Tech Check-In - How Good is the Latest A.I.? - Part I

Introduction

During the ‘90s, all a company had to do to get funding was throw around the word “Internet.” Then the dot-com bubble burst, and the venture capital tightened up, but during the aughts a company could still generate a lot of excitement by using the word “cloud.” The effect of that word wore off by the teens, when tech companies had to toss about terms like “disrupt,” “transformation,” and “Internet of Things,” but even when used together these didn’t act like much of a magic wand. Now, in the roaring ‘20s, any company mentioning “A.I.” indicates its intent to be perceived as a cutting-edge company worthy of massive funding and universal adoration. The effect is starting to wear off, of course, since there are so many poseurs. And yet, there does seem to be something magical about A.I., and I’ve put it through its paces over the years (scroll to the bottom to see a list of my posts).

Thus far I’ve been pretty skeptical of A.I. and how much it will actually “disrupt” the workplace. But the technology is evolving rapidly, so I think it’s worthwhile to periodically check in on its progress. Since I last blogged on this topic, Google has increased its generative A.I. capabilities, and OpenAI has upgraded its ChatGPT engine from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4. At the same time, A.I. technologies are facing increasing opposition from the publishing industry. In this post I will evaluate the following:

• Google’s AI Overview and opposition to it from web publishers, myself included
• Why the New York Times is suing OpenAI, and my own exploration of ChatGPT’s plagiarism
• ChatGPT’s strides in taking a position and supporting it

Google AI Overview

This year, as you’ve surely noticed yourself, Google has rolled out a new feature: it distills the search results it considers most germane in order to provide a handy summary, which it displays above the search results. This is convenient for users, but is perceived as a threat by web publishers. As noted in this New York Times article, publishing executives are “worried that the paragraphs pose a big danger to their brittle business model, by sharply reducing the amount of traffic to their sites from Google.” One executive complained that “it potentially chokes off the original creators of the content,” with Google’s generative A.I. summary replacing “the publications that they have plagiarized.”

So … is this true? In a word, yes. Leveraging my own thought leadership in the realm of spelling, I asked Google, “is it kindergartner or kindergartener?” and it came back with this:

My first issue with this response is that it’s not even accurate. Both spellings (kindergartner and kindergartener) are widely accepted, with no widespread preference for one over another.

That inaccuracy aside, my main issue with this summary is that it supersedes the search results Google used to show, which put my blog post on this topic right at the very top. My post provides a far more complete answer, as everyone who’s viewed it—over 21,000 readers as of this moment—can attest. It bothers me that new readers to this post (who continue to accumulate, with 374 in the past seven days) may decrease in number over time since this query, along with Google’s new “featured snippet” and “People also ask” features, shove the link to my post down so far on the screen you have to scroll to see it. I feel like my post, as the number one “organic search” result, deserves higher placement. People wondering about this spelling are now getting a very concise, wrong answer instead of finding their way to my blog and getting the full story (and hopefully bookmarking albertnet). It’s a lose-lose.

I’m not trying to suggest Google is uniquely culpable for regurgitating publisher’s content while depriving them of readers. ChatGPT does the same thing, which gives me a nice segue to…

Why the New York Times is suing OpenAI

The New York Times recently filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing them of using its content without permission to train AI models, including ChatGPT. The lawsuit claims that these companies have effectively taken advantage of the Times’ significant investment in high-quality journalism, turning it into products that compete with the newspaper’s own content offerings.

The above paragraph was generated by ChatGPT. I know it may seem silly of me to provide this citation, since ChatGPT isn’t a writer per se, and since its very purpose is to create text people can pass off as their own. But I personally don’t think that’s ethical, since ChatGPT is basically lifting its content from other sources without clearly crediting them.

That is to say, I find the Times’ grievance entirely credible. Without much trouble, I was able to see for myself how ChatGPT plunders my content, thus competing with my blog, without giving me sufficient citation. After I asked ChatGPT about the spelling of kindergartner/kindergartener, I asked it, “Is there a professional writer who has been inconsistent with her spelling of this word in a major magazine?” ChatGPT gave a very general response that included the statement, “The New Yorker provides a great example,” without actually giving the example (nor its source). To pin the chatbot down, I asked, “Can you give me a precise example of a New Yorker writer who has spelled kindergartner/kindergartener inconsistently?” It replied:

Yes, there is a known example of a New Yorker writer who has been inconsistent with the spelling of “kindergartner” and “kindergartener.” Rebecca Mead, a long-time contributor to The New Yorker, has reportedly used both spellings in her articles without a consistent preference. Her variations may reflect the linguistic blend between American and British English, as she was raised in England but has worked extensively in the United States… If you’re interested in more details on how and why both spellings are acceptable, various sources like Grammarhow provide further insights on regional preferences and dictionary entries for both “kindergartner” and “kindergartener.”

In terms of sources, ChatGPT’s text response mentions only Grammarhow, implying that this was the source of its answer, which is absolutely not the case. Only if you look above the text response and click on the down-chevron symbol to expand the list of sources will you see a link to my blog post:

A lazy or hurried user—i.e., one who wouldn’t bother to un-collapse the link listing and then click both links to review the source content—would never know who bothered to do the research to come up with Ms. Mead’s variant spellings, much less her background as a writer who has lived in both the UK and the US. Furthermore, since ChatGPT is designed to furnish copy-and-paste-ready content to so-called writers, it is enabling these users to plagiarize my (copyrighted!) blog without even knowing they’re doing it. As you can imagine, I have a big problem with this.

(In case you’re wondering why the Times is suing not just OpenAI but also Microsoft, it’s because of the partnership between the two companies. Microsoft has invested about $13 billion in OpenAI and there is a strong API integration between ChatGPT and Bing. This should answer the other question you may have had, which is why in the hell ChatGPT would use Bing—I mean, Bing, for crying out loud!—instead of Google.)

