Sacks and sacks of electronic letters

JUNE CASAGRANDE

To someone who writes for a newspaper, there’s nothing more

flattering or rewarding than receiving mail from readers. It lets us

writers know that we’re providing something of service to readers

and, even more flattering, that it’s appreciated. So naturally, a

writer acknowledges letters thoroughly, enthusiastically and

promptly.

Unless, of course, the writer is an idiot.

Every week I’m lucky enough to receive a handful of e-mails from

people in Newport-Mesa and the Glendale-La Crescenta area (even

though I’m not really sure how this column managed to show up in the

Glendale News-Press). Every week, I read each e-mail thoroughly and

with great interest. Invariably, these notes are insightful, clever

and all-around interesting -- even when the writer has caught me in a

mistake. And, every week, even as I begin to draft some replies in my

head, I get up from my computer, get some coffee, feed a cat or

three, glance at the front page of the newspaper, and before you can

say cyber-rude I’ve bitten the hand that strokes me.

So, with an apology to everyone who’s ever suffered such a rude

snub from me, here’s a small sampling of some of the interesting

stuff from my inbox.

“Dear June:

There was an obvious error in your 12/13 column in the Daily

Pilot. The word ‘lob’ means to hit or throw an object, usually a

ball, in a high arcing trajectory. The word ‘lop,’ which you should

have used, means to cut off.”

-- Bernie

Sometimes when I receive e-mails like this I can blame the mistake

on a typo or a misguided copy editor. This time, the best I can do is

to say, “Who knew?”

Bernie also pointed out that the word “fun” is becoming commonly

misused, “e.g., ‘that was so fun,’ instead of ‘that was so much fun,’

and ‘that was the funnest,’ instead of ‘that was the most fun,’ etc.

The proper usage is fast slipping away from us.”

With this note I am once again reminded how lucky I am to be able

to spend zero time around teenagers. Happily, the made-up word

“funnest” almost never enters my tiny little world. But the other

instance confuses me a bit. I, too, always thought it was correct to

say, “That was so much fun.” But if “fun” is, in fact, an adjective,

would saying “That was so fun” be any worse than saying “Your eyes

are so blue”? If I had not, once again, waited until the last minute

to write this column, I might have more time to research an answer.

But as the clock is ticking, I’ll just throw the question out to you.

Anyone? Bernie? Who has a final word on this?

Another reader, one who didn’t include his name but whose e-mail

address suggests he might be called Hans, points out a ridiculous

marketing term: “free gift,” as in, “your free gift with a purchase

of $8,500 or more of strong-smelling foot lotion.” Of course, the

whole idea of a gift is that it’s free. But I suppose the people who

try to sell us the fantasy that we can all look and live like

beautiful, half-naked adolescents might have a bit of a credibility

problem. Even if they were to say, “free, no-obligation, honest,

we-want-nothing-from-you gift,” I for one still would not trust them.

Reader Bill writes that he was taught never to begin a sentence

with the word “therefore,” which I do quite a bit. This is an

interesting one. And it’s one I can’t seem to find in any of my

reference books. Beginning a sentence with “therefore” poses the same

problems as starting a sentence with the word “and.” That is, both

those words are supposed to join ideas and therefore (see?) tend to

work best within sentences. However, it is perfectly OK to begin with

“and” and other conjunctions.

From the Chicago Manual of Style: “There is a widespread belief --

one with no historical or grammatical foundation -- that it is an

error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as ‘and,’ ‘but,’ or

‘so.’ In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10%) of the

sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions.”

So would that apply to “therefore”? I’m not sure. My dictionary

says “therefore” is an adverb, but that it’s often used as a

“conjunctive adverb.” Therefore, I’m in way over my head here. Any

takers?

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].