But, But, But ...

This sentence appeared in my newspaper, The Washington Post:

The sniper has struck morning, noon and night, but his most recent targets have been near highways.

Police were looking on the "time" side of the time-space continuum, I suppose, so he eluded them by striking in "space" instead.

I don't mean to pick on editors who probably had very little time to go over this story; I'm just using a handy illustration of a common error:

"But" is not a toy. When you see it as an editor or are tempted to use it as a writer, ask yourself whether it's actually pointing out a seeming contradiction or whether it's just there for decoration. Does the highway thing contradict the "morning, noon and night" thing? Of course not. Usually, then, you could repair the damage by changing "but" to "and." In this case, however, the two parts of the sentence aren't even that closely related. Get me rewrite!

One 'Children' Is Enough

In a quick look at a very good newspaper the other day I saw both each others' and childrens'.

Let's review: Each other is what it is. It exists outside the realm of singulars and plurals, and so there is no plural -- there is no each others. So the possessive cannot be each others'. The possessive is each other's.

Children is already plural. Childrens makes no sense; just as you don't say kidses, you don't say childrens. So the possessive cannot be childrens'. The possessive is children's.

On Balance

A belated corporate-malfeasance item:

Enron got in trouble for activities that were off its balance sheet, or off-balance-sheet activities. The hyphen-phobic write of off-balance sheet activities, which sounds more like a description of what happens when you go to bed drunk.

A more common error by those afraid of putting more than one hyphen in a sentence is the botching of the adjectival form for ages. A man who is 24 years old is a 24-year-old man. What, then, is a 24-year old man? That would be someone who's been an old man for 24 years. And 24 year-old men? A very odd way to refer to two dozen baby boys.

'Star Wars' Is Old News

This is nothing new to those who have read my book or who are even the slightest bit aware of their surroundings, but again I feel compelled to point out that "Star Wars" is a 1977 movie. The current bit of magical-alien-spaceship-future-robot bullshit is "Star Wars, Episode II: Attack of the Clones" or "the new 'Star Wars' movie" or "the latest 'Star Wars' movie," but it's not "Star Wars."

Sorry for the rude characterization, but I just can't stomach this stuff. I have no imagination.

'Within' Limits

There's nothing inherently wrong with the word within, but often it's used when a simple in would do. Observe:

A decision is expected within four to six days.

No. A range provides a beginning and an end; ranges make no sense with within, because within comes equipped with its own beginning: now.

A deal could be announced within the next week.

No. In! In the next week makes perfect sense.

If the letter does not arrive within five business days, the deal is off.

Yes! That's what the word is for. The meaning isn't in five business days, because that would exclude one, two, three and four business days.