Grammar Moses: Why 'just between us' doesn't really include us

If I can use a sports analogy to make a point about grammar, you can count on me to do so.

Remember poor Cody Parkey, the Chicago Bears kicker who looked more like a piano tuner against the Lions when he banged four kicks (for two points after touchdowns and two field goals) off the uprights?

Just let that visual sink in ... and there it is.

Poor Parkey, whose extra practice set him on a more accurate course the next week, showed us the difference between "between this and that" and "from this to that."

To score points with his foot, Parkey needs to kick the ball between the uprights - that is at the exclusion of the goal posts. On that Sunday, he failed to do so, without once getting a lucky bounce.

Take this analogy off the football field and into a realm everyone can understand: When you say you have between 900 and 1,000 Facebook friends, you have neither 900 nor 1,000. You might have 901 up to and including 999 friends (about 30 of whom are actual friends, I'd wager). In this case, 900 and 1,000 are the goal posts.

What you should say is you have from 900 to 1,000 Facebook friends. That range includes the two ends.

We originally wrote a lede on a court story about a man who faces "between eight and 35 years" in prison.

That suggests his sentence could be anything more than eight years or fewer than 35 years, excluding eight and 35.

We changed it to "from eight to 35 years."

Giving credit ...

I received a news release from a suburban police department that described a bomb threat as "not creditable."

I wouldn't expect a police department to applaud the efforts of a bomb threat maker, but I likewise wouldn't expect a ho-hum review, either.

Something that is creditable is worthy of a measure of praise but something short of a rave. A pubescent 13-year-old's attempt at a "Figaro" aria might be termed "creditable," because you just don't want to be mean to a 13-year-old who is trying to pull off a baritone.

A journeyman's work is creditable.

The word the department should have used is "credible," which means believable.

She is piqued

I wrote recently about how to distinguish "peaked" and "piqued."

"Your sentence, 'While driving past the theater, his interest was peaked by the crowd on the sidewalk,'" wrote Susan Adamowski, "you didn't even mention the more grievous error than the peaked/piqued one. Was 'his interest' really 'driving past the theater'? I was positive you were going to comment on this after the 'peaked' thing, and then you didn't."

Fair enough, Susan. I shouldn't have let that pass. The subject of the sentence comes after the subordinate clause. So the subject of the sentence would be "his interest." And that was not the writer's intent.

There are a few better ways to convey that thought, the closest to the original being: "While driving past the theater, he became interested in the people in the sidewalk."

With that you even correct the homophone problem.

Secret message

Did you find my secret holiday message in the Dec. 23 column?

I know from some email I received that some of you did, even if it was a week later.

If you didn't get it, I'm not going to spill it here and spoil the fun. Just go back and write down the first letter of each paragraph to discover it yourself. I smell a surge in web hits!

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is 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.