ChatGPT’s rhetorical improvement

As I have blogged about before, GPT-3.5 was barely able to form an opinion, much less support it. I asked it, about two years ago, to write a short blog post about why Campagnolo Super Record bike components are better than Shimano Dura-Ace, and it duly complied, concluding that “Campagnolo Super Record’s customizable shifting, lightweight construction, and iconic design give it an edge over Shimano Dura-Ace.” But then I asked it to write a blog post about why Dura-Ace is better, and it did that, too, with its final synopsis being, “Shimano Dura-Ace’s superior electronic shifting, durability, and modern design give it an edge over Campagnolo Super Record.” ChatGPT was basically brown-nosing me, telling me what it supposed I wanted to hear. And its supporting evidence for these arguments was verbose, vague, and overall very weak.

I see huge improvement in this realm. I asked the new ChatGPT to weigh in on a debate near and dear to my heart: the Dvorak keyboard layout vs. traditional QWERTY. I challenged it to compare an anti-Dvorak article by two economists in Reason magazine to my critique of that article in these pages. ChatGPT gave a very thorough synopsis of the positions, with far greater concision than GPT-3.5 could have achieved. What’s more, it went beyond just summarizing them: it came to its own conclusion, which suggests a semblance of actual understanding of the core issue. Here is its closing paragraph:

Albert’s argument appears stronger when considering individual typing efficiency, as he directly addresses typing mechanics and user experience, whereas Margolis and Liebowitz’s argument is more focused on economic theories of adoption. While Margolis and Liebowitz provide a macro-level view, Albert’s micro-level approach may resonate more with typists who are exploring the ergonomic benefits of Dvorak. Thus, for those prioritizing typing speed and comfort, Albert’s perspective might be more compelling, even if the QWERTY layout remains dominant due to historical inertia rather than functional superiority. 

The two (dipshit) economists would really wince at this, since they were trying to deny that historical inertia is responsible for the ongoing ubiquity of QWERTY. They were attempting to discredit the Dvorak layout since their delusional economic theory depends on them refuting the assertion that inertia (aka lock-in) can trounce the actual superiority of a product. I was so chuffed with ChatGPT’s conclusion, I took a victory lap and asked it who is the better writer: that is, which article has greater rhetorical power and more style. ChatGPT responded with a nicely organized and supported essay which concluded thus:

Dana Albert has more rhetorical power for a general audience due to his humor, personal anecdotes, and engaging style. Liebowitz and Margolis provide a strong argument for those interested in the economic perspective, but Albert’s style is more entertaining and may leave a lasting impression on readers curious about the Dvorak vs. QWERTY debate.

Compared to earlier versions, the modern ChatGPT is far superior. Rather than barfing up reconstituted content from the Internet, it really does appear to be applying judgment and performing true analysis. Notwithstanding my satisfaction at having my ego stroked by this disinterested third party, I’m actually kind of frightened by how closely GPT-4’s output resembles actual human thought. Whether or not A.I. will steal all our jobs, it does appear ready to displace lesser economists.

Tune in next week…

I had originally intended to cover two more topics in this post: A.I. advances in poetry and art. Alas, I see I am out of room (or more to the point, you are out of patience) so come back next week for Part II. It will provide a thorough examination of ChatGPT’s ability to write poetry (iambic pentameter and dactylic trimeter) and to create original art per the user’s specifications. (In case you were wondering, I did use ChatGPT to create the art you see above for this post. More on that next time.) Until then, you might check out the below links for more posts on A.I.

Other albertnet posts on A.I. 

• I, Chatbot
• Almost Intelligent – Part I
• Almost Intelligent – Part II
• Smartphones & Artificial Stupidity
• A.I. Smackdown – Moto vs. Cortana vs. Siri
• Could Artificial Intelligence Replace Writers? – Part 1
• Could Artificial Intelligence Replace Writers? – Part 2
• Could Artificial Intelligence Replace Writers? – Part 3
• A.I. Smackdown – English Major vs. ChatGPT – Part 1
• A.I. Smackdown – English Major vs. ChatGPT – Part 2
• Schooling ChatGPT
• Will A.I. Steal Our Jobs?
• Tech Check-In - How Good is the Latest A.I.? - Part II
• What is ChatGPT Great At (and Not)?
• Tech Reflection – Two Sides of AI
• AI Smackdown – ChatGPT vs. Copilot vs. Gemini
• More AI Smackdown - ChatGPT, Copilot, & Gemini Write Poetry

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

More Q&A With a Grammar Lover

Dear Grammar Lover,

A friend put it to me that “fuck” is the most elastic word in the English language, since it can be a noun, adjective, verb, etc. I’m guessing it’s not truly unique in this, but I can’t really prove it. What’s your take?

Tom G, Brooklyn, NY

Dear Tom:

By my count, of the eight parts of speech, “fuck” can be used as five:

• Noun: I don’t give a fuck
• Verb: He really fucked it up
• Interjection: Fuck!
• Adjective: He doesn’t have a fucking clue
• Adverb: Are you fucking shitting me?

These last two are of course gerunds, which to me isn’t as wholly satisfying as if “fuck” itself could be used as an adjective or adverb. Thus, I’m tempted to say “well” is more elastic, because (as detailed here), it can also be used as five parts of speech … and it doesn’t need an –ing suffix. However, as one commenter pointed out, “well” isn’t actually one word. It’s a pair of homonyms. “Well” as in “good or satisfactory” is an entirely different word, with a different etymology, from “well” as in “shaft sunk into the ground.” So to my mind, “fuck” wins, at least between these two.

One more thing: bonus points go to “fuck” for being useful not just as an interjection, but as the most powerful interjection of all time.

Dear Grammar Lover,

In a previous column you asserted that it’s not always appropriate to correct somebody’s grammar. What’s the most tasteless, tactless context for a grammar correction you’ve ever encountered?

