Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words - Bill Bryson [82]
yes, no. Writers are often at a loss when deciding what to do with a yes or no in constructions such as the following: “Will this really be the last of Inspector Clouseau? Blake Edwards says No” (Sunday Express). There are two possibilities, neither of which this writer has used. You may make it “Blake Edwards says no” or you may make it “Blake Edwards says, ‘No.’ ” Capitalizing the word without providing any punctuation is a pointless compromise and should satisfy no one.
yesterday. Anyone not acquainted with journalists could be forgiven for assuming that they must talk something like this: “I last night went to bed early because I this morning had to catch an early flight.” That, at any rate, is how many of them write. Consider: “The announcement was yesterday greeted with restrained enthusiasm in Jeddah” (New York Times); “Police were last night hunting for . . .” (Daily Mail); “The two sides were today to consider . . .” (Guardian). Although in newspapers care must be taken not to place the time element where it might produce ambiguity, a more natural arrangement can almost always be found: “was greeted yesterday”; “were hunting last night for”; “were to consider today.”
you who is. You is an odd word in that it is frequently used in a singular sense but always attached to a plural verb, which is why we write, “You are a nice person” and not “You is a nice person.” Most of the time this causes no problem, but just occasionally even the most careful user may be brought up short by the inherent inconsistency between the singular pronoun and plural verb, as here: “If you happen to be driving on a Nevada highway and a cow steps into your path, totaling your vehicle and sending you to the hospital, it will be you who is liable to the rancher for the cost” (New Yorker). Odd as “you who is” may sound, it is indeed correct. (For a discussion of the grammar involved, see I, ME.) However, such constructions are also often—as in the example—at least a touch awkward. Almost always grammar can be preserved and sentence flow improved by getting rid of the it and recasting accordingly, e.g., “you may be held liable” or “legal liability will rest with you.” See also IT.
Z
zoom. Strictly speaking, the word should describe only a steep upward movement. Almost every authority stresses the point, though how much that is inspired by a desire for precision and how much by the need to find something—anything—to discuss under the letter z is not easy to say. No one, I think, would argue that zoom lenses should be used only for taking pictures of objects above oneself, nor should the word be considered objectionable when applied to lateral movements (“The cars zoomed around the track”). But for describing downward movements (“The planes zoomed down on the city to drop their bombs”) it is perhaps better avoided, especially as swoop is available.
appendix:
punctuation
The uses of punctuation marks are so numerous and the abuses so varied that the following is offered only as a very general guide to the most common errors. For those who wish to dig more deeply, I recommend the excellent Mind the Stop, by G. V. Carey.
apostrophe. The principal functions of the apostrophe are to indicate omitted letters (don’t, can’t, wouldn’t) and to show the possessive (strictly, the genitive) case (John’s book, the bank’s money, the people’s choice).
Two types of error occur with some frequency and are worth noting. They involve:
1. Multiple possessives. This problem can be seen here: “This is a sequel to Jeremy Paul’s and Alan Gibson’s play” (Times). The question is whether both of the apostrophes are necessary, and the answer in this instance is no. Because the reference is to a single play written jointly, only the second-named man needs to be in the possessive. Thus it should be “Jeremy Paul and Alan Gibson’s play.” If the reference