This article takes us on a journey through the ways language and nature collide, adding color to our conversations and a touch of poetry to everyday expressions. Explore the origins and meanings behind these idioms and navigate the lush landscapes of linguistic creativity together.

Today, we’re lowering our gaze to the ground and looking at idioms that feature mud and grass. We’ll start, appropriately enough, with phrases that include the word ‘seed’, (= the tiny thing from which a plant grows).

If you sow / plant the seeds of something, (often something bad), you cause it to start and develop: The politician was accused of sowing the seeds of hatred and division. When older people stop looking attractive and youthful, people sometimes say (rather unkindly) that they have gone to seed, especially when they look as if they are not taking care of themselves: He plays the part of an ageing, unemployed actor who’s gone to seed.

Following on from the seed, the shoot is the first part of the plant to appear above the ground. You often hear the phrase the green shoots (of recovery), meaning ‘the first signs of improvement in the economy, after a recession’: These figures would suggest that we’re starting to see the green shoots of economic recovery.

While we’re thinking about growth, we say that a situation or place is fertile ground for something when it tends to produce a lot of it: Dysfunctional families, of course, have long been fertile ground for comedy.

Mud (= wet earth) features in a few nice idioms. If something is difficult to understand, you might say, humorously, that it’s as clear as mud: The law on this is as clear as mud. Someone whose name is mud is not liked by a group of people who are angry about something that he or she has done: To many in the community, his name is mud. To drag someone’s name through the mud, meanwhile, is to damage their reputation by saying insulting things about them, often unfairly: My name has been dragged through the mud in these courts.

Still looking at the ground, ‘grass’ features in the common saying, The grass is always greener on the other side. This saying refers to the human tendency to believe that other people’s situations are better than our own (even when they’re not): I sometimes look enviously at other people’s careers. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

In British English, if a matter is kicked into the long grass, especially by politicians, it is delayed, often in the hope that people will forget about it: She complained that the issue had been kicked into the long grass.

Finally for grass, someone who is put out to grass is forced to leave their job because they are considered too old: He couldn’t help feeling that he’d been put out to grass.

Pasture (= grass-covered land for cows) features in the idiom greener / new pastures, meaning ‘a new place or activity, offering fresh opportunities’. In British English, the slightly literary phrase pastures new is also used: I’d been in the same job for years and it was time to seek greener pastures. / I hear James is leaving the company for pastures new.

This article takes us on a journey through the ways language and nature collide, adding color to our conversations and a touch of poetry to everyday expressions. Explore the origins and meanings behind these idioms and navigate the lush landscapes of linguistic creativity together.

Today, we’re lowering our gaze to the ground and looking at idioms that feature mud and grass. We’ll start, appropriately enough, with phrases that include the word ‘seed’, (= the tiny thing from which a plant grows).

If you sow / plant the seeds of something, (often something bad), you cause it to start and develop: The politician was accused of sowing the seeds of hatred and division. When older people stop looking attractive and youthful, people sometimes say (rather unkindly) that they have gone to seed, especially when they look as if they are not taking care of themselves: He plays the part of an ageing, unemployed actor who’s gone to seed.

Following on from the seed, the shoot is the first part of the plant to appear above the ground. You often hear the phrase the green shoots (of recovery), meaning ‘the first signs of improvement in the economy, after a recession’: These figures would suggest that we’re starting to see the green shoots of economic recovery.

While we’re thinking about growth, we say that a situation or place is fertile ground for something when it tends to produce a lot of it: Dysfunctional families, of course, have long been fertile ground for comedy.

Mud (= wet earth) features in a few nice idioms. If something is difficult to understand, you might say, humorously, that it’s as clear as mud: The law on this is as clear as mud. Someone whose name is mud is not liked by a group of people who are angry about something that he or she has done: To many in the community, his name is mud. To drag someone’s name through the mud, meanwhile, is to damage their reputation by saying insulting things about them, often unfairly: My name has been dragged through the mud in these courts.

Still looking at the ground, ‘grass’ features in the common saying, The grass is always greener on the other side. This saying refers to the human tendency to believe that other people’s situations are better than our own (even when they’re not): I sometimes look enviously at other people’s careers. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

In British English, if a matter is kicked into the long grass, especially by politicians, it is delayed, often in the hope that people will forget about it: She complained that the issue had been kicked into the long grass.

