PARTING SHOT . . .



	As I have gotten older and have to use my arm like a trombone to 

read the printed page, I have started to rely more upon the tools offered 

by my work processing program.



	Gone are the days of pouring over yards of paper for a book 

galley and scanning pages of 6 point type in a law review article.



	Now I just click on TOOLS with my roller-ball mouse, select 

GRAMMAR and START. (NO MAIN CLAUSE and sue "be" or "become instead of "get.")



	After finishing the article in this issue on Zanika on page 36 of 

this issue, I moved my mouse to the correct spot and clicked.



	I usually keep clicking on the IGNORE button when it makes 

suggestions other than spelling corrections.  This time, however, it 

became intriguing.



	I never realized how grammatically and politically incorrect I 

was until my "p.c." PC started working on my article.  (The abbreviation 

"p.c." should be spelled out--change "spelled" to explained or 

described.  It then repeated the complaint about it's usage in the 

sentence describing the original offense.)  After I went through the 

article, I put this original piece through the Grammar Tool and have 

noted the additional crimes against Strunk and White's MANUAL OF STYLE I 

have committed.  They are in italics.



	My second sentence was considered run on.  (Computer did not like 

ending a sentence with a prepositional phrase.)



	My third was in the passive voice.



	My sixth was again running.  (Passive voice.)



	And the program again hiccuped on the sixth sentence.  (It is 

preferable to avoid beginning a sentence with And.)



	"Manly" is a gender specific word.  I had used it twice.  Twice 

my computer suggested that perhaps "courageous, strong or honorable" 

would be more appropriate.  I am sure that it was a member of my distaff 

side that wrote this part of the program.



	It didn't, change that, did not--like weren't.  Were not was 

correct.  (No main clause.)



	Before I knew it I was running on again and then became too 

convoluted to be analyzed.  (Maybe passive voice.)  It was suggested that 

I revise.  (Passive voice again.)



	In that wandering sentence, I had used the word, men.  Again, 

gender specific.  (Not a complete sentence.)  My computer reminded me 

that "persons, human beings or individuals" would be more the thing.



	Then it came to "women" - kindly reminding me that again I was 

being too intolerant .



	When I got casual, it asked me if I meant causal.  (Consider 

using an adverb instead of the adjective causal.)



	When woman was all in capital letters, it suggested that I change 

the work to "PERSONS, HUMAN BEINGS OR INDIVIDUALS."



	It wigged out on the word seamstress.  Tailor, stitcher or 

garment worker were more appropriate.   This part sounds like an ad for 

the AFL-CIO.



	It did not like things inside out.  Remember - don't end a sentence

with a prepositional phrase.  (Use do not.)



	Then I went passive for awhile and the program went into high gear.



	When it found the word, princess, it lost it.   It insisted that 

ruler, noble or aristocrat be used.



	Can you see going to the stitcher and asking for "ruler" line 

seams?  Or "aristocrat" lines for a shirt?



	I got passive again.  Then it complained I was long-winded.



	It said perhaps I should make sure that I meant "practical", not 

"practicable."



	It didn't like "women" again.  (Use did not.)



	And a husband, it shouted "spouse." (Do not start a sentence with and.)



	"Ladies" it determined as acceptable for women but person or 

individuals was more appropriate.



	I got to the end and signed with relief and wiped the tears from 

laughter from my eyes.



	I decided to try firearms and guns.  The options offered were 

arms, implement of war, weapon, pistol, revolver, rod and rifle.



	I have already placed Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Rodham, 

Clinton, Brady, HCI and Sugarmann in my custom dictionary so that I don't 

have to be reminded of them each time I write.



	As we head into the holiday season, I wonder if there is a market 

for an anti-p.c. grammar program.  Perhaps, when it comes across the word 

"Hillary" it will suggest "gun grabber" or "Dianne" will offer 

"self-defense opponent."  Sarah Brady could be "anti-choice."



	Let me know if you want to work on it.





Julianne Versnel Gottlieb,

Publisher





P.S. Love to my sharp-shooters,

SMG, AHG, AMG2.  You were

great. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

M.M.D.



jhvg@saf.org