You Don’t Say

I picked up a copy of the Los Angeles Downtown News on my way to lunch one day last week. It’s a freebie, and I like to have something to read if I’m eating by myself.

Opining about Sam Zell, the billionaire new owner of the Los Angeles Times, the executive editor of Downtown News, Jon Regardie, wrote, “After deciding it’d be a good idea to buy Tribune Co., with enough debt to shake up an oil sheik….”

I stopped reading the rest of the sentence because my eyes went back to the contraction “it’d.” Don’t get me wrong–I’ve got nothing against common contractions. As you may have noticed, I use them in my writing. But the contraction “it’d” seems to me very awkward in print. And how is it pronounced: id, itid, what?

Back at the office, a quick search on Google News for “it’s” turned up thousands of hits, many in direct quotes. Understandably, if “it’d” appears in a direct quote, then it has to stand. Furthermore,you’ll find “it’d” in the dictionary (at least it is my Merriam Webster Collegiate 11^th Edition).

But for my money (nowhere near Sam Zell’s), I’d stick with “it would” or “it had” in print, especially for publications, company reports or any written communication that are widely distributed.

When it comes to “it’d,” I’d err on the side of contraction caution.

Macy’s sent me a letter while back that began like this: 

As a valued and loyal customer of Macy’s, we want to help simplify your shopping experience. 

Thank you, Macy’s. I’m all for simplification. And for good grammar. So would you mind getting rid of the dangling modifier at the beginning of that sentence.

The group of words at the beginning of the sentence, “As a valued and loyal customer of Macy’s”, describes me, at least in Macy’s eyes. Therefore, the first word in the main part of the sentence should be you, to refer to me, the valued and loyal customer. The word that is there now, we, refers to Macy’s, which is not the valued and loyal customer. That’s why the dependent clause at the beginning of the sentence is a dangling modifier. It doesn’t have a logical connection to any of the words in the main clause.

There are two simple ways to fix the problem:

1. Rewrite the main clause so the dependent clause has a logical connection to a word in the main clause: As a valued and loyal customer of Macy’s, you deserve a simplified shopping experience.

2. Rewrite the dependent clause to explain why Macy’s wants to simplify my shopping experience: Because you are a valued and loyal customer of Macy’s, we want to help simplify your shopping experience.

Wasn’t that simple?

The other day I was testing the ripeness of the Haas avocados in a Ralph’s supermarket in Studio City. I was gently squeezing one of the plump, pebbly-skinned fruits, when I heard a male voice ask the grocery clerk, “Where’s your sour cream at?”

The avocado I was squeezing wasn’t ripe, but the grammatical moment sure was.

When did it become commonplace to marry where with at? By definition where means at what place. Tacking on the preposition at to a where question is unnecessary. ”Where is your sour cream? would have been sufficient. (I woud also replace the possessive adjective your with the simple article the, but that’s another posting.)

Am I the only person who knows this? I can’t tell you how many cell phone conversations I have overheard that have included the question, “So, where are you at?” I’ve heard teachers use this collocation when discussing the merits of a particular assessment tool as ”a way of helping us find out where the students are at.”

If you ask me where I’m at, my answer is, “At my wit’s end.”