Finally for grass, someone who is put out to grass is forced to leave their job because they are considered too old: He couldn’t help feeling that he’d been put out to grass.

Pasture (= grass-covered land for cows) features in the idiom greener / new pastures, meaning ‘a new place or activity, offering fresh opportunities’. In British English, the slightly literary phrase pastures new is also used: I’d been in the same job for years and it was time to seek greener pastures. / I hear James is leaving the company for pastures new.

While both techniques, appositives and descriptions, provide additional information about a subject, appositives serve as essential identifiers, often enclosed in commas, that clarify or highlight a noun. In contrast, descriptions offer more general details about a noun without the same level of specificity. This article by by Mark Nichol provides helpful explanations and examples that will help you identify and punctuate them correctly.

It is important for writers to distinguish between appositives and mere descriptions. A noun is said to be in apposition when it is set off from another noun that refers to the same idea. The phrase “set off” is significant, because a pair of commas separate the parenthetical apposition from its referent noun by a pair of commas. A description, however, needs no such bracketing.

For example, take a look at this sentence: “Here’s what the CEO of Chrysler Sergio Marchionne said to his employees in a blog post.” “The CEO of Chrysler” and “Sergio Marchionne” are one and the same — appositive — so one or the other needs to be framed by commas. This can be accomplished in one of several ways:

“Here’s what the CEO of Chrysler, Sergio Marchionne, said to his employees in a blog post.”

“Here’s what Sergio Marchionne, (the) CEO of Chrysler, said to his employees in a blog post.” (The optional the is often omitted in journalistic contexts and retained in more formal writing.)

“Here’s what Sergio Marchionne, Chrysler’s CEO, said to his employees in a blog post.” (This is a less formal variant of the previous two options.)

A description, meanwhile, such as the job title in this case, is followed directly by the name without intervening punctuation, and no comma should follow the name, either: “Here’s what Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said to his employees in a blog post.”

The first sentence in each of the following pairs appeared in a printed or online publication with commas framing the name as if it was an appositive — an error, and a distressingly common one. But notice below the differences between the statements labeled “Description” and the ones marked as “Apposition.” In a description, both the descriptive phrase and the name it applies to are essential; without either one, the sentence is incomplete. However, an apposition, being parenthetical, can be omitted without altering the integrity of the sentence.

Description: “Ex-reservist and current war gamer Mike Brown admits his battle tactics may be a bit too aggressive for a real-life situation.”

Apposition: “Mike Brown, an ex-reservist and current war gamer, admits his battle tactics may be a bit too aggressive for a real-life situation.”

Description: “Kitchen queen Nigella Lawson comes to town, shops, chops, cooks, and raves about our produce.”

Apposition: “Nigella Lawson, the kitchen queen, comes to town, shops, chops, cooks, and raves about our produce.”

Description: “Conservative radio jock Michael Savage gets his own TV show.”

Apposition: “A conservative radio jock, Michael Savage, gets his own TV show.” (The person’s name can come first, as in the previous examples, without a change in meaning, though the focus changes.)

Description: “The San Francisco–based schooner C.A. Thayer begins a $9.6 million overhaul.”

Apposition: “The C.A. Thayer, a San Francisco–based schooner, begins a $9.6 million overhaul.” (If the schooner has already been referenced generically, the sentence should read something like this: “The San Francisco–based schooner, the C.A. Thayer, begins a $9.6 million overhaul.”)

Description: “The Emeryville studio Pixar hopes to cash in on its fish flick.”

Apposition: “The Emeryville studio, Pixar, hopes to cash in on its fish flick.” (If two or more studios, each located in a different city, were previously mentioned, this sentence is correct. Otherwise, something like “Pixar, the Emeryville studio, hopes to cash in on its fish flick” would be appropriate.)

Description: “Bryan Young is editor of the blog Big Shiny Robot.”

Apposition: “Bryan Young is editor of the blog, Big Shiny Robot.” (The comma is necessary to indicate that the blog was already mentioned, but not by name. If not, the comma signals, fallaciously, that Big Shiny Robot is the only blog in existence.)

While both techniques, appositives and descriptions, provide additional information about a subject, appositives serve as essential identifiers, often enclosed in commas, that clarify or highlight a noun. In contrast, descriptions offer more general details about a noun without the same level of specificity. This article by by Mark Nichol provides helpful explanations and examples that will help you identify and punctuate them correctly.

