This morning, while watching ABC's "Good Morning" show, host Chris Wragge misused the term, "quote, unquote" by preceeding John Perry's statement that (he'd) "really stepped in it" at the previous night's debates. The term Chris, is to preceed the quoted words with the word "quote" and then follow the last word with the word "unquote". By doing so, there is no confusion with the exact vernacular of the statement. I was incensed by his gaffe. If journalists misuse the term, how can we expect mainstream to learn correct use of terms. Which got me thinking...

I shouldn't, and couldn't care less. But I do. But how many people say, "I could care less?" (Notice the correct use of the quotation marks here folks. If you're verbalizing it, they are stated in the same order they are written with relationship to the words.) By saying, "I could care less" one implies that they still have a modicum of regard for the subject at hand. It defies the implied (and I'll get to implied, inferred and insinuated here in a minute) sentiment that one has lost all regard for the subject, which is reason for making the statement in the first place.

To imply means to suggest without being explicit in one's statement. To infer is to derive through reasoning, or logic. It's synonymous to imply. To insinuate is to suggest or hint it. So I might insinuate that Chris Wragge does not have a good command of the english language by his improper use of the term "quote - unquote", but one infers that for themself as they hear him make the statement once they understand the context of the correct use.

While I have my soapbox out, can I tell you how many college educated adults fail to understand the difference between there, their and they're? Or two, to and too? How about are and our and yes, even hour. Here's a hint for the first set. They're is the contraction of "they are". (Notice the use of the quotation marks?) One uses the apostrophe where the letter is dropped when building contractions. It also denotes ownership, but that's a whole different lesson, one that even I occasionally struggle with and have to resort to looking up when using contractions to imply ownership when the name ends with the letter "s", as with my son Miles. While it is correct to write "Miles's sons" or "my son's sons" it would NOT be correct to write "Miles' sons" because there's only one Miles (one Miles - but it is grammatically correct, and a fact for which I am grateful, given his struggles with growing up a square peg in a round hole). If Trevor had sons, I could say, "my sons' sons" and be correct if I were referring to their collective male offspring.

Getting back to the difference between they're, there and their...now that we've established that they're is really two words, "there" indicates where. Notice the word "here" is in both of them? Not sure still? The next time you need to use there/their, ask yourself "where is there?" The answer is always "here". Now you know which one to use. Oh, and just to confuse you...if you were to say, "All of these sons are theirs" you would be correct to not use the apostrophe, because the possessive pronoun already implies ownership. What really gets me in a tizzy is the fact that anyone can self-correct and edit since there is this marvelous invention called "spellcheck". There's also a grammar check program too, and of course, google, bing and a host of other search engines in which one can look up the correct spelling, grammar and usage. Now hurry up, let's go eat Grampa. While we're eating, we can watch Nat Geo and see a why a panda eats, shoots, and leaves. See what I mean?