Skip to main content

For the Love of Sentences

For the Love of Sentences
From Frank Bruni’s NYT Opinion Column May 11, 2023

ONE OF MY FAVORITE PASTIMES! If this doesn’t make you laugh, you don’t love sentences like I do!


Pool photo by Stefan Rousseau
In the prelude to last weekend’s coronation of King Charles III, Helen Lewis visited and considered royals less fussed over. “One peculiarity of European aristocrats is that their names pile up, like snowdrifts,” she observed. “It’s lunchtime in Tirana, the capital of Albania, and I am about to meet Leka Anwar Zog Reza Baudouin Msiziwe Zogu, crown prince of the Albanians.” She has to pass through a gate “guarded by an elderly manservant for whom the term ‘faithful retainer’ might have been invented. Because I am British, his thinly disguised irritation at my presence makes me feel right at home.” (Thanks to Lizzy Menges of Garden City, N.Y., for drawing my attention to Lewis’s excellent article.)
Rachel Tashjian in The Washington Post weighed in on the ostentation of Charles’s coronation: “The red velvet robes trimmed in ermine, the five-pound crown, the gold robes on top of gold robes dragging over gold carpets — the regalia often made it feel like a Versace fashion show staged in an assisted-living facility.” (Ann Kolasa Zastrow, Evanston, Ill., and Merrio Morton, Lancaster, S.C., among many others)
And from Tom Holland in The Guardian: “Watching a coronation is the constitutional equivalent of visiting a zoo, and finding a Triceratops in one of the enclosures.” (Dot McFalls, Charlottesville, Va.)
In The New Yorker, J.R. Moehringer, the ghostwriter of Prince Harry’s memoir, “Spare,” reflected on the impossibility of walking entirely in this particular man’s shoes: “I’d worked hard to understand the ordeals of Harry Windsor, and now I saw that I understood nothing. Empathy is thin gruel compared with the marrow of experience.” (Sara Klemmer, Charlotte, N.C., and Susan Kochan, Brooklyn, among others)
In The Times, Ligaya Mishan celebrated the infinite textures of food: “What of the coy half-surrender that the Italians venerate in pasta as ‘al dente’ and the Taiwanese in noodles and boba as ‘Q’ (or ‘QQ,’ if the food in question is exceptionally springy); the restive yolk threatening to slither off a six-minute egg; the seraphic weight of a chiffon cake; the heavy melt of fat off a slab of pork belly, slowly liquefying itself? What of goo, foam, dust, air? What of the worlds that lie between slime and velvet, collapse and refusal, succulence and desiccation?” (Judy Cress, El Cerrito, Calif.)
Also in The Times, Robert Draper profiled William J. Burns, the C.I.A. director: “His ascent is an unlikely turn for a tall, discreet figure with wary eyes, ashen hair and a trim mustache, a sort you could easily imagine in a John le Carré novel whispering into a dignitary’s ear at an embassy party that the city is falling to the rebels and a boat will be waiting in the harbor at midnight.” (Jefferson M. Gray, Baltimore, and Ed Lyon, Cincinnati)
And Michael Levenson reported on the odd dumping of hundreds of pounds of pasta alongside a creek in Old Bridge, N.J. “When photos of the discarded pasta were shared on a Reddit discussion about all things New Jersey, it became fertile ground for puns and dad jokes,” he wrote. “Someone commented: ‘We should send the perpetrators to the state penne tentiary.’” Town workers cleaned up and disposed of the pasta in under an hour. “It was not clear if a large fork had been used.” (Pat Reneman, Kettle Falls, Wash., and Margaret Koziel, Cambridge, Mass., among others)
To nominate favorite bits of recent writing from The Times or other publications to be mentioned in “For the Love of Sentences,” please email me here and include your name and place of residence.

https://www.ww2online.org/content/donor-support

https://www.ww2online.org/content/donor-support

We’ve spent several years researching names, places, and dates related to experiences in World War II. These veterans were born in a United States that spoke English differently than we do now. Think about how Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn sound in some of those old movies. Many of them had never ventured more than 50 miles from the place they were born, and they carried those accents and eccentricities of speech for the rest of their lives.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The places they visited were far-flung and exotic, and we’re capturing the place names, but also their remembered wonder at seeing those places for the first time. The shock of memories about huge coconut crabs on tropical islands juxtaposed with the sudden, bloody death of the guy right next to you.

And these guys remember the men who were lost—they remember their first and last names and often theor middle initials! They remember where that guy was from. And they remember the sudden, ghastly details of their deaths.

Education seems to have been pretty sporadic, and their reasons for enlisting are as varied as the men who enlisted, but they all shared some degree of naivete. Some have a greater understanding of infantry than others, but none of them were prepared for the realities of war.

They remember their lives before the war so carefully, but to us transcribing, it often seems like a landscape from the Wizard of Oz, more foreign than some of the locales they visited. Men who remember plowing acres of land with horses, and futures that offered only the option of doing what your dad, and his dad, had done.

We forget that most of the U.S. was unaware of the horrors of the Holocaust when we ventured into the war. And I think we forget how united Americans were in enlisting and joining the fight. We’ve heard many veterans comment that everybody was enlisting. My mother used to talk about how important radio was in those days, and veterans and people on the Home Front alike were stirred by Roosevelt’s “a day that will live in infamy speech.”

Listening to these oral histories has been a privilege, and researching their experiences “over there” has been a challenge.

Thanks to the National World War II Museum for the experience of a lifetime, and the chance to capture the descriptions of thousands of experiences of a lifetime.

