Even the president of the United States must beware of grammar goofs.

"I believe it's time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, folks like myself, to expire."  What is wrong with this pronouncement that President Obama said today?  I ask you, what is wrong with this PRONOUNcement?  It is, of course, the incorrect use of the reflexive pronoun, "myself."

Obama has fallen into the trap of thinking that using "myself" makes him sound more sophisticated and educated.  Sorry, Mr. President.  Myself is a reflexive pronoun-- Used correctly, you might find it in phrases such as "I did it myself" or "Most people like like to read novels, but I, myself, prefer history books."  The word you should have used is simple, little, ordinary me.

Me is the perfectly honorable, sophisticated, and correct word to use in your sentence.  "I believe it's time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, folks like me, to expire." Me.  Me. Please remember... me.

SSSSSS!

I don't know how I found this, but I did:  A blog named No Bad Language (love it!), written by Vickie Bates. http://nobadlanguage.net/about-me/ I am a fan of anyone who promotes proper grammar  and clean language usage.  Vickie puts forth her opinion on the tricky showing of possessiveness when the possessor has a name that ends in letter S... or worse, double S, as I do.  
Vickie writes:

Excessive Possessiveness

Mills’s educational excellence is enhanced by its sylvan campus.

I fear this is one of those grammar strictures that’s broken so many times, it’s about to get dumped. Somewhere along the way, editors stopped doing their duty and allowed writers to hang an “s” onto possessives ending in “s,” so they work just like possessives that don’t have an “s” at the end.

The rule, in case anyone still wonders, is this:

Add ’s to possessives that don’t end with the letter “s” (except for “its”). Possessives that end with “s” simply take an apostrophe. For example:

Lt. Valeris’ alacrity enabled Star Fleet to deduce Ambassador Nanclus’ role in the assassination of Klingon Chancellor Gorkon.

In recent decades, the Associated Press Stylebook (a favorite of mine) allowed for the addition of ’s to possessives that end in “s” when the word is only one syllable. Therefore: 

Mills’s educational excellence is enhanced by its sylvan campus.

Where do you stand on slipping in a second “s”?  In my case, growing up with one rule means that when I encounter examples like the one above, I lose track of the point of the sentence and stop while my mind corrects the grammar. Plus, to my eyes, it looks wrong, that row of “ssssss,” like a cartoon-balloon for a snake. What do you think? Am I being too possessive of the old rules? Is the new usage more helpful? Does it make more sense?

Well, Vickie, I disagree.  

  I have a surname that ends in two esses.  To flap a mere apostrophe on the end does not do it for me.  When a speaker refers to the home of James Arness, it is natural and logical to say and write "James Arness's home."  The venerable Strunk and White's Elements of Style promotes the adding of apostrophe S.  The only being who routinely receives merely an added apostrophe is Jesus.  For some reason, "Jesus' name, Jesus' birth, Jesus' resurrection" is the way to go.  I guess He gets an exemption.  

Listen to speakers when they talk of the possession-hood of a person who has a name ending in S or SS.  Most of the time, you will hear repetition of the S sound.  Dennis's tennis shoes; Janis's songs (how is this any different from Janice's songs?); Moses's walking stick.  It is natural to say it, and it should be natural to show it with the addition of apostrophe S.  Let's keep in step with the pros and and consistently go with apostrophe S.  (Except for Jesus.  He can do it any way he wants.) 

I hate

myself ! ...when it replaces "me," that is.

I read two novels recently, which I enjoyed very much. The first is The Crown, by Nancy Bilyeau. (2012) Ms. Bilyeau offers an historical novel involving nice nuns, bad bishops, Henry VIII, and other engaging players. Instead of endeavoring to write dialogue in sixteenth-century English, she allows her characters to speak in a way that is sensible and just slightly formal.  However, like their twenty-first century counterparts, her young men and women frequently use a reflexive pronoun when a nominative one needed.  There are many erring characters who say “myself” when they mean “me.”  Here is my favorite:

“Tell everything you know about myself.” Aagh!  How do editors miss bloopers like this?

The second book is The Lantern, by Deborah H. Lawrenson. (2011) It is a captivating page-turner, well-written and nearly grammar-goof free. The author creates a well-crafted mystery surrounding a decaying property in the French countryside. Her descriptive writing enables the reader to feel the sunshine, smell the lavender, sense the damp walls, and fear the unbalanced brother. The writing is so good that I almost hate to mention this mangled pronoun situation. Somehow, though, the editors failed to see this:

"When you first meet someone and they tell you stories about themselves, you have no reason to doubt these are true."

Someone linked with they and themselves? To make this sentence even more sinful, it is known to the reader that the someone in question is a male. There is no justification not to write:

"When you first meet someone and he tells you stories about himself, you have no reason to doubt these are true." 

Right?

Adverb Advice

I just heard two bad commercials, back to back:

"New Quaker Yogurt Granola Bars-- treat yourself good!"

"Get home safe."  (Smirnoff Premium Malt Mixed Drinks)

These are positive sentiments, poorly expressed.  If young people don't hear the language spoken well, they won't learn it correctly.

Who's losing?

It is abhorrent that television reality shows and these sleazy, cheesy gossip rags glorify teen parents.  And even worse, this one models bad grammar to the young people who devour this junk.

“Who’s losing their baby.”  Well, we know that it’s a mom; that means that “she” and “her” are going to be the appropriate pronouns.  Is more than one mom losing a baby?  No—because the sentence begins “Who IS.”  The phrase or sentence should read, “who’s losing her baby” or “Who’s losing her baby?” 

The readers of this periodical are probably young, and possibly not well-educated.  They likely choose trashy lit over textbooks.  At least the editors could do us a favor and provide them with a grammatically legitimate headline.

TV Commercials with Bad Grammar – four heard in one day!

Television commercials are created by advertizing firms.  Presumably, the writers are grammar-adept.  The following examples show that they are not. 

Borden Milk:  “Here’s to kids that follow their hearts.”

Kids are people, not objects!  “…who follow their hearts.”

 Comfy Control Harness:  “Dogs are now begging to go for a walk, because now there’s the amazing mesh Comfy Control Harness that puts a smile on their face.”

For many reasons, this is a badly written sentence.  Most irksome to me is the number-disagreement between the dogs and the body part mentioned.  Do all these dogs share one face?  Certainly not.  “…a smile on their faces.”

 T-Mobile:  “Everyone’s going to want this in their stocking.”

This is another sentence exhibiting a numerical mismatch.  “Everyone” is singular; “their” is plural.  To fix this, one might change it to “Everyone’s going to want this in his or her stocking.”  It might be better, though, to remove “everyone,” and change the subject.  For example:” Your kids are going to want this in their stocking.”  But, oops! This requires another correction.  Do all the kids share the same stocking? I hope not! 

“Your kids are going to want this in their stockings.”

Motorola Droid phone:  “This droid is too powerful to fall in the wrong hands.”

If this vigorous phone is hopping about on someone’s palms, and it then falls over, the sentence makes sense.  But I doubt that this is the intended meaning. 

“This droid is too powerful to fall into the wrong hands.”

There is no reason for "their."

“Now for the first time, hear secrets from the first Madoff family member to break their silence,”  says the ABC announcer in a promo for “20/20.”  Shown are interview shots that clearly depict Madoff daughter-in-law, Stephanie Madoff.  A female.  So why use the clumsy and ungrammatical their instead of her?  There is no excuse.