MLP: Try and try again

While Mrs. Language Person's roots are more Anglo (Ireland) than Saxon, she must have been French in another life. Your MLP is quite snooty about proper use of language, so snooty that she punishes herself for grammar slips. The French elevate language protection to an art form, complete with dedicated government office and a separate tense just for written French.

Why all this fuss? Language is only as useful as it is consistent. Without that consistency, without clear definitions and rules, language erodes and communication breaks down. From the snooty perspective it's also very messy. Careless language begets (belies?) careless thought.

So when she hears precious words misused carelessly, MLP becomes annoyingly French. Par exemples des mes amies (suggested by readers):

"Take a listen." As one reader wrote, "Listen is a verb and should be treated as such." Amen, dear reader. Verbs indeed take offense when treated as mere nouns. One may be able to take a noun for a ride, but the verb is where the action is, loathe to give up its power.

"Because" and "since." Here's another masquerade and one of MLP's pet peeves. "Since" refers to time; "because" precedes a reason. They are not interchangeable. Since (the moment when, i.e. time) Mrs. Language Person was created, she has received much feedback. Because of that feedback, she refuses to go away. Note "because" is correct in the latter sentence, because it offers a reason for her refusal. "Since" would be incorrect, so don't say, "... since it offers a reason for her refusal." Time has nothing to do with her reason.

"Try and." No, no, no. We "try to" do something; we do not "try and" do it. Of course if the speaker means to separate two actions with "and," that is acceptable; e.g., "Yes, I will try and I will let you know." However, MLP can only "try to entertain with her snooty columns;" she can not try and entertain. She either tries or entertains (or fails altogether).

"Well..." (and well). Well? Two readers mentioned this particular irritant (and they don't mean underground water). One asked, "Why do guests on TV, after commentators ask them a question, always begin their answers with the useless word, 'well?'"

Well (sorry; couldn't resist), I can't agree that the word "well" is entirely useless. It is useful and often neglected when it should replace "good," as in "P.D. James writes well (not good)." She can not write good, because (not since!) "write" is a verb and "good" functions only as adjective and may not modify a verb. "Well" functions as an adverb, which modifies the verb "write." Just to confuse things, note that unlike "good," "well" occasionally also functions as an adjective meaning "in satisfactory condition." So I am well and your job was well done.

Now that those "wells" are out of the way, we finally return to the allegedly useless variety. While MLP agrees with readers that "well" as in interjection or introduction is generally unnecessary, it is also sadly accepted as correct grammar in two cases - to express surprise or emotion (Well! There's no need to be rude.) and yes, to introduce a sentence or resume conversation (Well, I disagree with you).

I am sorry to disappoint, dear readers. I share your disillusionment with inefficiencies that ought not to be allowed. I had much the same reaction when I learned that "for" has become occasionally (if oft overused) acceptable to introduce an independent clause, when a mere semicolon would suffice. Sigh.

Next time MLP writes either which or that and neither nor. What a bother.

Sholeh Patrick is an irritatingly word-obsessed columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Send suggestions, criticisms and laments to sholehjo@hotmail.com.