Although Mrs. Language Person was a stellar typist on the click-and-stick machines, her fingers slip on the smaller laptop keyboard. Not-so-thoroughly Modern MLP uses Spellcheck like most computer users, but she mustn't rely. Machines can not think as well as their creators, so far. Hence "the growing problem of grammar and spelling errors," according to Coeur d'Alene High School English teacher Royce Johnson:

"We surmise as the modern writer, copy editor and the like that this is just too much work after having exhausted ourselves in the act of composing the work... If the computer can't catch it, then it must not matter," he said with disapproval.

Mr. Johnson provides us lifelong students with an answer, echoing MLP's desperate desire to foster concern for our eroding language:

"The most effective way to develop proper grammar is to build a strong foundation of knowledge and then apply it to our own writing. So, to all out there (my students get a little tired of me saying this) read the written work aloud and carefully, painstakingly correct all errors before publishing the piece. Do it through ears and eyes, as one was forced to do in the 'good old days.'"

Such an exercise also helps the writer (or speaker) be concise. Case in point: redundancies, a.k.a. pleonasms (Greek for excessive or abundant).

Know where it's at? It's either where or at; you can't have it both ways. Is it absolutely necessary to choose? Is any necessity not absolute; can necessity be partial? Were necessity negotiable, its lack of necessity would be revealed (yes, that's passive voice). Is my perspective somewhat, or very, unique? It can be neither. If it is unique, it is one-of-a-kind and not subject to degree.

When reading aloud as Mr. Johnson recommends, listen carefully for meanings. When it is 8 a.m., need one add "in the morning?" A reservation or planning can not be done after the event, so why add "advance?" Similar problems exist for best ever, these ones, close proximity, each and every, cried tears, earlier in time, harmful injury, and merge/mix/share together (I'd like to see something merge apart).

We see either a pair or twins, but a pair of twins is overkill. Can I place a penny in the palm of my foot (why add "the hand")? Could I circle or is it possible to go around? I "could" not "possibly" do anything other than "circle around."

I may believe or find something credible but both are too incredible to believe. If I can't fall up or rise down, why pair them differently? It's the "exact same" mistake, in my (im)personal opinion.

While more difficult to prevent without bothering to learn meanings, acronyms offer further opportunity for unnecessary words. SAT test, LCD display, ATM machine, HIV virus, and PIN number exemplify repetition of the last word signified by the acronym. More understandable are foreign words, such as chai (which means tea) and Sahara (which means desert). On the other hand, with Google and the Web a few seconds of education would do it. The problem is a lack of curiosity.

There still remain (shudder) many more examples in true fact (I wonder what facts are untrue). Having (improper use of verbs addressed later) sufficiently annoyed readers, I shall cease or desist this edition of MLP; I needn't do both.

Sholeh Patrick is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at sholehjo@hotmail.com.