Wanda L, Las Cruces, NM

Dear Wanda,

When my father was dying of cancer, I suggested he write up his own obituary, just so I wouldn’t miss a life detail he felt was important. He inadvertently wrote his draft from the perspective of someone who was still alive, which is understandable … he may not have fully accepted yet that he would actually die. Accordingly, among my revisions were a number of necessary verb tense changes. I also included an email address so people could send tidings without wasting paper on cards (feeling that this was what my dad would have wanted). One of his friends sent a very terse email pointing out that I’d made a verb tense error in the obituary. The obituary had noted, “He has also done work for NBS/NIST on computer peripherals, power supplies, and the atomic clock” which, as this guy pointed out, should have read “He also did work for NBS/NIST….” The guy was right, of course; my sentence did not properly convey that my father was dead, dead, dead and would never do any more work for NBS/NIST, or anyone else, ever again. (The email itself didn’t say “dead, dead, dead,” but it might as well have.)

Since the email didn’t say anything else beyond pointing out the error, my (admittedly ungrammatical) response was quite brief: “Asperger’s much?” (Just kidding. I did not respond.)

Dear Grammar Lover,

In a previous column you said the silliest example of bad grammar you have come across in music is “exactly whom I’m supposed to be” in the song “Should I Stay or Should I Go” by the Clash. How is this any worse than Eminem repeatedly using the non-word “insaneness” in the song “Brainless”?

Sean C, Boston, MA

Dear Sean,

For one thing, using a non-word isn’t the same class of error as using “whom” incorrectly; “insaneness” is more like a playful stylistic stretch in the Ogden Nash vein. And this non-word opened the door for Eminem to rhyme with “brainless” and “pain in the anus,” whereas the Clash’s goof didn’t accomplish anything. Besides, Eminem freely acknowledges the poetic liberty; in a muted aside at the end of the song, some nameless adversary says, “‘Insaneness’ ain’t even a word you stupid fuck,” to which the singer replies, “Neither is ‘ain’t.’” Meanwhile, at least two dictionaries (such as this one, for example) do include “insaneness” as a legit word. And above all, the whole point of the song is that the singer is brainless, so why wouldn’t he use a non-word?

Dear Grammar Lover,

What do you make of “their” as a singular possessive pronoun? I know this has long been used when the speaker doesn’t wish to specify one sex or another, but it’s technically wrong and can cause confusion, such as with singular vs. plural. Doesn’t clarity trump convenience here? Can’t we all agree that “their” as a singular pronoun is just plain wrong?

John S, San Leandro, CA

Dear John,

I try to avoid using “their” to refer to an unnamed or hypothetical person, preferring “his or her” or some other way around the construction. But I haven’t traditionally worried too much about other people doing this, as it doesn’t tend to cause that much confusion, really. For example, “Everyone must bring their workbook” could imply that a bunch of students share a single workbook … but common sense should easily put that vagueness to rest.

Things get a bit more complicated around the more recent trend of using a plural pronoun for an individual who doesn’t wish to identify as one sex or another. For example, a non-binary person may request that people use “they” or “their” to refer to “them.” This plural pronoun begets a plural verb, to achieve subject-verb agreement, which can also add confusion.

I will cautiously assert that spoken grammar evolves more quickly than formal, written grammar, so if we’re looking for what’s officially “correct,” it’s useful to take after the dictionary publishers and see what’s in print in a mainstream magazine written for an educated audience. (I wouldn’t look to “Us” magazine, which is all about celebrities, because they don’t even get their own name right; the magazine should be called “Them.”) So, as I’d done when trying to determine the definitive spelling of “kindergartner,” I looked for non-gendered pronouns in “The New Yorker.” Consider this passage from a recent article:

    Caro Murphy … said that a Disney rep had told them not to talk about their work at the park, so we spoke about LARPs in general terms. “There is this tension between the commercial part of LARP and the community part,” they said.

The word “them” confused me a bit initially because I thought perhaps it referred to Murphy plus one or more colleagues previously mentioned or implied. But the confusion was dispelled when the quote was followed by “they said.” Obviously this was not two or more persons speaking in unison.

Still, this new usage can get a bit confusing when obvious clues like that quotation aren’t provided. This was the case in the previous paragraph of the same article, which coincidentally involved another non-binary interviewee. And more confusion arose later, with Kes, a LARPer whom the writer and her colleague Tim met onboard a Disney theme park spaceship:

     [Tim] told me he thought that Kes might be a cast member. He’d seen her being chummy with Croy in the engineering room.

     I [Googled] the name of the LARPer Disney had just hired. I edged around the crowd. “Caro?” I whispered to Kes.

     “Yes!” Murphy said, grinning.

Some of the confusion here comes from a single person being referred to by three different names in the span of seven words, which has nothing to do with pronouns. But the earlier bit about “her being chummy with Croy” did complicate things. Kes, when in character, may have identified as female, unless the writer just made an assumption. But when out of character, Murphy prefers they/them. The writer, when composing the article, knew that Kes was Murphy and thus could have said “them” instead of “her,” but this would have spoiled the surprise of the secret identity.

I got some good advice once in a writing class, which is that a writer should never make the reader do extra work unless there’s a good reason. So is honoring the preference of a source a good reason? Of course! Interviewees are at the crux of journalism (and in this case in particular, Murphy was taking some risk, having been told by Disney not to talk about their work). Meanwhile, professional courtesy aside, I think acknowledgement of any human’s self-identity is more important than ease of reading comprehension. Yes, this can mean extra work for the reader, especially for those of us with a lifelong habit of thinking about gender as a very cut-and-dried, binary matter, but isn’t this kind of work good for us, as we grapple with the more complicated reality?

Dear Grammar Lover,

How good are the grammar checkers in Microsoft Word and Google Docs?

Linda S, Broomfield, CO

Dear Linda,

Artificial Intelligence is really bad at grammar. If you asked A.I. to diagram a sentence it simply couldn’t. It is powerless to understand context, so its suggestions can seem practically random. Thus, software grammar checkers are pretty much worthless.

To validate this assertion, I ran a Microsoft Word grammar check against a recent blog post, and then ran the same post through the grammar checker in Google Docs. In theory, both programs should flag the same “errors,” right? After all, if you handed an essay to two different human newspaper or magazine editors, the feedback on grammar and spelling would be similar, one to the next. What I found with the software was that a) there was zero overlap in feedback between the two grammar checkers, and b) most of their suggestions were flat-out wrong.