You can find us here: https://www.ww2online.org/content/donor-support

What Is The Gender-Neutral Form Of Mr. And Mrss.?

What Is The Gender-Neutral Form Of Mr. And Mrss.?

From our friends at Dictionary.com

Here at Adept, we use Ms. for all references to women unless her marital status is germane to the topic, i.e., Mrs. Colin handed me the DNR documentation for her husband. If the preferred gender of the subject is unknown, we recommend M.
Check boxes for Mr., Mrs., Ms. and one left blank

When addressing strangers, authority figures, and in formal situations, it is considered polite to use an honorific, or title, to address them. The most frequently used honorifics are gendered male or female, which may not always be appropriate. In this article, we are going to review the most common honorifics, the alternative Mx., and how and when to use these titles.

The most commonly used gender-neutral honorific is Mx., pronounced [ miks ] or [ muhks ]. The first recorded use of Mx. was in 1977, where it was suggested as a less-sexist alternative to the traditional Mr.Mrs., and Miss. These forms are not only highly gendered, but they also link a woman’s status to whether she is married or not.

The honorific Mr., from master, is used for men regardless of marital status. The titles Mrs. and Miss, from mistress, are used for married and unmarried women, respectively. To reduce the emphasis on marriage, the alternative Ms. was coined in the 1950s for women regardless of marital status.

You can learn more about all of these forms and where they come from in the article “Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Ms.: What They Mean And How To Use Them.”

Just as Ms. solved the sexist problem that a woman was described based on her relationship to men, the form Mx. addressed the gendered nature of titles more generally. Although it was coined in the 1970s, it didn’t gain traction until the 2000s as there came to be greater mainstream acceptance of nonbinary or gender-nonconforming people (see A Language Of Pride: Understand The Terms Around LGBTQ Identity).

Mx. is now used as a preferred title for many who identify as neither man nor woman. This is not its only use, however. Like other gender-neutral forms of address, Mx. can also be useful when addressing an audience whose gender is unknown. A good example of this is on forms that use a title (think: Mx. _____).

While Mx. is the most common gender-neutral title, it isn’t the only one. Another alternative for nonbinary or gender-noncomforming people is Misc., short for miscellaneous, from the Latin for “mixed.” Similarly, the alternative title M. does away with all the gendered information that comes after the M in the other titles and is a simple way to express a variety of genders or lack of gender. Another option is Ind., short for individual. As with all titles, pronouns, names, and so forth, one should be mindful to use the language that a person uses for themselves.

Along those lines, professional titles are gender-neutral and may be preferred by people of any gender. The most common of these is Dr., short for doctor, which is used for Ph.D. holders and medical doctors. Captain and coach are also common titles that can be held in a variety of settings. People in the military can be referred to by their ranks, as in General or Sergeant. Members of the clergy in many faiths are also typically referred to by specific honorifics, such as Reverend or Rabbi.

What does Mx. stand for?

Mx. is a riff on the classic gendered titles Mr. and Ms. It keeps the M and swaps the gendered element of these terms for the gender-neutral XThe letter X has historically been used as a symbol for the unknown or indescribable. In this way, it is perfect for a gender-neutral honorific. Mx. shows respect while leaving the gender unknown or unarticulated. Other examples of words that use the letter X as an indication of gender-nonconformity that you may have come across are folx and womxn.

The purpose of using these titles, whether it’s Mr.Ms.Mx., or anything else, is to convey respect. (They are called “honorifics,” not “ruderifics,” after all.) Because that’s the goal, whatever title someone chooses for themselves is the one you should use for them. And whether you are nonbinary, gender nonconforming, or simply just not interested in being called a gendered title, if Mx. or any of these alternatives don’t feel fitting to you, you can always coin your own!

A Native American Community in Baltimore Reclaims Its History

A Native American Community in Baltimore Reclaims Its History

A QUICK CMOS review: Commas relative to parentheses and brackets

A QUICK CMOS review: Commas relative to parentheses and brackets

6: Punctuation

6.18: Commas relative to parentheses and brackets

Chapter Contents / Commas

When the context calls for a comma at the end of material in parentheses or brackets, the comma should follow the closing parenthesis or bracket. A comma never precedes a closing parenthesis. (For its rare appearance before an opening parenthesis, see the examples in 6.129.) Rarely, a comma may appear inside and immediately before a closing bracket as part of an editorial interpolation (as in the last example; see also 13.59).

  • After several drummers had tried out for the part (the last having destroyed the kit), the band decided that a drum machine was their steadiest option.
  • Her delivery, especially when she would turn to address the audience (almost as if to spot a long-lost friend), was universally praised.
  • “Conrad told his assistant [Martin], who was clearly exhausted, to rest.”
  • “The contents of the vault included fennel seeds, tweezers, [straight-edged razors,] and empty Coca-Cola cans.”

Here are a few comments from the CMOS forum. These examples should help this rule stick in your mind!

• I went to Bob’s (he didn’t realize I was on my way) and caught him kissing my girlfriend.
Lowercase “he” and exclude the period at the end of the sentence within parens? Is this correctly punctuated?

• I told Mary (does she think I’m stupid?) that I was aware of the affair.
Lowercase “does” and use the question mark within parens? Is this correctly punctuated?

• Joe may apologize (he is such a creep!) for the affair.
Lowercase “he” and can I use the exclamation point within parens? Is this correctly punctuated?

I think that the only terminal punctuation that is omitted in parens is the period. The question mark and exclamation mark, I believe, are the only ones that can be used at the end of a sentence within parens.

Dummy Subjects

Dummy Subjects