Protecting this terrifically tanned neck

JUNE CASAGRANDE

Did you know that Hawaii has its own language and that this ancient

language lives on today? You did? Then why didn’t you tell me? You

could have saved me a lot of embarrassment when, on my recent trip, I

answered every “mahalo” with “God bless you.”

I don’t know how I got it into my head that Hawaiian language and

culture had been Mickey Mousified decades ago by our fast-food

mainland culture. I figured that all this aloha and mahalo (thank

you) stuff was the equivalent of wearing mouse ears in the Magic

Kingdom -- just some imagineering-style creation that survives only

to put the “theme” in “theme park.”

Boy, was I wrong. Not only does Hawaiian culture and tradition

live on, but the once-waning language is even making a comeback, or

so my Frommer’s guidebook tells me. But because pretty much everyone

there also speaks English, mainlanders don’t exactly get much

opportunity to practice. So I still can’t do justice to the avalanche

of e-mails I receive every week about whether “keiki” (child) takes

both a singular and plural verb. But I can enjoy having a fabulous

tan while answering reader e-mails about good, old mainland English.

For example, consider this e-mail from a veteran teacher in the

Burbank area.

“Dear June:

“In the last few years of teaching I heard something all the time

that had me asking myself: ‘Where did that come from?’ If I asked a

student why they did a particular thing wrong they would say: ‘Oh

sorry, I did it on accident.’ On accident!!!??? I would expect them

to say: ‘By accident.’ ... Is ‘on accident’ correct or am I crazy and

have I been wrong all my life by saying ‘by accident’? For the first

time in my life I heard a TV news reporter say ‘on accident’ on TV.

That is why I am writing you an e-mail about this subject.”

Dear Veteran Teacher Whose Name I Don’t Know:

As a columnist, it is my job to take positions on issues pertinent

to the topic I cover. The position I take is this: The problem with

grammar today is too many self-appointed grammarians taking too many

half-baked positions. They make up rules, declare them to be law,

write them in books that contradict existing books and thereby

alienate and confuse the rest of us to the point that nobody cares

about grammar anymore.

That, in short, is why this columnist refuses to take a position

on “on accident.”

If I were to take a position, which I’m not, I’d say that “on

accident” is wrong and “by accident” is right. But, if I were to take

a position, someone somewhere would dig into the bowels of some

half-baked grammar or usage book and find a case that justifies “on

accident.”

None of the usage books in my arsenal offer me a leg to stand on.

They’re all mum on the subject.

Our best clues come from the dictionary.

In its definition of “accident,” Webster’s gives the example “by

accident” but not “on accident.”

However, when I look up the word “on,” I see a few definitions

that might leave some wiggle room for a would-be defender of “on

accident.” These definitions of “on” include, “having a basis of or

having its ground in (something specified) [based on her diary, on

purpose],” and “connected with as a part or member [on the faculty]”

and “in the state or condition of [on parole, on fire].”

See them? Plenty of ways for a defender of “on accident” to make

his flimsy case sound valid. Especially because “on purpose” is an

example used in the dictionary.

So you say, “on accident.” I say, “by accident.”

But it’s all akamai kamaaina lomilomi to me.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].