It is important for writers to distinguish between appositives and mere descriptions. A noun is said to be in apposition when it is set off from another noun that refers to the same idea. The phrase “set off” is significant, because a pair of commas separate the parenthetical apposition from its referent noun by a pair of commas. A description, however, needs no such bracketing.

For example, take a look at this sentence: “Here’s what the CEO of Chrysler Sergio Marchionne said to his employees in a blog post.” “The CEO of Chrysler” and “Sergio Marchionne” are one and the same — appositive — so one or the other needs to be framed by commas. This can be accomplished in one of several ways:

“Here’s what the CEO of Chrysler, Sergio Marchionne, said to his employees in a blog post.”

“Here’s what Sergio Marchionne, (the) CEO of Chrysler, said to his employees in a blog post.” (The optional the is often omitted in journalistic contexts and retained in more formal writing.)

“Here’s what Sergio Marchionne, Chrysler’s CEO, said to his employees in a blog post.” (This is a less formal variant of the previous two options.)

A description, meanwhile, such as the job title in this case, is followed directly by the name without intervening punctuation, and no comma should follow the name, either: “Here’s what Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said to his employees in a blog post.”

The first sentence in each of the following pairs appeared in a printed or online publication with commas framing the name as if it was an appositive — an error, and a distressingly common one. But notice below the differences between the statements labeled “Description” and the ones marked as “Apposition.” In a description, both the descriptive phrase and the name it applies to are essential; without either one, the sentence is incomplete. However, an apposition, being parenthetical, can be omitted without altering the integrity of the sentence.

Description: “Ex-reservist and current war gamer Mike Brown admits his battle tactics may be a bit too aggressive for a real-life situation.”

Apposition: “Mike Brown, an ex-reservist and current war gamer, admits his battle tactics may be a bit too aggressive for a real-life situation.”

Description: “Kitchen queen Nigella Lawson comes to town, shops, chops, cooks, and raves about our produce.”

Apposition: “Nigella Lawson, the kitchen queen, comes to town, shops, chops, cooks, and raves about our produce.”

Description: “Conservative radio jock Michael Savage gets his own TV show.”

Apposition: “A conservative radio jock, Michael Savage, gets his own TV show.” (The person’s name can come first, as in the previous examples, without a change in meaning, though the focus changes.)

Description: “The San Francisco–based schooner C.A. Thayer begins a $9.6 million overhaul.”

Apposition: “The C.A. Thayer, a San Francisco–based schooner, begins a $9.6 million overhaul.” (If the schooner has already been referenced generically, the sentence should read something like this: “The San Francisco–based schooner, the C.A. Thayer, begins a $9.6 million overhaul.”)

Description: “The Emeryville studio Pixar hopes to cash in on its fish flick.”

Apposition: “The Emeryville studio, Pixar, hopes to cash in on its fish flick.” (If two or more studios, each located in a different city, were previously mentioned, this sentence is correct. Otherwise, something like “Pixar, the Emeryville studio, hopes to cash in on its fish flick” would be appropriate.)

Description: “Bryan Young is editor of the blog Big Shiny Robot.”

Apposition: “Bryan Young is editor of the blog, Big Shiny Robot.” (The comma is necessary to indicate that the blog was already mentioned, but not by name. If not, the comma signals, fallaciously, that Big Shiny Robot is the only blog in existence.)

This is a comma use that comes up very frequently when transcribing Oral Histories, as cities and locations in general hold significant sway over people’s narratives. This CMOS article clarifies whether the widely-installed comma between city and state is always necessary and discusses some interesting considerations to keep in mind.

The comma between city and state—or, following the same principle, between city and province or city and country—is so thoroughly inscribed in the written record that most editors don’t give it a second thought.

But what, exactly, is that comma doing? And is it always necessary, no matter the context?

An Organizing Comma

The comma separating the name of a city from the name of a state or other region is, first and foremost, an organizing comma. It allows readers to distinguish the two entities as belonging to different categories:

Chicago, Illinois
London, Ontario
London, England

That’s one of the roles played by this comma, but there’s a second principle at work.

