Breaking Muphrys Law

Breaking Muphrys Law Breaking Muphry’s Law Breaking Muphry’s Law By Mark Nichol A recent newspaper blog post about a typographical error on Mitt Romney’s iPhone â€Å"With Mitt† app it refers to â€Å"A Better Amercia† inevitably succumbed to Muphry’s law, which states that any criticism of a writing or editing error will itself contain such an error. After commenting on the mistake, the blogger referred to the microblogging site Tumblr, writing, â€Å"And there’s already a Tumblr [page] for this with people goofing on the slip-up†¦.or what that be a Tumbeler?† That final phrase (which also reveals that the blogger obviously didn’t read my post about ellipses), should read, â€Å"or would that be a Tumbeler?† (If you want to ruin a joke that features a deliberate typographical error, there’s nothing better than immediately preceding it with an accidental typo.) The adage the blogger’s boo-boo upholds is also known, with variations, as McKean’s law, after lexicographer Erin McKean; Skitt’s law, named for an alt.usage.english contributor; and Hartman’s Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation, the grandiloquent nomenclature of technical writer and fiction writer and editor Jed Hartman. A blogger with the handle Zeno called it the Iron Law of Nitpicking, a better label, perhaps, as it does not credit a particular person, but Muphry’s law (which only indirectly refers to a specific source) is of course the most appropriate moniker. An Australian editor named John Bangsund explicated the law as follows in 1992: (a) If you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written; (b) If an author thanks you in a book for your editing or proofreading, there will be mistakes in the book; (c) The stronger the sentiment expressed in (a) and (b), the greater the fault; (d) Any book devoted to editing or style will be internally inconsistent. The oldest known statement along these lines, however, is one from early twentieth-century writer Ambrose Bierce (best known for his caustically misanthropic Devil’s Dictionary), who in 1909 wrote in a writing handbook, â€Å"Writers all, both great and small, are habitual sinners against the light; and their accuser is cheerfully aware that his own work will supply (as in making this book it has supplied) many ‘awful examples.’† The moral of the story one I disregard by writing this post, which according to Muphry’s law should be rewarded by divine retribution in the form of commenters pointing out some error I’ve introduced is, â€Å"Writers in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.† Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Writing Basics category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:50 Redundant Phrases to Avoid11 Writing Exercises to Inspire You and Strengthen Your WritingHow to Style Titles of Print and Online Publications