Bad attraction

The Writing Rag’s last post made a passing reference to attraction.

This is not the kind of attraction I'm talking about. (thx to Bob Rz on Deviant Art)

Grammatical attraction is when a word picks up a grammatical characteristic from a nearby word. I’m told this is permitted in Latin. However, it is generally frowned upon in English. The exception is when you have a compound phrase that uses “or” as the conjunction, you take the number (singular or plural) from the last word in the phrase. So you have something like “an apple or some grapes are enough to eat before supper, young man.” Or “A few grapes or an apple is enough…” Well-remembered quotes from my mother, long ago. With “and” as the conjunction, it’s always plural, by the way.

But attraction is a no-no when you get the number of a verb from a nearby prepositional object. In English, the subject and the verb must always agree, no matter how far apart they are. And for a quote that forces me to point out this error, from the March 2012 Scientific American, whose writing standards used to be impeccable, but seem to have slipped a bit, especially in their blogs (but I digress):

In Western democracies, consolidation of Internet service providers has put a shrinking number of corporate entities in control of growing shares of Internet traffic, giving companies such as Comcast and AT&T both the incentive and power to speed traffic served by their own media partners at the expense of competitors.

…

A small but dedicated community of digital activists are working on it.

(The “it” in the second sentence does not refer to what’s going on in the first sentence.) Look at the verbs. In the first sentence, they got it right. The subject is “consolidation,” a singular. The verb is “has put,” also singular. Good! They got it right in this long and complicated sentence. But look at the second sentence. The subject is “community,” a singular. And the verb? “Are working.” A plural! How did they get “A community are working?” By attraction to the plural object in the phrase “of digital activists.” I remember Mrs. Clemens in sixth grade warning us to be alert for this goof.

Don’t you make it.

P.S. I ran into this sentence the day after I posted this lesson. Can you find the mistake? I hope it jumps out at you.

An analysis of 1.95 billion cell phone calls and 489 million text messages reveal how men and women follow different relationship patterns during their lifetimes.

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

In many languages, adjectives come after the word they modify. This makes sense—first you find out the word, then you learn some details about it. Not so English. Almost all the time we put the adjective first, and make you hold your breath until you find out what’s being modified. Fortunately, we also insist the the adjective be as close as possible to the word it modifies so the wait is short, and to prevent extra candidates from getting in the way. So we say “the literature book” and avoid saying “the literature that-was-assigned-by-my-teacher book.”

Another thing about adjectives is that they don’t show number. It’s “literature books.” “Literature doesn’t change to, say, “literatures” to go with “books.” In many languages adjectives do show number—and gender, too. This match-up of number and gender is called agreement, by the way.

English has three exceptions to the adjective-first rule. Three that come to mind, anyway; perhaps someone can remind me of more. They are “court martial,” “notary public,” and “attorney general.” The second word is the adjective. If you want a plural, you say”courts martial,” “notaries public,” and “attorneys general.”

One particularly tricky adjective is “only.” We tend to put “only” at the very front of the sentence if we can, rather than in front of the word it modifies. This bad habit has been around for along time. I quote the November 1911 Scientific American:

The importance of the industry which turns out the little splinters of wood tipped with sulfer is only recognized when the average smoker tries to contemplate his predicament if he had to go back to the time when he had to coax a spark from a tinder-box.

Man managing modern match-making machinery

The “only” in this sentence really refers to the clause that starts with “when the average smoker…” It’s grammatical for it to refer to “recognized,” but other words can fit there, too.  In fact, we can improve the sentence more. As it stands, the sentence is not strictly true. This importance can be recognized on other occasions; for example, when someone reads about it in Scientific American. How about using a less absolute word in place of “only”? Something like “easily.”

Here’s another example, from one of the most scholarly books I have read lately, The Five-Factor Model of Personality, edited by Jerry S. Wiggins.

Ozer and Reise (1994) warn us: “Personality psychologists who continue to employ their preferred measure without locating it within the five-factor model can only be likened to cartographers who issue reports of new lands but refuse to locate them on a map for others to find.”

Is making this comparison the only thing you can do with these people? Couldn’t you correspond with them? How about buy their books or read their papers? The writer is saying that the best comparison  is about them being a misguided cartographer, not that comparing is the only thing you can do with them. I suspect the word “only” could be removed from this sentence altogether without harm.

The point is if you want your writing to be as clear as possible, put “only” right in front of the word it refers to, and be sure you really mean “only.”