News

May 20, 2023

Grammar Moses: Athletic supporters? Why newspaper editors need dirty minds

I've always said that a dirty mind is an editor's best most important tool. Such an editor will find unintended meanings in copy and head them off at the pass. Many years ago I happened upon a story

I've always said that a dirty mind is an editor's best most important tool. Such an editor will find unintended meanings in copy and head them off at the pass.

Many years ago I happened upon a story in which the writer referred to members of athletic booster clubs as "athletic supporters."

Yes, this was before the story made print, which in those days was the only way we published.

I suspected that this writer had neither the inclination to wear nor purchase an athletic supporter. So I explained as gently as I could that athletic supporters belong in the locker room and not in the stands.

When I didn't see a light bulb illuminate, I explained it more directly.

She was embarrassed. I was embarrassed. But at least the entire newspaper wasn't embarrassed by being on a "Tonight Show" headlines segment.

Around every corner is an opportunity to find an unintended double meaning in writing. Double entendres can be a wonderful thing in writing, provided they are intentional and used appropriately.

And that pretty much rules out most newspaper writing.

Reader Connie Arkus wrote to me about one that got away.

College "seeks submissions from women, LGBTQ artists," she wrote. "Oh, really? Submissive women?"

You know what they say about email: It's difficult to tell when people are joking and when they're not. Most of the email I get related to this column is of the former variety.

"I think the plural here is key," I responded. "Were it not for that 's' at the end of 'submissions', I agree we have a real problem on our hands. But if we were talking about submissive people, we wouldn't pluralize the verb."

Yes, I missed her point.

"Submissions from women," no matter how you slice it (or justify the grammar) is, well, icky. And wholly unintended.

It's important to have your fourth-grader self close at hand to ensure we find all of those things that will be misperceived. Because perception is more important than a good grammar justification.

Tom Connelly is a thorough reader. He emails me regularly about grammatical issues with the newspaper.

Recently, he asked about a policy:

"Tennis player Christopher Eubanks called grass 'the stupidest surface.' After winning a Wimbledon match on grass, he said, 'The grass and I, we've had a very strenuous, I would say, relationship over the years.' What role in reporting, if any, does a newspaper have in correcting this malapropism to 'tenuous'?"

The simple answer is none.

Were this a scholarly publication, we might plop a (sic) in there to let readers know it was he who made the mistake and not we. Eubanks said "strenuous," not "tenuous." If we're quoting him directly, it's disingenuous to put quotation marks around it knowing we substituted a word he did not say.

I'm sure your next question is something like, "What about 'gonna', 'hafta' and 'shoulda'?

Those are merely slurred pronunciations of "going to," "have to" and "should have."

Unless we're consistent about using everyone's particularly pronunciations -- something I'd find ridiculous -- we shouldn't do it at all.

Unless, that is, we're doing a deeper dive profile of someone for whom a particular dialect or rhythm is an important part of the story.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is vice president/executive editor of the Daily Herald. You can buy Jim's book, "Grammar Moses: A humorous guide to grammar and usage," at

grammarmosesthebook.com. Write him at [email protected]

and put "Grammar Moses" in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.