Grammar Moses: When word selection is a matter of life or death

The headline read: "5 workers electrocuted while hanging gutter at LaSalle County home."

Not our headline, mind you.

My first thoughts were: I wonder whether that many people have died in one electrical accident before; what a tragedy for that town; whether there are any connections to our coverage area.

A couple of paragraphs in I learned that none of the five workers - who were standing on aluminum ladders and holding the aluminum gutter when it came into contact with the power line - had died.

In addition to receiving a tremendous shock, all of them fell about 25 feet. Still, none of them died.

It's a miracle. And I wish them all well in their recovery.

If you're merely a headline skimmer, you might have made the same assumption I did.

The word "electrocution" was created in the 1880s to describe a new form of "more humane" death penalty to replace the gallows.

It's actually a portmanteau of "electricity" and "execution."

In less than a decade it had been adapted to mean any kind of death by electricity.

Pardon my curmudgeonliness, but why would Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English dictionaries - two dictionaries I love and respect - concede to popular misuse of "electrocution" and provide a secondary definition of grave injury as a result of electrical shock?

Some dictionaries still hold that the required result of "electrocution" is death. I applaud them.

I merely shrug when someone uses "comprise" instead of "compose." Really, is that anything to get one's undies in a bunch over?

But there is nothing benign about death. Imagine if the police had informed family members of these five workers that they had been "electrocuted." How many families would misconstrue that?

If you're a news outlet, you should use the same care as the police in informing the world about it.

If there is a time for precise, unambiguous language, this is it.

What's next - the noun "drowning" being used to describe getting really wet?

End of rant.

Dating advice

From what I know about you, dear readers, not too many of you are spending countless hours swiping left, unless you're reading a page-turner on your Kindle.

Despite that, I have some grammar-related dating advice for you.

I received an email from an artificial intelligence writing assistant outfit called ProWritingAid.

It studied the effects of good and bad grammar on online dating by surveying 5,000 customers in the U.K. and 7,500 in the U.S.

Among its findings:

• Americans looking for a good time place higher importance on good grammar than Brits;

• Men are 10% less likely to initiate a connection with people who have well-written profiles;

• Women between 18 and 34 are more than three times as likely to choose those with well-written dating profiles than those whose profiles contain grammatical errors.

What I take from this limited information is some men are intimidated by women with brains and women are more discerning than guys.

But then you already knew that.

So, guys, write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is vice president/executive editor of the Daily Herald. You can buy Jim's book, "Grammar Moses: A humorous guide to grammar and usage," at grammarmosesthebook.com. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com and put "Grammar Moses" in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.