudiate = Also a transitive verb, “repudiate” has several meanings according to Merriam-Webster: “1) to divorce or separate formally from (a woman); 2) to refuse to have anything to do with; 3a) to refuse to accept; especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force; 3b) to reject as untrue or unjust; and 4) to refuse to acknowledge or pay.”

Take a look at the second tweet. Really, Palin should have chosen “repudiate” instead of “refute” because she’s urging New Yorkers to refuse to have anything to do with the possibility of a new cultural center (see the second “repudiate” reference).

OK, fine. So she screwed up and tried to fix it. That shows somewhat of a conscience, I suppose (but don’t quote me on that; it’s all I can do to refrain from saying what I really think of this tweeter). But then Palin tweeted yet a third time about the mistake:

“‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”

That hurt just copying and pasting.

I must say — and I quote the Bard himself — “the lady doth protest too much.” Good grief! Palin should not try to align herself with a master writer such as William Shakespeare. It’s just not believable, not on any account. She, like he? I think not. In the making-up-words category, Shakespeare can’t hold a candle to Palin.

If Palin wants to be a future presidential hopeful, she needs to ramp up her writing skills in a big, bad way because, as Bill wrote, “nothing can come of nothing.” And that’s saying something.

Happy trails!

SAK

Aye, there’s the rub. In this age of instant gratification, Twitter messages of fewer than 140 characters and abbrv. glr. (abbreviations galore), the semicolon is, indeed, a lonely piece of punctuation. Some days, I even fear that its extinction is imminent.

I’d hate to see that happen; it would be such a shame.

Let’s keep that sucker alive, shall we? Yes, indeed. But how? Well, here are a few pointers on how to correctly use a semicolon:

• The semicolon lies between the period and the comma in force (a stronger separation than a comma, but not as definitive as a period). Its use is limited but, at times, poignant as a transition.

• Place a semicolon between two closely connected independent clauses that are not joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for, yet): My latest eBay purchase should have arrived last week; it arrived today.

• Use semicolons to separate elements of a series when individual segments contain material that must be set apart by commas: Included in the experiment were Janeane Garofalo, a writer, comedian, actor and political activist; Björn Borg, a former World No. 1 tennis player; Stephen Hawking, a scientist and mathematician; and Kermit, a hand puppet.

• The semicolon goes outside the quotation marks when separating two connected thoughts: He said, “I really want to lose weight and tone up”; what he really wanted was a full tub of Ben & Jerry’s Chunky Monkey and a can of whipped cream.

• The semicolon goes inside the quotation marks only when it applies to the quoted matter. Otherwise, it goes outside the quotation marks (when it applies to the entire sentence): She said, “I think I’ll have a cup o’ joe; it will solve all of my problems and I will be happy forever and ever.”

Easy as pie.

Don’t be afraid of the semicolon; it is your friend. Just remember that it is a friend you can handle for about an hour before it drives you up a freakin’ wall. Too much of a good thing is, after all, too much. Visit this friend, but limit each visit to a short span of time. Everyone’s sanity — including yours — is at stake.

Happy trails!

SAK

It’s funny how the teensiest everyday occurrence can have an influence over at least some minutia of your life. The butterfly effect seems to be more reality than theory. Here’s the latest example from my arsenal, pertaining to was vs. were.

Someone just sent me a link to a cartoon about Jesus being on Twitter. Here’s the exact quote: “I’d consider following Christ if he was on Twitter.” Being the grammar nerd that I am, I posted my comment: “If he WERE on Twitter. Sorry to be a grammar downer.”

So when exactly do you use was instead of were, and vice versa?

Was
Use was when something probably could happen or is probably true:
• If my dog was to sleep all day
• If your fresh-baked cookie was to disappear
• If the toothpaste lid was to get all gunked up

Were
Use were if whatever you’re talking about is theoretical, probably couldn’t happen or probably not true:
• If I were a boy (not taking into consideration a sex change, this ain’t gonna happen)
• If I were a rich man (I’d like to think that the only thing stopping me on this one is the “man” part, but it’s hard to predict the future of my bank account)
• If I were a carpenter (I played with power tools in college but am not going to switch careers this late in the game)

I’m sure there are some out there who believe that Christ may very well be on Twitter and is just about to post a new 132-character status. And those folks can believe as they wish. I’m just thinking that it’s a long shot he’s actually signed up and posted a profile pic. So were is the most logical choice for the cartoon.

The number of folks you’re talking about doesn’t matter, either. You can correctly say, “If I were a rich man,” “If she were a rich man” and “If those gals were rich men.” They all get were, regardless of how many are in the party.

Hope this cleared up the was vs. were issue. Just remember: Beyoncé knows the difference. So does Tevye, Robert Plant and, back in the day, Bobby Darin. Or at least their songwriters did. And if they can sing it from the rooftops, so can you.

Happy trails!

SAK

There are about nine hours left in 2008 if you’re in the Central time zone (and you’re reading this right now, which is not likely the case). And, wherever you are, you are possibly thinking about asking all of your e-mail buddies and Facebook friends and Twitter followers what they have planned for New Year’s Eve.

Or is it “New Year’s eve”?

Maybe “new year’s eve”?

Argh.

I know. I know exactly what you’re going through: the great spelling dilemma of the ages — how to correctly spell/uppercase/lowercase your query so as to avoid seeming like a complete and utter oaf.

Here is your answer, short and sweet, lifted straight from Page 167 of my AP Stylebook:

These are correct: New Year’s, New Year’s Day and New Year’s Eve. This is also correct: What will the new year bring?

Ah, lovely. Now we can all raise our scotches, mojitos and hot chocolates in a unified toast to the new year, 2009. May it be a year full of good health, lots of laughs, a decent amount of inspiration and fully proper grammar.

Happy trails!

SAK