Boot Sale

Saipan offers a spicy mix of languages, so I’m going to ponder some English grammar today. First of all I will admit that I don’t worry much about grammar. It has limited relevance to my work, since I’d rather be reasonably clear than perfectly proper. After all, one can speak proper English and sound like a preening little twerp; wouldn’t one agree? Yes, one would. And we are not amused.

But when it comes to cheap amusement, well, I’m your man. I’m sometimes on the hook to answer questions about English grammar, which, of course, brings out the delinquent in me. So here’s a concept for us to vandalize today: plurals.

Earlier this week I saw a banner in a shoe store that said, “Boot Sale.”

And I thought: You can’t buy a boot at a boot sale.

Yes, you can buy boots (plural) at a boot sale, but nobody says “Boots Sale.” Does this make sense to you? It doesn’t make sense to me.

If you think this is just a frivolous lark, then read on, because I’ll introduce some other capers that can, and do, confound just about everyone. Not that I’ve got anything against frivolous larks, by the way.

For now, though, we’ll step back into this boot thing and into the wacky world of the “pair.”

You buy boots in pairs because the items at issue come as a set of two, right?

Right. So I guess we can understand some slop in the singular vs. plural gears when it comes to pairs. You buy a pair of “boots” at the “boot” sale.

But how do we explain a pair of scissors? Or a pair of pliers? Or a pair of pants? Unlike a pair of boots, which is two boots, a pair of pants is just one item.

If we give this more thought than it’s worth, we can consider that these things (scissors, pliers, pants) involve the integration of two complimentary and roughly identical components. For example, a pair of pants is comprised of sheaves for two legs.

But just wait a minute here. Shirts offer the same feature for arms, don’t they? Yes, they do, but we don’t count shirts in pairs.

So you “put on a shirt,” but you don‘t “put on a pants.” On the other hand, you can “put on pants,” but you can’t “put on shirt.”

In either case, we’re talking about a singular, indivisible garment here, but apparently during some ancient grammatical schism the shirt and the pants were marched into different camps.

This crazy plural vs. singular stuff is easy to mix up. Many a time I’ve heard foreigners say, for example, “Thank you for your attentions,” or, “The healths is very important,” or, “My family are five people.”

Those statements strike me as perfectly sensible. I hear such stuff every day. It’s usually good enough for any use in business or society that I can think of, short of ad copy or similarly demanding contexts. But normal, everyday life is not nearly this demanding, so there’s no point in worrying too much about it.

Now let’s roll into more challenging fare. Again, I’m not making any authoritative decrees here, I’m just offering cheap thrills as I illustrate how wacky this stuff can be.

Here’s a word for you: “media.” Now pick the correct sentence as you imagine a dozen reporters showing up at your office to cover your latest big success: (a) “The media is here,” or (b) “The media are here.”

I’d say that either way is perfectly acceptable nowadays. I usually go with the second choice out of habit.

Here’s my logic: The word “media” is the plural of the word “medium.” However, common usage doesn’t seem too concerned with this distinction.

Want another example? OK, here you go: “data.” So, here’s another sentence to pick: (a) “The data is accurate,” or, (b) “The data are accurate.”

Again, I think we’re safe with either flavor. I’ll occasionally go with the first choice, since it seems to reflect the more common usage, but if I have to be on my best behavior I’ll take the second choice.

On that note, my logic, akin to the media/medium gig, is that “data” is the plural of “datum,” but that’s a pretty fine point of trivia.

I first encountered the term “datum” in the Navy. We were hunting for a submarine. The position of the sub, once determined, was known as the “datum.”

I don’t recall seeing the term since then, but, hey, it’s nice to add some tactical flair to this hum-drum grammar stuff, eh? I love the smell of datum in the air. It’s the smell of victory.

And on that note we’ve prevailed in yet another skirmish with grammar. We win by not getting bogged down in its traps, as we sail by and take pot shots at it, heeding the strategic wisdom that good enough is, indeed, good enough.

* * *