Here are some of the “errors” flagged by Word (click to enlarge):

As you can see, Word was wrong in every single case. I sincerely hope nobody is trying to learn grammar by reviewing this software’s suggestions and rationale.

Google did a bit better, finding one bona fide error (I had “other the internal” instead of “other internal”), and only making four incorrect suggestions. One suggestion was particularly inane: in the sentence “I considered his feat from the perspective of coach,” Google suggested I change “feat” to “feet.” Why does this software think I’d be looking at a rider’s feet? Does it assume coaches, and/or writers, are likely to have a foot fetish? The less facetious question is this: as an educated human, why would I ever outsource my editing to software that makes so many mistakes?

Dear Grammar Lover,

In a previous column you said the silliest instance of bad grammar you’ve found in rock music is “exactly whom I’m supposed to be” in the song “Should I Stay or Should I Go” by the Clash. How is this any worse than “If looks could kill they probably will” in “Games Without Frontiers” by Peter Gabriel?

Simon Taylor, London, UK

Dear Simon,

Indeed, this is a clear example of inconsistent verb tense, but why would you suppose it is unintentional? Not only does “will” create a nice internal rhyme with “kill,” but the sudden shift from the hypothetical subjunctive to the future indicative active creates the most jarring—and best—lyric in the whole song. It’s a similar effect to what the masterful novelist Muriel Spark achieves in her story “The Portobello Road” with the immortal line, “He looked as if he would murder me and he did.” In both cases, death goes from hypothetical to real in a split second. So Peter Gabriel’s verb shift isn’t just intentional; it’s brilliant. I wouldn’t say rules were made to be broken, but in the right hands they can be, and to good effect.

Got a question for the Grammar Lover? Click here.

A Grammar Lover is a syndicated journalist whose advice column, “Ask a Grammar Lover,” appears in over 0 blogs worldwide.

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

Ask a Grammar Lover

Dear Grammar Lover,

When is it okay to correct someone’s grammar? I feel this should be welcomed, but it seems like so often it’s not.

Emily D, Madison, WI

Dear Emily,

Alas, correcting someone’s grammar is more complicated than pointing out that she’s got food in her teeth, or that his fly is open. For one thing, since grammar is to some degree a matter of education and social class, a person can easily feel a bit offended.

For example, an old boss of mine from my teenage days, whom I also counted as a friend, said to me once, “Between you and I, the money I collect on rent more than covers the mortgage.” I replied, “You mean ‘between you and me.’” He was pretty ticked, because a) I sounded like a pedantic prick, and b) I was evidently more interested in his grammar than his financial flex.

Beyond that, matters of grammar aren’t as obvious as food in the teeth so you can end up getting into arguments. This can escalate the insult when your interlocutor is eventually proven wrong. I was once at a party and the late-crew stragglers were gossiping, and D— mentioned something really stupid that some third party (not present) had said. I didn’t figure there was any risk in pointing out an absent party’s error, and responded, “That’s not even grammatical!” D— said, “What do you mean not grammatical?” I said, “You know, it’s wrong grammatically.” He fired back, “That’s not what ‘grammatical’ means.” I told him it was indeed one sense of “grammatical,” and he said “Wanna bet?” etc. I really tried to talk him out of going toe-to-toe with me, assuring him that when I proved him wrong he’d would be embarrassed. But he was adamant, so I had to get out my dictionary (a very thick Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, second edition, which for obvious reasons I call the “big dick”). His downfall caused much mirth at his expense, and indeed, he was embarrassed … which I’d truly wanted to avoid because I have always had the impression D— never much liked me to begin with.

So, I recommend you choose your battles, by which I mean you only assert your position if someone erroneously calls you out on an error. And you better be right.

A final point: since so much communication these days takes place via text on a smartphone, you should be extra careful. Quite frequently, the phone software will introduce errors, either through poor voice transcription or because it simply decides to “correct” what you typed. For example, it will add an apostrophe to “its” when it doesn’t belong there.

Dear Grammar Lover,

I read a blog post once where a guy lamely justified the outdated practice of putting two spaces after a period, on the grounds that it honored the memory of his typing teacher. This is obviously BS because a) standards do evolve over time, and b) his old typing teacher is surely dead and gone by now. Can you weigh in on the matter, so I can troll the blogger in the comments section below his post?

Lawrence T, Oakland, CA

Dear Larry,

Until fairly recently, I myself used two spaces after a period (and after a colon, and in most cases after a question mark) as I’d been taught in typing class in the early ‘80s. Lots of people continue to use two spaces. There’s plenty of ongoing debate on this; here is an article from 2011 condemning the two-space behavior, and here is another from 2018 asserting that using two spaces does improve readability. I suspect most style guides now specify just one space, though I haven’t bothered to confirm this.

Actually, the best reason to adopt the one-period convention is simply that digital interfaces, such as Blogger, Gmail, and Google Workspace, don’t properly handle a pair of spaces (as older word processing programs did). If a line ends with a period, and there are two spaces, the software should know to replace both spaces with a single line break. But, increasingly, the software doesn’t—it replaces the first space with a line break, and moves the second space to the beginning of the next line. This looks terrible. So anybody who continues to use two spaces will have sloppy-looking output. Give it up, two-spacers … you’ve lost.

Dear Grammar Lover,

Why do people like you think it’s important to follow these arbitrary, pedantic rules when it’s perfectly clear what somebody is trying to say, whether he follows these rules or not?

Ian B, Columbus, OH

Dear Ian,

I suppose that in a perfect world, people might judge one another on, say, the quality of their souls, or the generosity of their behavior, or something similarly noble. In reality, we judge one another in a variety of less lofty ways, and one such measure is perceived level of education. So if you don’t learn the rules, you’re bound to break some of them in ways that suggest you either never went to college or didn’t pay much attention. (Never mind that in this modern STEM-obsessed era, many college graduates are trained instead of educated, and say things like “think different.”) Suffice to say, certain people will judge you for poor grammar, and they’re not necessarily wrong to do so. If you know all the rules, you can choose which ones to break, based on your audience. So it’s not necessary to always follow the rules, but it’s important to know them.

