Kim Siever’s Blog

One of the most common grammatical errors I see on the web is faulty parallelism. I assume most writers are not even aware of the error. Faulty parallelism exists when two potentially related actions differ in structure. Let me illustrate.

I enjoy reading books, going for walks, and photography.

In this sentence, we read three items the subject enjoys.

• Reading books
• Going for walks
• Photography

You probably noticed the difference between the first two and the last one, the last one being a noun and the others being specific actions.

To make this a better sentence, we would structure all three hobbies similarly. Here is one way we could be rewrite this sentence.

I enjoy reading books, going for walks, and taking photographs.

This idea does not apply to just lists, however.

Jon not only cancelled the meeting, but also he was skipping out on work.

Here, the correlative conjunction of “not only . . . but also” requires parallel forms for the thoughts it joins. The first thought uses the simple past tense while the second thought uses the past progressive tense. Since we use the past progressive tense to describe events that were just about to occur when a new event happened, we should rewrite the sentence as follows:

Jon not only cancelled the meeting, but also he skipped out on work.

If the past progressive tense is important to keep, you could also rewrite it without the correlative conjunction.

Jon was planning to skip out of work when he cancelled the meeting.

Of all the common grammatical errors, faulty parallelism is probably one of the easiest to correct.

Now that the IOC has shortlisted the candidate cities to host the 2014, I thought it was time to review the logos as I did for the 2012 logos. My job this time around is easier since the committee cut four applicant cities from the shortlist. Unfortunately, I’m not that impressed by any of the logos of the three candidates.

First one is PyeongChang, South Korea. What I do like is the inclusion of the Olympic colours in the logo and the treatment to show motion in a left to right direction (implying forward movement). But it ends there. I understand the connection between the brush strokes and art of the Far east; however, I didn’t like the painting style in the Paris 2012 logo, and I don’t like it here. In fact, that leads me into the next logo.

Salzburg, Austria, also went with a logo that looks drawn. It also doesn’t include the Olympic colours. The colours of the Olympic rings represent the colours in the flags of participant countries; every flag has at least one of those colours in it. By not including all the colours, it suggests exclusivity. I guess they get around this by using continents in the centre of the logo. That, I suppose, is a bit more ingenious than simply using the colours. I prefer logos that include all the colours, however. Another thing going for this logo is how it represents both fireworks (celebration) and a flower (Austria’s national symbol). Granted the edelweiss isn’t blue and yellow.

Finally, Sochi, Russia. One of the things that makes this logo stand out from the other two is it’s sharp clean lines. I also like the symbol treatment trying to represent a star and a snowflake at the same time; although, snowflakes have six points, so it seems a bit awkward. Beyond those points, however, it lacks any sort of punch. Again, it doesn’t include all of the Olympic colours. In fact, I see nothing that represents inclusiveness in this logo at all. And what’s with the sales-growth-chart look? I suppose it’s supposed to represent mountains or something, but it’s lost on me.

I guess if I had to choose my favourite, I would have to pick Salzburg. It’s probably the most imaginative of the three. But calling it my favourite may imply I adore it. And I don’t.