Advertisement

A Word, Please: Grammar-curious readers look for answers

Share

Some interesting questions have been piling up in my inbox recently, including one from a reader named Lorraine who asked about the expression “exact same.”

This word pairing is a popular target for nitpickers. “Exact same” is nonsensical, they say. Redundant. So it’s wrong.

Not exactly. Yes, it’s redundant. Same means same. It needs no “exact” to be exact.

But it would be very, very wrong of me to say you can’t use it. You see, “very, very” is also redundant. And just as there’s no grammar rule prohibiting “very, very,” there’s no one to tell you that you can’t commit the redundancy that is “exact same.”

Advertisement

Besides, sometimes “exact” does add something. “Exact same” tells the reader that you mean “same” in its most literal sense. You don’t mean two things are very similar or practically identical. “Exact” says you mean business.

Still, “exact same” is bad form. Besides being redundant, it’s also weak. Adverbs used to add emphasis usually are (“exact” is an adverb anytime it’s modifying an adjective like “same”).

Consider the sentence “Freddy Krueger really, totally, absolutely, truly was a vicious killer.” Compare that to “Freddy Krueger was a vicious killer.” See how the former comes off as pleading but the latter as a bold and simple statement of fact?

It’s as though the adverb-happy writer is begging you to believe her. That approach usually backfires. Statements have the most impact when they’re unadorned. So when you say, “It’s the exact same thing,” your message is weakened by “exact.”

As a copy editor, I remove “exact” before “same” every time I see it. This cut never fails to improve the sentence.

Also in my inbox is this interesting question from a reader named David: “In your Sunday ‘A Word, Please’ you used ‘latter’ to refer to the last of a series of three items. Is this a valid construction? I’ve done this myself but wondered if I should limit my use of former/latter to pairs of items.”

In other words, if I talk about shoes, hats and belts, can I use the word “latter” to refer to belts? Or does “latter” make sense only for lists of two things, in which there’s a clear former: “The store sells shoes and belts. The former are on the second floor, the latter are on the main floor in the accessories department.”

Answers to such questions are easier to come by than most people realize. You don’t need to have some special grammar insight. You don’t need to puzzle it out using logic. The answer is right in the dictionary.

Here’s an excerpt from Merriam-Webster’s entry for the word “latter”: “of, relating to, or being the second of two groups or things or the last of several groups or things referred to.”

Because the “latter” can be the last of several things, you can use it with lists of three or four.

Steve in La Crescenta had a good question about whether it’s “one in five people live in poverty” or “one in five lives.”

“Shouldn’t “one in five” be taken as singular, not plural?” he asked. “One in five lives in poverty” sounds correct to me but I don’t know if it is. What say you?”

“One in five” creates one of those weird situations in which meaning matters almost as much as form. “One” is singular, so in theory it should take a singular verb. But when “one in five” refers to 200,000 out of a million, it’s intended as a plural. That’s why experts allow “one in five live” as well as “one in five lives.” Want to play it safe? Then the singular “one in five lives” is the better choice.

JUNE CASAGRANDE is the author of “The Best Punctuation Book, Period.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.

Advertisement