Another reason to know the rules is to avoid phishing attacks. Incorrect grammar is one of the best “tells” when you’re deciding whether an email is legit.

Dear Grammar Lover,

What’s the silliest grammar error you have seen? Extra points for inappropriate context…

Gertrude S, Spokane, WA

Dear Trudy,

In my opinion, the worst errors occur when someone is trying to be completely correct, even at the risk of seeming pedantic—but gets it wrong. If somebody says “who” where “whom” is correct, I always cut him or her some slack because “whom” can sound stuffy. But when somebody uses “whom” where “who” is called for, particularly in an informal context, I kind of cringe. So, in answer to your query, my poster child is the  line “exactly whom I’m supposed to be” from the song “Should I Stay or Should I Go” by the Clash. What rock star says “whom” in this construction? I’ll tell you: a rock star who a) doesn’t grasp that a predicate nominative requires a subject pronoun, and b) doesn’t realize the word “whom” doesn’t belong in a rock song to begin with (as George Thorogood obviously understood when he wrote the song “Who Do You Love?”).

Dear Grammar Lover,

Is it okay to break the rules if you’re consistent about it, and there’s some precedent for the way you break them? I ask because I prefer to put punctuation outside of quotation marks “like this”, because I just like it better. Since the Brits do it this way, do you think maybe I can get away with it?

Alexa A, Isla Vista, CA

Dear Alexa,

If you’re emailing a friend or tagging a wall with a spray can, go crazy. Or, if you become an Oxford Rhodes Scholar. But here in the US, if you’re writing college papers or business documents, you do need to follow the American standard.

My dad decided he could make up some of his own rules, such as punctuating with two periods in a row, which I gather was supposed to be halfway between a period and an ellipsis. I suppose this wouldn’t have irritated me except that he liked to “correct” my grammar, as with this exact quote from an email he wrote to a friend, with me copied: “It would be fun to tease [Dana] about ‘That's me’ as opposed to the grammatically correct ‘That's I’..” I think it’s worth pointing out here that he put his homegrown punctuation outside the quotation marks. It’s a slippery slope, Alexa…

Dear Grammar Lover,

My brainiac friend insists that learned people will sometimes use bad grammar on purpose. Is this really a thing, or just a cop-out along the lines of Pee Wee Herman’s “I meant to do that”?

Sandra R, Phoenix, AZ

Dear Sandy,

I suppose the cop-out theory holds some water; after all, whenever I correct my brother’s grammar he replies, “I know, I was speaking colloquially … you know, coming down to your level.” But educated and well-spoken speakers and writers break the rules all the time, stylistically. Here’s an example, with some subtle commentary baked in by the writer (Kenneth Grahame in The Wind In the Willows):

     The Toad, having finished his breakfast, picked up a stout stick and swung it vigorously, belabouring imaginary animals. “I’ll learn ‘em to steal my house!” he cried. “I’ll learn ‘em! I’ll learn ‘em!”

     “Don’t say ‘learn ‘em,’ Toad,” said the Rat, greatly shocked. “It’s not good English.”

     “What are you always nagging at the Toad for?” inquired the Badger, rather peevishly. “What’s the  matter with his English? It’s the same what I use myself, and if it’s good enough for me, it ought to be good enough for you!”

     “I’m very sorry,” said the Rat humbly. “Only I think it ought to be ‘teach ‘em,’ not ‘learn ‘em.’”

     “But we don’t want to teach ‘em,” replied the Badger. “We want to learn ‘em—learn ‘em, learn ‘em! And what’s more, we’re going to do it, too!”

I suppose you could object to this example on the basis of these characters being animals, and British ones, and this being a very old source (i.e., 1908). But stylistic breaking of the rules is also done by modern Americans, and very learned ones at that. Consider this sentence from Elif Batuman’s recent novel Either/Or: “Imre had graduated and was supposed to be at Caltech, so probably it wasn’t him.”

Could this simply be an accident? I sincerely doubt it, as Batuman has a Ph.D. in comparative literature from Stanford. (If her doctorate were from Berkeley I would declare it impossible for this to be an accident.) (Yes, I’m kind of required, out of loyalty to my alma mater, to make that last wisecrack.) Batuman’s narrator, meanwhile, is a literature major at Harvard so I doubt we’re to assume she’s bad at grammar. I think Batuman’s choice of pronoun here is to demonstrate that her character, though very intelligent, is not pompous or overly punctilious (i.e., she’s cooler than my dad).

 A Grammar Lover is a syndicated journalist whose advice column, “Ask a Grammar Lover,” appears in over 0 blogs worldwide.

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

Biased Blow-By-Blow - 2021 Vuelta a España Stage 18

Introduction

Why is it that when the governing body of a sport, in this case cycling’s UCI, decides to allow widespread fraud, the media have to nevertheless adhere to the highest standards of journalistic integrity? When the UCI—apparently seeking to avoid embarrassment over their sport still being filthy—cleared Chris Froome after his positive drug test, journalists should have talked all kinds of smack and started throwing popcorn at the screen. Instead, they just keep biting their tongues. Well not me. Rest assured, I pull no punches in my blow-by-blow reporting and may even throw punches randomly if that enhances your experience. So read on for all the action in the final mountain stage of this very gripping Vuelta a España.

Vuelta a España Stage 18 – Salas to Alto del Gamoniteiro

As I join the action, one of the announcers, Anthony, is talking about the Church of San Pedro. He’s saying something about its nave. This is where having two announcers can be so powerful: the co-announcer, Hannah, should say here, “You seem to know a lot about churches … perhaps you could explain to me something I’ve always wondered about, which is: does the nave truly extend from the transepts to the chancel? I always thought it did but my mother insisted that that’s only true for the basilica-type buildings.” Then Anthony would have to admit that, though he did a great job of sounding conversational just now, he was reading right off the prompt sheet and actually has no idea what a nave is. Unfortunately, Hannah is as wary of being discovered a fraud as he is, so she just nods knowingly, which we can’t even hear.

