Grammar Moses: This column has everything from soup to nuts

Ken Voight of Schaumburg wrote soon after this column debuted last July to tell me about his pet peeves.

“One is the way people violate the rules for forming the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives,” he wrote. “Instead of adding -er or -est to those words that can take these endings, they just insert ‘more' or ‘most' before everything.

“Rhinos are becoming more rare. New parents could not be more happy.

“Celebrities and politicians do not set a good example. This morning I saw a Michael Douglas interview in which he talked about his most proud achievements.

“Commercials also contribute to the problem. A skin care ad includes a woman talking excitedly about her more clear complexion.”

Well put, Ken.

I suspect part of the reason for this — and I hadn't given much thought to the subject before receiving your note — is some people have trouble pronouncing “rarer” or “clearer.”

I'll admit it's not easy for me.

There is a peanut-butter-on-the-roof-of-my-mouth thing going on.

While this issue only applies comparatives that end with an R sound, it might prompt me while speaking to avoid the superlative.

But that doesn't mean we should cast aside an entire class of words (superlatives) in our writing.

My Grandpa Weinkauf used to tell me, “More better!” when I'd make a good play at cribbage.

I thought for a long time that it was a direct translation from German, because German sometimes clunkily translates to English.

But the positive/comparative/superlative string for “good” in German is gut/besser/am besten, so “more better” doesn't make sense.

But I find it endearing, so I still use it when I play cribbage with my sister, Jenny.

That is, on the rare occasion she makes a good play.

Staff favorites

I receive quite a bit of feedback from people who merely read the paper, so I thought it would be fun to ask those who are the final guardians of the language — members of the Herald copy desk — to tell me about some of the things they find as unpleasant as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Melynda Findlay shared two: using “that” instead of “which;” and false ranges.

Use “that” with essential clauses with no commas.

Use “which” with nonessential clauses with commas.

If you can take out the phrase between the commas in a sentence and the sentence still makes sense, you have yourself an nonessential clause.

“The car which hit me was red” is an example of how not to do it.

“The car, which hit me, was red” is OK but unnecessarily complicated.

“The car that hit me was red” is, well, more better!

Now for false ranges.

“This store has everything from soup to nuts.”

A common sentence. But does it make sense? No.

“What comes between?” Melynda asked. “Chalk? Kittens? Bicycle helmets? That's what I want to know.”

“My car gets from 23 mpg in city traffic to 35 mpg on the highway.”

That is a true range.

“Kids at summer camp are from 6 to 13 years old.”

Also, a legitimate range.

“Amazon Prime members get free shipping on everything from tulip tweezers to elephant shavers.”

First of all, you could have put a period after “shipping” and been done with that sentence. But, really, what are the other things along that range, that spectrum? There is no range. Tulip tweezers have nothing at all to do with elephant shavers.

If you cast something as “everything between” you're liable to run afoul of this rule.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is assistant vice president/managing editor of the Daily Herald. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com. Put Grammar Moses in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.