For the mothers among us

OK. I can't take it anymore, by which I mean use of the term "mother load" or, even worse, "motherload." Let's get it right. A lode is a vein of metal ore, such as gold or silver. A mother lode is a great big vein of such an ore, a vein that might feed other, smaller lodes. When they'd had a huge strike, the California gold rush miners--the'49ers--often said they'd "hit the mother lode."

People who don't know the difference, however, write about the mother load.

Folks, the only mother load I know about is a fetus. And if you hit that mother load, that mother is going to call a cop. Consider this your first warning.

Beware the almost-right word

When I can't sleep, I sometimes check out the long-form commercials we dress up with the term "infomercial." Of course, advertisers who invest in these expensive commercials try to put their products in the best possible light, and that's fine. But sometimes the people they hire to write the ads decide that the correct word for the context just isn't showy enough. They want a substitute. Something fancier or more sophisticated. That's okay, but it's best if the copywriter knows that words that are similar don't necessarily mean the same thing. Choosing the wrong word can make an ad sound stupid rather than upscale.

The best example I've seen lately comes from a product I can't even remember because I was laughing so hard at the substitute word the copywriter thought was more elegant than the correct one. The commercial said,"If you are missing the restive sleep you need, we can help."

Unfortunately, by substituting the word restive for the correct word--restful--the copywriter really screwed up and undercut the client's message. Restful, of course, means tranquil, giving rest, or a feeling of rest.

Restive, which the copywriter would have discovered had he or she bothered to look it up, means restless, impatient, or difficult to control. So if you're not awake enough already, go ahead and try the product. It's guaranteed to keep you up all night, tossing and turning and feeling out of whack.

Somehow I don't think that's what the advertiser had in mind when he hired an ad agency to tout his sleeping aid. Because the copywriter was too lazy to do the job, the client poured money down a rathole. Too bad.

Closed captioning 2

After the last post, I found another lovely misuse on a caption. This one occurs a great deal in speech as well, so I thought I'd bring it up. You'll find it in the confused word pairs section of my book Talking Your Way to the Top.

Desperate Housewives voiceover caption: "What she didn't know was that the Calvary was on the way."

I don't think so. Let's look at the words being confused here: Calvary and cavalry.

Calvary is the place where Jesus was crucified.

Cavalry means troops that fight on horseback or in armored vehicles.

Usually it's the cavalry that rides to the rescue, not the Calvary. That place hasn't moved in millennia.

Because I was reading the caption and not listening to the voiceover, I'm not sure what was said, but I'd put down money that the reader got it right and the caption writer was the one who didn't know the difference. But someone in production should have been watching. Oversight seems to be lacking in the caption world.

Have to love closed captioning

Last night, as I was I was "reading" my TV to keep from wakening other members of the household, I saw an interesting ad caption. The product advertised was Nyquil. Three rather doltish characters were discussing another person's symptoms, which the caption indicated might be a result of his having "hoof in mouth disease."

This is a public announcement to the makers of Nyquil. If you're going to caption your ads, which you should, you also should make sure the captions are correct. There is no such disease as "hoof in mouth," unless a cloven-hooved animal has made a significant oral faux pas. Although humans may certainly have "foot in mouth" disease, animals have hoof and mouth disease.

And, by the way, hand-foot-and-mouth disease, which is common in children and not serious, is not related to hoof and mouth disease, which occurs in animals and can be fatal.

So, Nyquil folks, take your feet out of your mouths and fix the caption.

Write it right or don't write it at all

A few months ago, I wrote a post on the perils of using foreign phrases you don't understand (or may understand, but don't know how to spell). I found a beaut of an example on a Web site. The blogger wrote that someone had that certain "gene sa qua."

I believe she meant "je ne sais quoi," the French phrase meaning "I don't know what," and usually understood to mean an indefinable positive quality.

The usage was correct, but the writer didn't take the time to look it up and made herself look silly.

Online dictionaries make the task of choosing the right phrase quick and easy. Be memorable, not laughable.

Hooray for our British cousins

Last Friday, the Local Government Association in Great Britain told British civil servants to banish the buzzwords. One hundred words, including stakeholders, synergies, coterminosity, revenue stream, and empowerment, should be excised, the Association says.

Well, hallelujah! May I suggest that American business take a leaf from this book and immediately banish leverage, paradigm shift, planful, impactful, point in time, presenteeism, repurpose, radar screen, off-peopling, low-hanging fruit, messaging, mission critical, granularity, human capital, enterprise, drive and driver, bandwidth, actionable (except in its legal sense), at the end of the day, skill set, seamless, value proposition, value add, and many more. If we can stop wasting our time thinking up meaningless, self-conscious "business" phrases, perhaps we can back to doing actual business.

A past tense confusion

Last week, I listened to the US ambassador to Zimbabwe discuss the deteriorating political scene in that country. He said that one of the embassy employees, a native of Zimbabwe, had been "drug from his car and beaten."

Of course, the most important aspect of this report was the description of lawlessness that has gripped the country. However, the ambassador needs to learn that the past tense of the word drag is dragged, not drug.

Drug is a noun meaning a medication or substance that affects the nervous system in various ways. It's never a verb. Although sometimes heard in colloquial speech, using drug this way can make you sound like a rube--and I'd expect more precise speech from one of our ambassadors. English is supposedly our national language, so our representatives should speak it well.