There’s a sprint for points. Two riders from a rather large breakaway contest it. Wow, nobody else wants it but these guys are really throwing down. I’m reminded the two drunks at a wedding who actually try their damnedest to catch the bride’s thrown garter, while the rest of the guys kind of recede to the back of the room. Will these two feel embarrassed later?

Looks like Jens Keukeleire (EF Education-Nippo) took the points over Stan Dewulf (AG2R Citroën Team).

The riders are starting the second big climb of the day, the Category 1 Alto de la Cobertoria. I don’t know who all is in this breakaway, but presumably no GC hopefuls since nobody is chasing very hard.

I don’t know how this is a Cat 1 climb. It’s neither long nor steep that I can see. Easy for me to say, of course. Now, as cold as it looks in these photos, Hannah is saying it’s 20 degrees out. Celsius, of course, which like all metric units is useless. I absolutely hate it when somebody gives me the temperature in Celsius. Oh geez, I always think, now I have to do that cumbersome conversion. It’s barely worth it, but fine, here you go: it’s 68 degrees. Why did I even compute that? It’s not that hot, I don’t care if it’s 85% humidity.

A rider attacks from the breakaway: it’s Michael Storer (Team DSM), who has won two stages of this Vuelta already.

He’s looking for KOM points (having taken the last climb already). And look, he’s got them!

As the break begins the descent I’ll fill you in on what’s happened in this race since my Stage 14 report. In Stage 15, Rafal Majka (UAE Team Emirates) soloed but the GC didn’t change. Stage 16 was a flat(-ish) sprinters’ stage, and for the third time in this Vuelta Fabio Jakobsen (Deceuninck-QuickStep) won handily (making the announcers look silly because all they could talk about in the run-up to the sprint was Arnaud Démare, widely considered a top contender for these flat stages but for no good reason because he sucks and finished 16th). And then yesterday, well, that was an amazing stage. I’ll tell you all about it in a minute.

The peloton is over the summit. Anthony is talking about how difficult the rest of this race will be, especially given “how cold it is.” You see how confused people get when they have to use Celsius? (Or does he just like to contradict his co-commentator?)

Anthony would tell you this rider, Damiano Caruso (Bahrain-Victorious) is getting ready to stuff newspaper into his jersey for warmth during the descent. Good guess, but it’s actually not accurate. Caruso is such a good descender, he sometimes gets bored and likes to sit up and leaf through the paper.

Storer wasn’t just looking for KOM points but looks to have ambitions for the stage. He’s descending aggressively and now has over a minute. Meanwhile, he’s now the virtual KOM over his teammate Romain Bardet, winner of Stage 14.

As Storer rounds a curve, Anthony-the-commentator does this thing where, in an earnest attempt to not dominate the mic and talk over Hannah (which he still does whenever things heat up), he asks her a question that of course he knows the answer to, as if throwing her a bone. “Hannah, why is Storer hanging his leg out like that?” he asks. Hannah, perceiving his condescending tone, snarls back, “He’s sticking his leg out like a dog pissing, marking his territory as is typical of all males of every species.” Anthony gently corrects her, mansplaining that Storer is actually doing this in lieu of braking, hanging his knee out there like a sail to catch the wind. This is of course completely untrue. In fact Storer is airing out his balls, which Anthony needs to go do privately now, and I hope he doesn’t come back until he’s cooled off a bit.

Returning to my recap, Stage 17 was epic. It was raining on and off all day, and the riders went twice over a Cat 1 climb and finished on an HC. The race leader, Odd Christian Eiking (Intermarché-Wanty-Gobert Matériaux), went out the back pretty early, weighed down by all the ink in his jersey required to spell out his team’s name. Egan Bernal (Ineos Grenadiers) totally attacked on the penultimate climb, dusting everybody except race favorite Primoz Roglic (Team Jumbo-Visma) who latched right on. Bernal led all the way over the climb. They had a minute lead at the summit, which they doubled on the gnarly, wet descent where Roglic started taking turns at the front. Eiking totally stacked and though he got back up, he went on to lose lots of time and also his red jersey. On the final climb, Roglic rode away from Bernal and soloed to a stage win and the GC lead. Bernal was caught by the GC group, which had sawed off Guillaume Martin (Cofidis), who lost several minutes and slipped from second to fifth overall, 4:16 behind Roglic. With lots of help from his supercharged Bahrain-Victorious teammates, Jack Haig moved up to fourth on GC, 3:46 behind, and Miguel Angel “Superman” Lopez (Movistar Team) moved up to third, 3:11 down. His teammate Enric Mas now sits second, 2:22 behind Roglic.

The peloton reaches a little town and Movistar sets the tempo. This is the first time I’ve seen them at the front; just like yesterday, mostly it’s been Bahrain-Victorius, riding as though they owned the GC.

Now Anthony is explaining how the riders don’t lose any weight during a stage race like this due to their “nutrition.” He’s not telling the whole story. In the olden days, riders did lose weight … you would see, for example, that Greg LeMond looked husky and robust at the beginning of the Tour and gaunt and haggard by the end. But these modern riders get blood bags, which weigh over a pound apiece. (Do all riders get them? Well, I’d hate to go that far, but a lot of them must, based on the average speed of these mountain stages. Yesterday it was 24.6 mph, despite a net elevation gain of 3,600 feet. Unreal.)

Storer pushes on, extending his lead over the giant breakaway. He’s got over two minutes, as the rest of the break loses time to the GC group.

Finishing up my recap, there was one other cool thing about Stage 17: Roglic’s super-domestique Sepp Kuss was able to just sit in and chill in the chase group, and at the finish he launched a tremendous sprint to take second on the stage. Over the last fifty meters or so, he had this huge grin on his face. NOOICE!

As Storer approaches the penultimate climb with 30 kilometers to go, the GC group has almost caught the breakaway. At the back of the group, Aleksandr Vlasov (Astana-Premier Tech) suffers to hang on. I’m actually surprised to see Vlasov at all … he had a gnarly crash on a descent yesterday and looked really bad, lying in the road while other crashed riders were still getting up. I see now he lost 35 minutes … such a pity, as he was having a good Vuelta, having started Stage 17 in 11th on GC.

