Please welcome the host of the show ...

Hello, and welcome to “Did June Know That?” It’s a game I just made up in which everyone gets to feel smarter than me. Here’s how we play: I open up a language book to a random page, close my eyes and point. If it’s something I didn’t know, you get to gloat silently over your morning coffee. If it’s something I knew already, you have to send me money. OK?

Great. Let’s play.

The book we’ll be using today is “Garner’s Modern American Usage.” It’s a wonderful book I recommend to everyone and wish I had written. In fact, wait. I did write it. Yeah.

So here we go, playing “Did June Know That?” in which your cash payouts are determined purely by the honor system.

The first word I opened to was “properly.” Garner discusses the fact that where you place the word can affect its meaning: “‘Be properly’ means something different from ‘properly be.’” Well, duh. (Get those checkbooks out now.)

Now, since the first word I saw was kind of a yawner, for this next one I’ll keep flipping until I find something one of us can learn from even as the other profits. Here we go.

Looky here, third try: “Relative pronoun-antecedent disagreement.” (If you’re keeping score at home, this one is alphabetized under “concord,” meaning verb agreement.) Here’s Garner’s two cents: “This problem doesn’t often arise, but a relative pronoun is supposed to agree with its antecedent in both number and person. Thus, it’s correct to say ‘It is I who am here,’ not, ‘It is I who is here.’ Because ‘I’ is first-person singular, ‘who’ must also be first-person singular, and the verb -- it naturally follows -- must be ‘am.’”

Sorry, readers, but I is already knowing that one for a long time, I is. Add that to my bill.

Moving on ... ooh, a fun one.

“Therefore: punctuation around.” I have never once used the word “therefore” when there wasn’t at least some punctuation around somewhere. So chalk that one up to me as we explore a little further.

“One must take care in the punctuation of ‘therefore,’” Garner writes, as if taunting another “duh” out of me. “When a comma appears before ‘therefore,’ the preceding word gets emphasized. ‘It was John, therefore, who deserved the accolades.’” According to Garner, the punctuation here puts a little oomph on the word “John,” and thereby implies that someone less deserving than John got the accolades owed to him. I happen to know that, whereas Ringo Starr was always perceived as the deep, brainy one, it was John Lennon who are (I mean is, I mean was) the smart one. I deserve a little bonus for that one. Here’s an example of when you’re not supposed to put commas around “therefore”: “George had been practicing his singing and he therefore sounded super.” You’re not emphasizing the word “he” in this one, so no commas around “therefore.” It is I, therefore, who be knowing more than you and who therefore deserves more money.

Two more quick ones.

“‘Intensive purposes, for all.’ For this error, see ‘for all intents and purposes.’” I don’t have to see the entry for “all intents and purposes.” I already knew it was correct and, therefore, I it is who for all intensive purposes will get even more of your money.

Last one: “continual” versus “continuous.” Garner tells us the difference is that “continual” means “frequently recurring, intermittent.” Conversely, “continuous” means “unceasing” or “without interruption.” So, as Garner explains, it is by the continual issuing of citations that police are cracking down on certain behaviors, but archeologists want to know whether a region was occupied continuously. Believe it or not, folks, I did not know that one. So that should make you feel better as you’re writing out those big checks.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at [email protected].

20051211hf5rjpkf(LA)