Tom Angleberger

The New River Valley-based reporter answers your questions Mondays in his column, What's on Your Mind?

Recent columns

• For 'chemtrail' theories, the sky is the limit
• Myriad of factors prompted closure of Lakeside Amusement Park
• Unsold items go from shelves to food banks
• AT bridge in Botetourt was built for more than hikers
• From Mountain Lake to the Mississippi and beyond
• Media likely ignored monument on artistic grounds

Q: What do cows do in a thunderstorm?

-- Bob Copenhaver, Salem

A: I have to apologize if I failed to take this question seriously at first.

It reminded me of the old saw: "Why does a cow lie down when it rains? To keep her spot dry."

However, Steve Graham, the Montgomery County cattleman I queried, disputed even that, telling me: "Cows don't lie down when it rains."

And when thunder and lightning starts, they may continue not lying down.

"Most cows will just stand in the field during a thunderstorm and generally don't get hit by lightning," Graham told me. "But some can go under trees. If lightning strikes the tree, then it will kill the cow."

None of Graham's cows has ever been killed by lightning. Nor had his father's. But he does think that other farmers in the area have seen their cows smote from above while standing under trees.

It is a dangerous place to be. According to the London Daily Telegraph, 53 cows were killed in Uganda last September after making the same fatal choice.

Another bad place to stand during a thunderstorm is near a fence. The Telegraph also reported on a 52-cow disaster from Uruguay. A photo shows a line of carcasses lying along the fence row.

Q: It bothers me when I see "for free." Why not just say "free?" The other thing that irritates me is the expression "very unique."

-- Frances K. Feagans, Roanoke

A: I do love nitpicking, but the problem with it is that the nits we choose to pick aren't always nits.

Of your two nits, neither one is an absolutely ironclad nit. That's not to say that there's nothing to pick at, though.

"For free" is nothing worse than a "casualism," according to The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style.

The Oxford English Dictionary itself goes a little further and calls it "pleonastic." (I had to look this up to find out that it meant overly wordy.)

The former reference work goes so far as to defend it, saying that it is "far too common to be called an error" and "sometimes the syntax all but demands it."

While it is often blamed on Americans, the esteemed British writer Kingsley Amis used it, and if you read his sentence, as quoted in the OED, you'll see he had little choice but to toss in the "for:"

"Bowen tried to buy some drinks, conscious of having been fed and made drunk for free."

Being "made drunk free" wouldn't have made a lick of sense.

As for "very unique," it is "slovenly," states The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style. Noting that the use of such phrases goes back more than 100 years, it notes: "However old it is, the tendency is worth resisting."

But is it really wrong?

Is uniqueness not like infinity or perfection? Something either is unique or it ain't.

But Fowler's Modern English Usage asks: "Is it not at least arguable that a person with three heads is more unique than a person with only two?"

The American Heritage Book of English Usage also fails to nail the coffin shut, admitting that only 80 percent of its panel objected to the use of "quite unique."

"It might be easier to recognize that unique," it states, "has more than one sense and can be modified with grace in certain uses."

Ah, if we could only get more people to choose their words "with grace," I think both Ms. Feagans and myself would be uniquely pleased.

Got a question? Got an answer? Call Tom Angleberger at 777-6476 or send an e-mail to woym@roanoke.com. Don't forget to provide your full name, its proper spelling and your hometown.

Look for Tom Angleberger's column on Mondays.