Now the peloton is all back together, other than Storer who still has 2:10. And now Fabio Aru (Team Qhubeka Nexthash) attacks. He hasn’t had any big results in years and will retire at the end of the season, so this is one of his last chances to show the world he’s not totally washed up.

I was trying to figure out who that DSM guy is with Aru, but never mind … they’ve both already been caught. So much for that.

My online correspondent, a former American pro, says, “Give it to me straight … do you think I could hang with the lead group?” I reply, “Hell yeah, so long as you were riding for Ineos or TBV!” As I mentioned to my daughter on the phone last night, I’ve decided I loathe Team Bahrain-Victorious even more than the Ineos Grenadiers. My daughter replied, “That’s an amazing turnaround, almost like when you decided Little Star is actually even better than Zach’s!” She’s right, as I’ve hated Ineos since the Sky days. But they’re just so hapless lately … bagging on them is like teasing a very small child. Ineos’ top rider now is Bernal, whose big move yesterday came to nothing unless you count propelling Roglic into red; Bernal is still only in sixth. Bahrain-Victorius, meanwhile, has been ascendant with their shocking out-of-nowhere performances in the Criterium du Dauphiné and the Giro d’Italia. And Bahrain’s Vuelta leader, Haig, is really boring … he never attacks, he just sits on his teammates’ wheels and hopes other riders falter. He’s somehow managed to climb up to fourth overall without having taken a single bit of initiative.

With 2.6 km left in this climb, Storer still has 2:20 over the peloton.

In the GC group Mikel Bizkarra (Euskaltel-Euskadi) attacks and Bardet bridges across with him, surely looking to minimize his losses in the KOM competition.

Bardet takes the front. I gather he wants to keep that strange blue-and-white-spotted-cow jersey by chasing down Storer and beating him to the finish. That would be very selfish, of course, because Bardet and Storer are teammates. For Bardet to suck Bizkarra’s wheel would be fine, or to attack him … but dragging him up? Madness.

Storer is over the summit and makes his way down the final descent toward that brutal finishing climb, the Alto del Gamoniteiro. Maybe I have time for a quick bio break … wish me luck!

Okay, I’m back and Bardet has dutifully dropped Bizkarra.

As the peloton reaches the final climb, Movistar takes the front, setting up Mas. Man, look at the profile of this beast!

Bardet is either nibbling his nipple or talking on his race radio. I will assume the latter. Now he looks over his shoulder, and sits up. Ooh, he looks pissed. He’s probably just gotten orders to stop chasing Storer.

With just over 12 km to go, Storer still has 2:22. That could evaporate if Mas or Bernal launches a huge attack. Speaking of not looking too happy, look at Mas’s teammate setting tempo. Looks a little grumpy. Kind of a little eye-roll here too, like he’s thinking, “Sure, I’ll just keep the pace high and then Mas will destroy Roglic and take the red jersey. Yeah, right.”

Some AG2R guy attacks. I really don’t like his BMC bike. I know that clean, cable-free style is more aerodynamic and everything, but it’s a bad look. Brings to mind a pogo stick or something.

The attacker is Geoffrey Bouchard, AG2R’s leader, who has had a lousy Vuelta, sitting all the way down in 17th. This doomed attack won’t do much to burnish his image. He seems to be riding well but he looks kind of depressed. He’s thinking, “How did I choose such a difficult career? I could be working at some marketing agency, tinkering with words all afternoon and then leaving early.”

David de la Cruz (UAE Team Emirates) bridges across to Bouchard.

De la Cruz takes the front and immediately their gap increases hugely.

Wow, Storer’s lead is coming down fast as de la Cruz hammers the pace. Am I supposed to capitalize “De”? It’s a preposition, which suggests not. But it’s also the beginning of a proper noun. I hope this guy gets caught so I don’t have to worry about this anymore. But only if he’s caught by somebody cool, with an easy name.

Bouchard detonates and slinks back to the GC group with his tail between his legs.

Man, de la Cruz really looks miserable! I think I hurt his feelings making fun of his name! Now I feel bad. I’ll capitalize De from now on. Hell, I’ll even capitalize La.

De La Cruz has taken a minute out of the GC group. It’s being paced by Bahrain-Victorious who still have four riders here.

It’s a freaking long climb, averaging almost 10%. Still 8 km to go as Storer starts to fade. I can’t see him finishing with the leaders … I think he’ll be caught and shat out the back.

Storer waits for De La Cruz, looking back as if to say, “Dude, are you coming? We need to work together breaking the wind on this 10% grade.”

De La Cruz latches on, pulls for a while, and now looks back at Storer as if to say, “Planning on taking any pulls here, Chief?” Storer shakes his head as if to say, “No, man, I’m too fried. Also, don’t call me Chief.”

Back in the group, Bardet doesn’t look too good. He’s just hanging on the back. Perhaps he’s sulking.

The gap is coming down as some Intermarché-Wanty-Gobert Matériaux rider, I think it’s Jan Hirt, works to set up his leader, Louis Meintjes, who sits 12th on GC. Look at Hirt climbing in the drops, like a boss.

De La Cruz sheds Storer and now his lead starts to increase.

Bernal attacks! Roglic instantly responds! Bernal is wearing his standard poker face, which always strikes me as slightly nonplussed and adenoidal.

And now Bardet is going out the back!

Only a few riders can go with Bernal! It’s Roglic, Mas, Lopez, and Kuss.

Kuss takes the front to keep the pace steady for Roglic.

Superman seizes his opportunity to attack!

Wow, he’s instantly got a huge gap, disappearing into the mist like one of those gorillas! And the gap to De La Cruz drops quickly!

De La Cruz looks more miserable than ever, even though he’s being cheered by a ‘70s-era rock-and-roll fan!

And now Lopez can see the front of the race! He’ll catch De La Cruz very soon!

Lopez catches De La Cruz and goes straight past him!

