By DEROY MURDOCK
“If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened,” John Kerry said during Hezbollah’s war on Israel last summer. As 2004’s Democratic presidential nominee should know, he should have said, “If I WERE president …”
It’s sad, but hardly surprising, that the subjunctive evades someone of Kerry’s stature. The English language is under fire, as if it strolled into an ambush. It would be bad enough if this assault involved the slovenly grammar, syntax and spelling of drooling boors. But America’s elites — politicians, journalists and marketers who should know better — constantly batter our tongue.
The subjunctive, for instance, lies gravely wounded. Fewer and fewer Americans bother to discuss hypothetical or counterfactual circumstances using this verb mood.
“This would not be a close election if George Bush was popular,” Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., told reporters last summer, using “was,” not “were.” He erred further: “This would not be a close election if there wasn’t a war in Iraq.”
Similarly, a HepCFight.com newspaper ad declared: “If Hep C was attacking your face instead of your liver, you’d do something about it.”
In an Ameritrade ad last year, a teenage girl begs her father for $80.
“80 bucks?” he asks.
“Well, there’s these jeans,” she replies, adding later: “There’s these really cool shoes.”
Forget the shopping spree. Dad should have sent his daughter upstairs without dinner until she mastered noun-verb agreement. Since they are plural, “there are” jeans and shoes, not “there’s,” the contraction for “there is.”
This is a burgeoning linguistic blunder.
United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten told a Manhattan labor rally: “The muscle and the zeal that built our union is still with us.” As a teachers’ unionist, for crying out loud, Weingarten should know that muscle and zeal ARE still with us.
Likewise, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, “There was no terrorists in Iraq.” Actually, there WERE, and Reid should have used that plural verb with those plural Islamofascists, even if he considered Baathist Iraq a terrorist-free zone.
In a taped, on-air promo, one cable news network’s announcer said, “Inside the U.N., there’s more than a thousand doors.” No, there ARE more than 1,000 doors.
In another odd grammatical glitch, plural subjects of sentences interact with singular objects. Confusion follows.
As one cable-TV correspondent reported: “Every day, 1.5 million Americans ride a 747.” Visualize the line for the bathroom on that jet. Make that “747s,” and the turbulence vanishes.
Just before January’s Golden Globe awards, a major newspaper’s headline read: “Stars put their best face forward for the Globes.” Wow! Eddie Murphy and Helen Mirren share a face?
A cable channel’s news crawl correspondingly revealed: “Iraqi authorities find at least 21 bodies, many with nooses around their neck.” Who knew so many Iraqis shared one neck?
Consider run-on sentences. A sign in a San Francisco M.U.N.I. streetcar recommends: “Please hold on sudden stops necessary.” At the local airport, a men’s-room sign asks: “Please conserve natural resources only take what you really need.”
Would it kill people to spell properly?
A New York outdoor-display company solicited new business by announcing in huge, black letters: “YUOR AD HERE.”
A cable-TV news ticker referred to the “World Tade Center.” Another explained that President Bush said he needs wiretaps “to defend Amercia.”
Such sloth generates nonsense. Ponder these three items, all from cable-TV news crawls written by practicing journalists:
Arab diplomats last August tried to change “a U.S.-French peace plan aimed at ending nearly a month of welfare.” Imagine if Hezbollah lobbed food stamps, rather than rockets, into Israel.
Another channel described a deadly, anti-Semitic attack at a Seattle “Jewfish” center.
And then there’s this beauty: “Disraeli troops kill two Hamas fighters,” including one implicated “in the June capture of an Disraeli soldier.”
Today’s explosion of rotten English should motivate Americans to speak, write and broadcast with greater care, clarity and respect for grammar and spelling. Also, when even college graduates in Congress, newsrooms and advertising agencies express themselves so sloppily, America’s education crisis becomes undeniable.
Is it pedantic to expect linguistic excellence? No. Unless Americans want English to devolve into an impenetrable amalgam of goofs and gaffes, protecting our language, like liberty itself, demands eternal vigilance.
(New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.murdock(at)gmail.com.)