Liz | ELIZABETH NORWOOD

love em’ or leave ‘em

By Liz on June 18, 2012

My formal training is as a linguist, not an English teacher, so I know that language is a fluid thing. What is considered incorrect can become correct through a critical mass of mainstream usage. But there are just certain “wrongs” that I’d hate to see gain enough traction to become “right”.

Are you guilty of using any of these? Do you think we should love ‘em (accept these transgressions and let them creep into our textbooks) or leave ‘em?

The Pesky Apostrophe

Mary likes to eat bagel’s with cream cheese and tomato.

I just saw three bird’s in that pine tree.

This one kills me – apostrophes where they don’t belong. Instead of putting a plain old “s” on the end of a word to indicate the plural, people often feel compelled to add an apostrophe, inadvertently rendering it possessive and thoroughly ungrammatical.

Correct:

Mary likes to eat bagels with cream cheese and tomato.

I just saw three birds in that pine tree.

There are rare cases it’s acceptable to use an apostrophe to indicate plural to avoid grammatical chaos – most often when talking about more than one individual letter.

There are two t’s in the word letter.

Other than that, keep your pesky apostrophe under wraps.

Now that you’re aware of the pesky apostrophe, you won’t believe how often you witness it. In your boss’s emails, plastered on the side of the bus, at the deli—no place is immune. And you’re pretty much guaranteed a pesky apostrophe when an acronym is involved:

CD’s sold here.

Check out our selection of flat screen TV’s!

I really have no explanation for why this error is so rampant, or how it got started in the first place. Frankly, I think it might be too late – the pesky apostrophe appears to have so deeply infiltrated the English-speaking population, it may soon be widely accepted.

What do you think of the pesky apostrophe? Love it or leave it?

ECO-TIPS – phasing out plastic

By Liz on June 6, 2012

Plastic is convenient and universal. But if you’ve read the news lately, you probably have a nagging suspicion that it’s not as miraculous and harmless as it once seemed. The islands of plastic clogging our oceans. The animals enjoying a steady diet of plastic bags. The tin can linings and baby bottles infused with endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Even the president is telling us to ditch plastic in our microwaves.

Here are three solid reasons to avoid plastic:

It can leach dangerous chemicals into your food. Some plastic wraps are PVC (polyvinyl chloride), which is made with heavy metals like lead and has been linked to asthma, liver damage and DNA mutation. Many food storage options – like plastic containers and sports bottles – are made with BPA, which is believed to increase reproductive problems and cancer risk.
Plastic wraps/baggies are used once and then tossed, creating mountains of garbage that can take decades to degrade.
When plastic does degrade, its chemical components just wind up in our water, soil, and the bodies of most critters in the food chain – including us.

There are better choices for the Earth and the humans that live here. The key to kicking the plastic habit is a good arsenal of reusable alternatives.

In the Kitchen

Different products work for different types of food storage needs – experiment with what works for you. Although conventional plastic products are handy and transparent, there are many glass, silicone and BPA-free plastic options to ensure your food doesn’t languish unidentified in the nether regions of your fridge.

u-konserve food cozy

The recycled, BPA-free U-Konserve Clear Food Cozy is designed with Velcro closures – perfect for wrapping sandwiches, cheese and other tidbits.

Replace plastic Tupperware with glass Pyrex containers in a variety of sizes. Good old-fashioned food storage, just like Mom used to use.

abeego flat wrap

Use Abeego Flats instead of plastic wrap to cover bowls. Made of moldable beeswax-covered fabric, it’s fluid and air-resistant to keep food fresh.

Plastic leaches more with fatty or warm foods, so never use it in the microwave. Heat or cook in your Pyrex, or use a silicone cover for your daily dishes. Coverflex makes a good set.

Instead of recycling empty peanut butter and mayo jars, wash and re-use them. They’re just the right size for storing leftovers and single servings.

On the Go

With the right tools and a pinch of planning, lunches and picnics can turn green, too.

Refill stainless steel water bottles instead of buying bottled water. Make your own sparkling water and flavored sodas with a bubbly maker like SodaStream, which comes with reusable bottles.

sodastream

If you have a thing for baggies, reusable pouches are right up your alley. Snack Taxi and BleuRoo make adorable organic pouches that are moisture resistant and machine washable. They are indispensable travel companions and can be used for lunches, snacks, crayons, makeup, DVDs – you name it.
For lunches, the Planet Box is a game changer. It makes packing so easy, you’ll wonder how you survived before you had one (or two, or three). Cozy compartments keep sandwich and snacks safe and sound.

bleuroo pouch

planetbox

Get some reusable shopping bags – and use them! Invest in bags made from renewable fabric, like Envirosax’s stylin’ hemp, bamboo or organic cotton models. But any reusable bag is better than a take n’ toss. Keep a stash in your car or coat closet for last-minute grocery runs. Pop a Chico Bag in your purse or pocket. You’ll never have to say yes to a plastic bag again.

envirosax

How do you avoid plastics?

