Sometimes I see posts with the word “defiantly” when the person obviously meant “definitely”. I always assumed it was some kind of autocorrect issue. But now in today’s paper a picture has this caption (emphasis mine):

“President Vladimir Putin has definantly dismissed the doping scandal.”

JFC.

Not sure if this has been posted here before, but seeing the umpteenth why/how error today made me think of this thread.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/polit...hed/index.html

"Why Donald Trump's 'Mission Accomplished' tweet is so tone deaf"

But of course the article doesn't go on to explain why they think he has made a tone deaf tweet, as promised - it explains what makes the tweet tone deaf. All the more amusing when this sentence is found in the article: "Words matter." - indeed.

I know I've seen much better examples, and ones that don't have as much of a chance of starting some political derail like a Trump headline might, but they're not an easy thing to search up. I just know it's a mistake I've seen a lot.

Or am I wrong about this?

Have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"Why" is a word which asks for general justification. How asks for events, process, cause and effect, etiology. For instance:

"Why are mammals warm-blooded?" - Here we're asked to justify the existence of blood-warming, from the point of the animal.
"How are mammals warm-blooded?" - A different question (phrased a little awkwardly). Now the questioner wants to know what the underlying process is.

"Why are humans mammals?" - We're asked to justify the classification with supporting facts about what a mammal is and how humans fit that.
"How are humans mammals?" - This question either makes no sense or is a grammatical error (if the previous question was intended). It's like asking "How is 2 an even number?". There is no underlying process that makes it so, it's a question of classification.

"Why is ChrisV posting on 2+2?" -Justification
"How is ChrisV posting on 2+2?" -Process

There's some crossover between the two, so they're sometimes interchangeable. For example, "Why will that be a problem?" and "How will that be a problem?", because one can either ask for justification or process. The difference becomes apparent if conversations continue like this:

"Why will that be a problem?"
"Well, there will be legal difficulties."
"Why?"

That's fine. But:

"How will that be a problem?"
"Well, there will be legal difficulties."
"How?"

That doesn't make sense, because we're clearly not asking about process/a sequence of events anymore. I mean the answer is something like "well, lawyers will read it and file objections with the Court".

Going back to the tweet, "Why Donald Trump's 'Mission Accomplished' tweet is so tone deaf" is promising justification for why the tweet should be classified as tone deaf, which is what the article delivers.

Nicely explained, but I'm not with you on the conclusion.

Actually, as I was typing out my reply, I've rethought this a bit. Perhaps I'm getting too hung up on something. When I see "tweet is so tone deaf", I'm reading that part as a declaration. Something to be assumed. So given that it is tone deaf, why is that? Why is Donald Trump's tweet tone deaf? Not what makes it tone deaf, or how is it tone deaf, but why is it tone deaf? Is it just me that sees a distinction here? Perhaps it is a "me" thing. Because this one, having given it more thought after reading your post, I can see both ways. But I still don't think that wording is optimal. Maybe it isn't wrong, but I don't think it's as clear as it could be.

So much better, IMO:

"Why Donald Trump's 'Mission Accomplished' tweet comes across as/sounds so tone deaf"

or

"What makes Donald Trump's 'Mission Accomplished' tweet so tone deaf"

Regardless, it's become apparent to me that I've not chosen the best example, as I suspected at the time.

I mean, I see what you're saying. "Why" questions are sometimes ambiguous as to what type of justification is being sought. For example the question "Why is Trump unfit to be President?" could either be asking for justification (i.e. "because he's an amoral narcissist"), or accepting the premise and asking why it is so (i.e. "I guess having your every whim catered to does that to you"). I don't think that ambiguity exists in the headline, though. There are plenty of places in English where sentences are technically ambiguous but the alternative reading makes no sense; it's a gold mine for comedy. This doesn't mean the sentences need to be corrected.

I'm not sure if the ambiguity in the example above has a name, but it's similar to the well-known reason/purpose ambiguity in "why" questions. For example, if you ask me "why did you get up early this morning?", I could answer either "I had work I needed to do" (purpose) or "My alarm clock went off" (reason). The fact that the question is ambiguous does not mean it was poorly worded; people are just expected to be able to derive the correct meaning from context.

Edit: A headline like "Why pigeons are stupid" probably crystallises the ambiguity well: is the article an argument that pigeons are stupid, or is that just being assumed and the article is about why that is the case? I think with something as subjective as "tone-deaf", it's obvious that there isn't supposed to already be universal agreement on this point. Moreover, the alternative reading makes no sense as a question. As an example on the other end, "Why the sky is blue" is probably not going to be an argument intended to convince us that the sky is blue, it's going to explain why that is the case.

You're probably right, and I was confusing ambiguity with being incorrect. I'm still sure I've seen many instances where it is outright incorrect, and I just chose my example poorly. I'll watch for another one and come back with it.

I think the problem usually arises when the sentence is a statement rather than a question - just not this time.

I hang my head in shame, and may do penance by rereading some Lynne Truss.

What would you guys use as an antonym for deficit? As in "I'm eating at a calorie deficit to lose weight" vs "I'm eating at a calorie to gain weight". I wanted to use surfeit but I wasn't sure if it's the best fit.

Surplus

The other option would be "excess" but "at a calorie excess", while OK grammatically, sounds awkward. "I'm eating an excess of calories to gain weight" would work. "Surplus" is perfect though.

btw, "surfeit" is an uncommon, slightly archaic word that I have never in my life heard used in spoken English. I'm not sure if this is technically correct or what, but I would personally only use it for physical things. There are connotations of luxury and opulence in it, as in "a surfeit of food and drink". Using it about something abstract, like "a surfeit of money" or something, wouldn't make sense to me. "Surplus" just means "more than required" without carrying any additional connotations.

I've never heard anyone say surfeit.

came across this in an article in the new yorker:

"FX is a business. It's not there to make some kid from Stone Mountain, Georgia,'s dreams come true."

that tortured punctuation really jumped out. and man, is it ugly! but is it correct?

Was it in the article as a direct quote?

the writer is quoting a speaker. the punctuation is the writer's, of course.

If that's a direct quote then it's not too bad, although maybe it didn't need the second comma.

It's difficult to properly punctuate an ungrammatical direct quote.

well, the rule is you put a comma after Georgia there, but I would assume the comma would have to go after the s, not before it.

Correct. With that change the sentence is fine.

It's a cluster**** regardless of how you write it, but maybe throwing out some other rules and just writing "make some kid from Stone Mountain GA's dreams come true" would make it look best.

And now that I look at it, that looks weird as hell too. I dunno.

It's a simple rule: city separated from the state by a comma, and a comma follows the state. You're getting confused by the apostrophe unnecessarily.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I know, that's why I said "maybe throwing out some other rules". Doesn't really make it that much less awkward anyway so screw it.

This is from Peter King's FMIA:

Whom did Brees relieve that day at quarterback?

When Brees won the 2010 Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year award, whom did he choose to be his presenter at the event in New York City?

Both are correct because "whom" is the object of the verbs. I think.

They are both wrong. Terribly, ugly wrong.

Test: try putting another objective pronoun in their place, like him or her.

You can't with questions. Brees replaced him at quarterback.

Whom is correct in both instances—it's the object of the clauses (Brees is the subject). You could use who if you were afraid of sounding stilted, but whom is definitely correct in both examples.