A June-ism to consider

JUNE CASAGRANDE

A Los Angeles Times article on Tuesday began, “After initial

criticism from both conservatives and liberals ... .”

Now, I don’t know who these two conservatives are, but they must

be awfully busy. I mean, there are only two of them, right? And

because they’re up against an indeterminate number of liberals, well,

these two people (no doubt George W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh) must not

get much sleep.

Everything I know about English grammar and usage I learned from

books and people with impressive expertise. Note that I didn’t say,

“I learned from both books and people,” because, I’m proud to

announce, I’ve cracked open at least three books on the subject.

This particular gripe with the word “both” is, as far a I can

tell, a June original. There’s no mention of this problem in the

Chicago Manual of Style. No mention in the Associated Press Style

guide (yes, I know that’s an incomplete sentence). None in “The

Elements of Style.”

In the interest of thoroughness, however, I have now cracked open

a fourth book, “Working With Words: A Concise Handbook for Media

Writers and Editors” by Brian S. Brooks and James L. Pinson, which

touches on the subject, but not in the special June way. Now,

cracking open two more, I can’t find any other sources to point to

this particular problem with the word “both.”

Here’s what “Working With Words” says.

“The adjectives ‘both’ and ‘different’ often add nothing. What’s

the difference between ‘both John and Bill’ and ‘John and Bill’?

Between ‘three different views’ and ‘three views’?” (Yes, I’m sure

they know the latter is an incomplete sentence.)

Touche, Messrs. Brooks and Pinson, but you overlooked what, to me,

is the single most troubling thing about the word “both.”

If you were talking not of John and Bill but of many people with

those first names, Johns and Bills, by adding “both” in front you’re

creating uncertainty as to what the word “both” modifies.

Press releases and other marketing materials are really prone to

this problem: “Both parents and kids will love ... “; “Both doctors

and nurses say ... .”

Here, in my humble attempt at becoming a trailblazing grammar

authority too mighty to reckon with, is a rule I just made up:

Whenever the adjective “both” comes before two nouns separated by

“and,” and whenever the first noun is plural, ditch the word both. In

fact, as Brooks and Pinson have said, whenever you’re considering

using the word “both” as an adjective, stop and ask yourself whether

the sentence would lose anything if you took it out. In short,

question every “both.”

Of course, lots of times “both” is just groovy.

“USC, which lost both starting cornerbacks from last season, did

not sign a cornerback or a running back.” In this example from a

recent Times article, “both” actually adds information. It tells you

the exact number of cornerbacks lost: two.

Then there are the sometimes questionable, sometimes defensible

uses of “both,” like this from a press release from the Institute for

Systems Biology: “ ... the ISB has helped define both the

state-of-the art as well as the global direction in this field.”

This means, “The ISB has helped define state-of-the-art and global

direction in this field.” But do you gain anything by using the “both

... as well as” construction? I suspect a lot of grammar experts

would say no, that these words are just hot air. But sometimes they

sure do seem to give a little extra emphasis. And because the excerpt

above was in a quote, I’d rule that the speaker got the intended

mileage out of these extra words.

Both my adoring fans and my harsh critics should agree.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE covers Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport. She

may be reached at (949) 574-4232 or by e-mail at june.casagrande@

latimes.com.