1 Comment

Love ‘em or leave ‘em

By Liz on May 29, 2012

My formal training is as a linguist, not an English teacher, so I know that language is a fluid thing. What is considered incorrect can become correct through a critical mass of mainstream usage. But there are just certain “wrongs” that I’d hate to see gain enough

traction to become “right”.

Are you guilty of using any of these? Do you think we should love ‘em (accept these transgressions and let them creep into our textbooks) or leave ‘em?

Would Of

In my last Love ‘em or Leave ‘em, I aired my beef with what I call The Double Woulda.

If I would have known you were going to the market, I would have asked you to buy some pork rinds.

Correct: If I had known you were going to the market, I would have asked you to buy some pork rinds.)

Although it is often used on its own, the cringe factor of the Double Woulda can be compounded by the good ol’ “Would OF”.

If I would of known about the party last night, I would of attended.

(With grammar like that, you probably weren’t invited.)

Correct: If I had known about the party last night, I would have attended.

You don’t notice it as much when people talk because “of” and “have” can sound very similar when spoken conversationally. But there’s no mistaking it when you see it written.

Here’s what Grammar Girl says: “…let’s take a look at what has happened to the constructions “would have,” “could have,” and “should have.” People have heard the perfectly correct [contraction] “could’ve”—and heard it as “could of.”

There’s the helping verb “could,” but then if you spell it “could of,” it has no main verb to help. So, in theory, it’s helping a preposition, “of.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. It’s “could have.”

Here’s what I say: it’s a slippery slope when sounds get diluted or dropped altogether because of lazy enunciation. We Americans are particularly guilty of this— the French gleefully accuse us of eating our words (manger les mots) like we’re talking with a triple wad of Dubble Bubble in there…

If verbal degradation like “would of” creeps into the mainstream, moral depravity could be right around the corner. Look what happened when they let everyone listen to rock ‘n roll. Call me old fashioned, but it’s my firm belief that we should fight to keep would OF away from the children.

What do you think about “Would Of”? Love it or leave it?

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE – two hotels in the heart of paris

By Liz on May 18, 2012

Montalembert Terrace

The dilemma: You’re planning a getaway to the city of light, but the Hotel Costes is eternally booked and Le Crillon is dazzling but slightly stuffy. The solution: two Left Bank hotels that are the antidote to the standard too-la-la Parisian luxury fare.

Tucked into two corners of the celebrated St Germain quarter, the Hotel Bel Ami and the Hotel Montalembert are within walking distance of such essential points of interest as the literary cafes of the Latin Quarter, the galleries and designer shops near Boulevard St Germain, and the Louvre and Musee D’Orsay.

You may hear a lot of English spoken in the lobbies, but it is because these boutique gems are popular with Americans that they boast friendly staffs and – pas possible! – such elusive amenities as 24-hour room service.

Bel Ami Bar

With its minimalist design and relaxed attitude, the Hotel Bel Ami is a study in modern luxury. The interactive lobby rolls out the welcome mat with comfy couches, shelves of well-loved books, two slick computer workstations and an adjacent espresso bar.

Bel Ami Room

Downstairs in the breakfast room Cafe, guests can join a sunny congregation of hip, young cosmopolites and enjoy a sumptuous, decidedly un-continental breakfast buffet. Rooms are generous by Parisian standards, decorated in soothing, saturated colors. All part of the Bel Ami’s implicit invitation to take off your shoes and stay awhile.

Montalembert Lobby

Montalembert Restaurant

The Hotel Montalembert has long been the darling of interior designers and fashion editors. Recently refurbished mostly mod, it happily retains many details revealing its rich history as a retreat for writers and artists. Take a ride up in the original 1926 iron Rococo-style elevator, but send your luggage up with the bellman, because it’s built for two! Most guest rooms are equally cozy and utterly charming. And the rich, cocoa-colored marble bathrooms are oases of design perfection.

The Montalembert’s new Bar and Grill, with a fresh and healthy take on gourmet fusion, is a destination restaurant scene for locals and visitors alike – with a private salon for those who want to see without being seen.

Love ’em or leave ’em

By Liz on May 15, 2012

My formal training is as a linguist, not an English teacher, so I know that language is a fluid thing. What is considered incorrect can become correct through a critical mass of mainstream usage. But there are just certain “wrongs” that I’d hate to see gain enough traction to become “right”.

Are you guilty of using any of these? Do you think we should love ‘em (accept these transgressions and let them creep into our textbooks) or leave ‘em?