Scott McClellan's mistake

And I don't mean being press secretary to George Bush. I mean what I heard him say this morning while being interviewed about his new book What Happened. When speaking of President Bush, McClellan mentioned the great respect he held "for he [Bush] and his advisors."

No, Scott. For is a preposition. Correct usage dictates a prepositional object: "for him and his advisors." I don't think you ever would have said you had great respect for he, so, as I just said in a blog post a few days ago (which I guess you didn't read), if you wouldn't say it in the singular, don't say it in the plural either.

Is this mistake up there with some of the doozies of the past few years? Of course not, but it's the kind of error a former White House press secretary shouldn't make.

"Lay" and "lie." Why is this so hard?

I've resisted writing this post for a long time, but when I heard a colleague say that she had "lied in the sun," and she didn't mean she was outside telling an untruth, I figured it was time. This word pair is the one that is most often messed up, and myths abound about which is right and in what context.

I recently heard a radio call-in argument about the subject, and the host obviously had no idea which was correct. When a caller said that "things lay and people lie," the host said that was good enough for him and closed the discussion. How unfortunate that the caller was wrong. Things lie all the time. And people lay things. So let's start at the top.

Lay means "to put or place on a surface" and always requires an object--something put or placed. For example:

• I'll lay these reports (object) on the credenza in your office.
• When you've finished, lay your test booklets (object) in the box by the door.

If you use lay, you have to lay something. That's why, "I'm going to lay down for a while" is incorrect. There's nothing put or placed. However, "Now I lay me down to sleep" is correct because there's an object: me. However, in most cases we don't say, "I'm going to lay myself down," so lie is the correct word.

Lie means "to recline" or "to be positioned," and it doesn't take an object.

• Sue has to lie down in a dark room when she has a migraine.
• At this time of day, the sun lies just below the horizon.

When you want to talk about what happened in the past, the proper words are laid and lay.

• I laid the sweater (object) on the chair a couple of hours ago.
• Joe laid the report (object) on my credenza last week, but I can't find it.
• Sue lay down until her headache went away.
• The reports lay on the credenza for a month before anyone got around to reading them.

And the past participle (don't worry about the name; this isn't a grammar test) of these two words are laid and lain.

• I've laid the reports (object) on your credenza.
• I'd lain down for only a couple of minutes when the phone rang.

The present participle forms (the -ing form) are laying and lying.

• I'm laying tile (object) this morning.
• Don't call after noon. I'll be lying down. Tile work is exhausting.

The same rules apply to set/sit and raise/rise.

Set and raise always require an object. Sit and rise never have an object. For some reason, people don't have quite as much difficulty with these two as they do with lay/lie, although in my neck of the woods, I often hear, "Set down and make yourself comfortable." Here's how to use these word pairs.

• Please set the plant (object) in the corner.
• Please sit down.
• We'll raise the flag (object) at dawn.
• Please rise for the national anthem.

Because these words are misused so often, saying and writing them correctly may feel odd at first. Persevere. It's OK to be right.

The reign in Spain

There's an interesting car commercial running now. It states that "Joan of Arc reigned only five years." Really? I was unaware she ever reigned. As a matter of fact, Joan's fondest desire was to put someone else on the throne. There's no doubt that Joan had a significant influence on the course of history, but she wasn't a sovereign, and she didn't reign.

Recently, I saw a similar use of this verb in the context of a college president's "reign" over the campus. I know academic regalia is cool, but it generally doesn't confer royal power. That's why college presidents are installed during an inauguration rather than a coronation.

English is a language of subtleties, and, to me, "reign" as a verb has the connotation of kingly (or queenly) rule. As an adjective, though, "reigning" often has the opposite connotation, meaning commonplace or popular, as in the "reigning" opinion or fashion of a particular time.

One more thing to remember is the spelling of reign v. rein. A "rein" is part of a bridle, used to hold a horse in check. However, I can't tell you how many times in the past few weeks I've seen the phrase "to reign him/her/it in." The right word in that context is "rein" because it means to exercise control over something or someone.

And don't forget to take your umbrella when it reigns.

A pair of troublesome word pairs

It seems I'm picking on professors lately. That's not my intent, but they're interviewed a lot on public radio, which I listen to during my half-hour commute to work. I heard a gaffe from one recently that surprised me; since then, though, I've heard it several more times (it's funny how these things seem to come in waves). The professor was talking about the weather and referred to "climactic" conditions.

Sorry, professor, but thanks for playing. The word he was looking for was "climatic," which means pertaining to climate. "Climactic" would, of course, mean pertaining to a climax. For example:

• The environmentalists were concerned about several recent climatic changes.
• John was late and missed the climactic moment of the play.

And one more. Could we please, please distinguish between "serve" and "service"?

"To serve" means to meet the needs of another, such as a customer.

"To service" means to maintain. It also can mean to bring a stud to a female for breeding.

So whenever I hear, "We service our customers, " I wonder if perhaps the company might be going a bit too far. A simple handshake is probably all that's necessary.

I guess someone thought that "serve" was too pedestrian and "service" more high-toned and elegant. But, in fact, "serve" serves just fine.