An Abbreviated Relative Clause

When a comma sets off a state or province or country from a city, it introduces an abbreviated relative clause. Here’s how that works:

I live in Chicago, Illinois.

is equivalent to

I live in Chicago, in Illinois.

or, stated more fully,

I live in Chicago, which is in Illinois.

The relative clause as spelled out in that last example—“which is in Illinois”—is nonrestrictive, or parenthetical. A parenthetical relative clause is set off with a comma (or two in the middle of a sentence) and introduced by the relative pronoun “which” (or a form of “who,” as when referring to a person rather than a city; see CMOS 6.27).

The clause is parenthetical because the information it provides is optional; specifically, you don’t need it to identify the noun to which it refers. And if I say I live in Chicago, you should know where that is. The name of the state (Illinois) may help some readers, but it isn’t essential.*

Parenthetical or Essential?

Chicago, however, is unique (or very nearly so). For many other cities, the name of the state might be restrictive, or essential.

For example, if I said I visited Portland, would you know what I’m talking about?

If you knew somehow that my visit coincided with the coast of New England in the United States, then you’d probably know what I meant. Without sufficient context, however, the identity of Portland would be in doubt. I could be referring to Portland Maine or Portland Oregon, among other Portlands.

As an editor following Chicago or practically any other style, however, I would be obliged to go back and add three commas—of the organizing kind—to that last sentence (see CMOS 6.39 and 10.29):

I could be referring to Portland, Maine, or Portland, Oregon, among other Portlands.

Those commas—all three of them (or four, if you count the one after “Oregon,” which, if it weren’t busy setting off the prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence, might still be required)—are not only cumbersome (they risk appearing at first to set up a series rather than a pair of alternatives), but they break the rule that says not to use commas with essential relative clauses.

Here’s how that works in this case:

I could be referring to Portland Maine or Portland Oregon, among other Portlands.

is equivalent to

I could be referring to the Portland in Maine or the Portland in Oregon, among other Portlands.

or, stated more fully,

I could be referring to the Portland that is in Maine or the Portland that is in Oregon, among other Portlands.

Essential relative clauses, including the two in that last example, typically begin with “that” (though “which” is common in British English, and a form of “who” may be used when the reference is to a person), and they’re not set off with commas.

Unlike parenthetical relative clauses, an essential relative clause can’t be deleted without obscuring the identity of the noun to which it refers. Try it: “I could be referring to Portland or Portland, among other Portlands.” Without the state names, that sentence doesn’t make any sense.

Possessive Avoidance

There are lots of potential Portlands, from London, Ontario, and London, England, to Duluth, Minnesota, and Duluth, Georgia. If a city has a name, chances are good it’s not the only city with that name.

So what’s wrong with leaving out the comma? Not only is there no ambiguity in a reference to Miami Florida or Paris Texas, but omitting the comma would spare us from some awkward constructions, chief among them the possessive: Miami Florida’s skyline is a lot easier to like than Miami, Florida’s, skyline—or, if you prefer, Miami, Florida’s skyline.

If it were up to me, the comma would be optional for just that reason. But it’s not, so I follow Chicago’s advice to rewrite as needed to avoid the possessive (e.g., “the Miami, Florida, skyline” or “the skyline of Miami, Florida”; see also CMOS 6.43 and 6.44).

Another Loophole, or Maybe Two

There is, however, a third principle at work here. A city and state are like the first and last names of a person. A surname isn’t a state, but it does name a family, and a person could be said to belong to a family just as a city belongs to a state. So why not Bob Dylan from Duluth Minnesota?

And one more: If the comma’s organizing role is so important, then certainly it could be dropped when referring to Duluth, MN, or London, ON, or London, UK. Those two-letter abbreviations in all caps clearly belong to a different category from the spelled-out cities, without any help from the commas.

Back to Reality

It would be wrong to leave out the well-established “City, State” comma in formally edited prose. Readers have come to expect that comma, so its absence would be more of a distraction than its presence. Not that I wouldn’t be prepared to make an exception for two cities with the same name mentioned in an either-or scenario (as in the Portland/Portland example). But that’s a special case.

When the state or province or country is abbreviated, on the other hand, commas can seem like overkill. You’d think they could simply be omitted, as Chicago and others decided to do decades ago with Jr. and Sr. in people’s names, a roughly parallel scenario. But don’t worry, that’s not about to happen—not unless you count the style long preferred by the US Postal Service for addresses on mailing labels.