The Double Woulda

If I would have known you were going to the market, I would have asked you to get me some pork rinds.

When talking about something that didn’t happen in the past, many people use the conditional perfect (if I would have known) when they should be using the past perfect (if I had known).

In the above example, your daughter finds out you went to the market, and says she would have asked for some pork rinds if she had known you were going. (I won’t even ask why you’re letting your kid eat pork rinds.)

The correct way to say this is with the past perfect in the “if” clause, and the conditional perfect in the “then” clause:

If I had known you were going to the market, I would have asked you to get me some pork rinds.

I think one reason people make this mistake is it feels satisfying to make the verb tense in each clause match: “If I would have ___, then I would have ___.”

Another reason is that all this stuff is happening in the conditional, in that gray area where things could, would or should happen—but don’t necessarily. So people often use what I affectionately refer to as “The Double Woulda” to convey that.

It makes a kind of sense, but it doesn’t make it correct. If you woulda studied your grammar in grade school, you woulda known that…

What do you think about The Double Woulda? Love it or leave it?

ECO-TIPS – raising green kids

By Liz on May 11, 2012

courtesy of Change My Desk

In today’s culture, we have never had so many choices – and yet so little time. With all the buzz about going green, we are often too busy to do green. And even with the best intentions, it can feel inconvenient to instill those values in our kids.

But if you start with just a few changes and walk the walk, your kids will fall in step. Soon those green steps will become second nature to the whole family.

Remind your kids how powerful they are. That their everyday choices can make a monumental difference in the world. And that starting small is often the best way to do big things.

GO ORGANIC

Organic has become a marketing darling these days, but what does it mean exactly?

Simply put, organic crops and animals are grown without pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, GMOs (genetically modified organisms), antibiotics or growth hormones. So if we want to keep all those things out of our water, our soil and our bodies, it makes sense to choose organic.

Since organic isn’t always possible or available, find out which foods are most laden with chemicals. For a list of the top 12 foods to buy organic, check out the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen.

Bring your kids to the market with you. Tell them what you’re buying, and why. Give them good reasons for avoiding overly-processed and conventionally-farmed foods. Let them pick out a new fruit or vegetable to taste. Send them on a scavenger hunt to tally all the “organic” labels they can find.

JUST SAY KNOW

What’s on and around our bodies is just as important as what goes into them. Because we end up absorbing and inhaling a lot of the personal care and cleaning products we use, it pays to know what we’re buying.

Many conventional products – like bathroom cleaners, shampoo, even toothpaste – contain a cocktail of sketchy chemicals that can irritate skin, disrupt hormones or damage DNA.

But which chemicals are toxic, and which have a proven safety record?

The Environmental Working Group has all the scoop you need to make informed choices about everything from food and water to cosmetics, sunscreens and cleaning products.

THE 4Rs

Reduce: Accumulate less stuff in the first place. Before you buy a new gadget or snag a freebie, assess your true needs and desires. Will you use it, or will it promptly be retired to the junk drawer or landfill? Choose quality over quantity. Simplify, contemplate, evaluate.

Reuse: Many things destined for the recycle bin or trash can be given a second life. Use small storage bins to organize reincarnated items: an art box for buttons, yogurt cups and fabric scraps; a gift wrap box for gently-used ribbon and paper. Use swatches of old T-shirts instead of paper towels, and empty peanut butter jars instead of plastic tupperware.

Recycle: If you already recycle, get your kids involved in the nitty-gritty details. They can rinse out empties, sort plastics from paper, and take the bin to the curb on pickup day.

Rot: Compost whatever you can. Even toddlers can rescue food scraps from landfill. If you don’t have curbside pickup, lobby your local refuse company to start service. Or get your own Envirocycle compost barrel.

NURTURE NATURE

Kids are becoming more and more disconnected with the natural world. They spend less time in nature and more time indoors and plugged in. If they are outside, they’re often on a groomed soccer field than in the wild woods hunting beetles, peeping leaves or foraging for mushrooms.

The best way for kids to relate to nature is to experience its beauty and mystery firsthand. Go hiking in the hills, camping in the woods, swimming in a lake. Prioritize nature vacations. Your kids will realize it’s their privilege to protect the Earth – for the flora and fauna, for themselves, and for generations to come.

How do you help your kids to think green? What are your favorite family eco-tips?

Posts by Liz

Here’s what Grammar Girl says: “…let’s take a look at what has happened to the constructions “would have,” “could have,” and “should have.” People have heard the perfectly correct [contraction] “could’ve”—and heard it as “could of.”

There’s the helping verb “could,” but then if you spell it “could of,” it has no main verb to help. So, in theory, it’s helping a preposition, “of.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. It’s “could have.”