Grammar Guy Returns

Lets eat Grandma!

(INCORRECT)

Lets eat, Grandma!

(CORRECT)

Punctuation saves lives. But that's not what Grammar Guy wants to disccuss today. Today, Grammar Guy would like to address conundrums, those statements or word combinations that immediately contradict themselves or make no sense.

Since Grammar Guy likes and respects Captain Obvvious, this blog's other superhero, he'll not intrude on the Captain's prerogative to point out what everyone else already knows, and stay away from such hoary chestnuts as "military intelligence" or "conservative think tank." Instead, Grammar Guy will remind readers that he teased them about a month ago with "crucial straw poll," and now presents three more examples of expressions that just defy ordinary reason.

"Instant classic" is the first of today's ridiculous combos. Grammar Guy heard it last week in a reference to the pitcher's duel between Chris Carpenter and Roy Halladay. The St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Philadelphia Phillies 1-0 as Carpenter prevailed.

Now, Grammar Guy applauds the Cardinals for winning the National League diviisional series, but the salutation "instant classic" is still absurd. A classic by definition must be something that has stood the test of time. Don Larsen's World Series perfect game is a classic. Bill Mazeroski's home run to win the 1960 series is another. Both were either so above expectations or so decisive that they deserve the title. Perhaps in half a century sports fans will look back on Carpenter's effort in that light, but I doubt it. A divisional series is not a World Series.

Next, Grammar Guy addresses what is often heard on news reports, but still leaves a bone in his throat, "foul play." We're usually talking about a crime of violence here people. There's nothing in the nature of "play" about it. Yet hardly a week goes by without some local news personality saying a body has been discovered somewhere and the police suspect "foul play." I'll bet the victim of the crime didn't see anything playful about the incident.

Finally, we come to perhaps the most egregious example of all, "pure pornography." Grammar Guy is pretty sure that people who use this conundrum mean to say that something is entirely pornographic, without any redeeming value, but really! "Pure" means unattainted, and usually does refer to sexual abstinance. So how could anything legitimately be both pure and pornographic? It just can't be.

Well, that's it for today, but readers are advised that Captain Obvious will return soon to battle the political demons of our land.

Apologia: this blog inadvertently misspelled the last name of the House Majority Leader in a recent post. It's Cantor, not Kantor. Everything else stands, however.