In the GC group, Adam Yates (Ineos Granadiers) goes out the back. He’s not having any fun. He’s ashamed of his neck, which is weird in a man.

In the GC group Kuss continues to set the tempo. (Kuss looks a lot like my nephew John … click here and check it out.) Mas, behind him, has a band-aid on his nose. Apparently he cut himself shaving this morning … but who shaves his nose? It’s mind-boggling.

Now Roglic attacks! He doesn’t like Superman taking much time! So far only Mas and Bernal can follow!

Now Bernal attacks again! Roglic is again right on him, as is Mas.

Bernal accelerates yet again! Roglic and even Mas seem to have no trouble staying with him, though. Mas is even kind of smiling a bit, as if to say, “Hey, guys, this is really fun!”

Roglic counters, and Mas is still there, still kind of smiling! His sprit animal is the golden retriever!

Lopez isn’t growing his lead much, but with less than a kilometer left he’s looking really good for the stage win.

The mist is getting ever thicker, making the spectators wonder why they bothered to hike for six hours to get here! And yet Superman is still rocking his sunglasses! What, does this guy use echolocation?

And Lopez has the win! It’s impressive he could even find the finish line!

He chooses the “punch the air” victory salute, probably because he’s not going fast enough on this 17% grade to take both hands off the bars. Plus, he needs to be near the brakes, because who knows what spectator, staffer, dog, or even pangolin could be wandering across the road through the mist?

A little ways back, Roglic has attacked the shit out of Mas and Bernal! He’ll take a few more seconds plus the second place time bonus.

Bahrain-Victorious drills it to try to limit Haig’s losses to Bernal. You can see De La Cruz tucked in there, admirably maintaining his composure after failing to solo.

Somehow I missed it, but Bernal and Mas obviously finished … not sure yet what order. And now Haig comes across to take fifth, followed by De La Cruz in sixth. How do I know it’s Haig, given all the mist? Just a guess … surely this team leader would do something other than sitting on his teammate’s wheels all day long. He needs to remind them that he’s the man.

Some 12 seconds later, much of the rest of the lead group comes over. Wow, this is interesting: Meintjes and Kuss are getting pushed across the line by staffers! Is that even allowed?! Probably these staffers just figure they won’t get caught, due to the poor visibility. Can you imagine if this became standard? It’s all well and good on a mountaintop finish, but imagine if these guys were running along at 45 mph during a field sprint, huffing and puffing through their COVID masks and then being totally in the way when they stop pushing. (I for one am all for such an innovation.)

Kuss doesn’t look nearly as happy at the finish line today as he did yesterday … and yet, even if he lost a bit of time, others have lost more. Kuss will leapfrog Martin on the GC, for example.

Now they’re interviewing Lopez:

INTERVIEWER: A-yo, what it do, Big Mig?

LOPEZ: This is a very meaningful victory for me, my first in the Vuelta in two years.

INTERVIEWER: Bruh, you be straight wylin’. You aint won a Vuelta stage since 2017.

LOPEZ: Actually, my Astana team won the team time trial here in 2019. How come nobody remembers TTTs?

INTERVIEWER: Speakin’ of crews, Movistar is rollin’ deep for reals this year.

LOPEZ: Yes, I’d really like to thank my teammates for making this win possible, along with my sports director, the team mechanics, our sponsors, and all our families for supporting us in our careers. I am grateful to Rosalinda Tejada, our team chef, whose nourishing meals both fuel and comfort all the riders. I’d also like to thank my soigneur, Amanda Bates, who not only soothes my tired muscles but is something of a guru to me. And I’d like to give a shout-out to all the unnamed riders in the peloton who gave me my nickname, Superman, which pushes me to achieve great things so that this lofty moniker doesn’t become embarrassing to me. And I’d like to thank Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who originally created the Superman character, and DC Comics for making this classic archetype of the heroic figure into something recognized globally.

INTERVIEWER: Word up.

Here’s today’s stage result.

And here’s the new GC. Bernal, Yates, and Kuss all moved up a spot, Martin dropped from fifth to ninth, Gino Mäder (Bahrain-Victorious) moved up from tenth to eighth, and Meintjes jumped from twelfth to tenth.

Now they’re interviewing Roglic.

INTERVIEWER: You seem to be in good spirits, despite your loss today.

ROGLIC: Um, well, yeah, maybe I didn’t take the stage, but I further padded my GC lead. I wouldn’t exactly call it a loss.

INTERVIEWER: I’m talking about your sunglasses. Do you even realize you lost them?

ROGLIC: What are you talking about, they’re right here on my head!

INTERVIEWER: That’s a replacement pair, obviously. Once again, we have to replace them because you can’t be bothered to keep track of your gear. You’re just totally spaced out, carrying on like you don’t have a care in the world. Your mother and I have worked very hard to buy you nice things and look what you do with them.

ROGLIC: I don’t think I even had them at the start. It’s been foggy all day.

INTERVIEWER: Look at you! Hat on crooked, sunglasses askew … you’re a disgrace. You know why you keep losing your sunglasses? It’s because you just stick only the very tips of the temples into your helmet vents. Those sunglasses are practically asking to fall out. Why do you think your jersey has pockets?

ROGLIC: Leave me alone, Dad! I’m leading the Vuelta a España! I don’t have to take this from you!

INTERVIEWER: Oh, Mr. High & Mighty with his flashy red jersey. There’s more to life than sports, you know…

Well, I guess we can see where Roglic gets his drive … must have been a difficult childhood. By the way, I didn’t make all of that up. Lopez really did thank his team, mechanics, and sponsors.

Well, that’s probably about it for this year’s Vuelta. Tomorrow has a few climbs but they’re early in the stage, so it’ll probably be a breakaway of nobodies. Saturday has five categorized climbs, finishing on a Cat 2, but I don’t see Mas or Lopez taking 2:30 out of Roglic and even if they somehow did, Sunday’s final stage is a 34 kilometer time trial which surely favors the Slovenian. As my brother Max likes to say, it’s all over but the cryin’.

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.