August 25, 2004
Grammar Snobbery
One of my English professors has, um, professed himself to be a grammar snob (though I imagine they all are; it's a requirement) by pointing out that the phrase "one of the things that is always true" is incorrect. It should be "one of the things that are always true." Why do I bring this up? Not to mock my professor. He's actually an excellent teacher and a well respected writer and scholar. Instead, it's simply to set up this bit of similar, but funnier grammar snobbery from Gregg Easterbrook:
In the new Microsoft slogan -- "Your potential inspires us to create software to help you reach it" -- the antecedent of "it" is "software." So your potential inspires us to create software to help you reach software. This slogan must have gone through the Microsoft Word grammar-checker tool! Then again, the line does pretty much sum up Microsoft sales strategy.
Am I the only one who finds this funny?
I'm no expert, but I think your professor's position is open to debate. "One of the Things" is a compund singular noun - you're only referring to one of the things that are always true, not all of the things that are always true. Thence, that thing is always true.
I don't think I have my grammar textbook around anymore, but a couple of years ago I could've parsed that bitch for you and figured out for sure. The above is just my gut feeling. You seem to agree with him. How should it be parsed?
The antecedent is apparently "things" even though you're only discussing one of them. Compare these two sentences:
One thing that is always true.
One of the things that are always true.
And yes, you know I'm a grammar snob, but I like to flatter myself by thinking I usually hide it well. That is, I don't correct people in public.
Of course, there's always the descriptivist cop-out for this one. :)
In the Microsoft sentence, when I read it I thought that "it" referred to "your potential":
So.. "Your potential inspires us to create software to help you reach your potential."?
That would make a little more sense, but then again I'm not even near the grammar snob scale to say anything. :)
Right. That's what M$ intended, but from the structure of the sentence, that's not what "it" refers to.