Hypercorrect follies

Hypercorrection is the fine art of making a mistake by trying too hard not to make one -- traditionally, something like choosing "whom" over "who" because "whom" seems to have so much more grammar in it. Two examples from a Major Southeastern Daily today point up the dangers of choosing the ornate form when the simpler one is correct:

A 12-year-old boy with a rifle, encouraged by his grandfather, shot and killed a hunter whom they thought was a deer, officials said.

Turn the relative clause, "whom they thought was a deer," into a complete sentence and you'll see the problem: "They thought him was a deer." No, them didn't. Make it "a hunter who they thought was a deer."

If the tree were at fault, it would be the second such case in a week in Charlotte.

Use the subjunctive for conditions contrary to fact: "If I were pope, I would excommunicate anyone who writes a 'Christmas came early' hed" (the storied Gus Harwell makes his classes hum "If I Were a Rich Man"). In this case, as long as we're buying into the whole malignant-anthropomorphic-Christmas-tree thing, stick with the indicative: "If the tree was at fault ..."

Figure the next verb out for yourselves.