As of today, I'm writing two blogs. The newer one, The Grammar Granny (http://grammargranny.blogspot.com), will deal with grammar and usage issues I've sometimes covered in this space. This blog now will be devoted to issues about writing, publishing, the state of English today, and other more philosophical topics. I'll still throw in those goofy turns of phrase I hear so often, but if it's straight grammar and usage that interest you, try The Grammar Granny.
Hope to see and hear from you in both places.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
A laugh ... sort of
A little vacation, a busy time at work, and before you know it, a month has gone by. So I thought I'd ease my way back into the blog world with a marvelous example of fractured English I found this morning. A local school official was talking about the caliber of students who are attending a new science and technology-related school. As he put it, "There's some evidence to suggest there that we weren't creaming off the crop." (Italics mine)
Could the good administrator mean that the school isn't attracting the cream of the crop? I think so, but it might have been best for him to say so.
Earlier this week, my eye was drawn to a communicators' Web site on which the subhead for a story mentioned a contributor's "pension for anger." I didn't know pensions were available for unattractive states of mind. I'm happy to say that the next day, the headline had been rewritten with the offending word--pension--replaced with penchant, which serves the purpose much better.
Could the good administrator mean that the school isn't attracting the cream of the crop? I think so, but it might have been best for him to say so.
Earlier this week, my eye was drawn to a communicators' Web site on which the subhead for a story mentioned a contributor's "pension for anger." I didn't know pensions were available for unattractive states of mind. I'm happy to say that the next day, the headline had been rewritten with the offending word--pension--replaced with penchant, which serves the purpose much better.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Bated v. baited
If you mean you're waiting with great nervousness or trepidation for news, please write the word "bated." It's a cousin of the word "abated," which means "lessened. " So "bated breath" means that you have less breath; you're holding your breath with anxiety or tension.
In this context, if you write "baited breath," I'm going to assume you have a worm on your tongue. And wonder why.
Obviously, this word pair isn't a problem in speaking, since the two words are pronounced the same way, but in writing, getting it wrong can make you look not so smart.
In this context, if you write "baited breath," I'm going to assume you have a worm on your tongue. And wonder why.
Obviously, this word pair isn't a problem in speaking, since the two words are pronounced the same way, but in writing, getting it wrong can make you look not so smart.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Political correctness hits new heights of idiocy
In my last post, I didn't mention one of the British towns that the Local Government Association chastised for their substitution of the phrase "idea shower" for the word "brainstorm." The members of the town council had decreed the new phrase because they felt that people with epilepsy might be offended by the term "brainstorm." Strange to say, when members of the area Epilepsy Association finally were asked for their opinions, they stated that "brainstorm" didn't bother them at all.
It's good to be sensitive, but it's always best to go to the source if you don't know what to say. That's what happened years ago when we were unsure about the word "handicapped." When associations that served that population were asked what to do, they came up with what they called "people first" language, that is "people with a disability." Years and years ago, the first association that served those with cerebral palsy said that they perferred "affected by" rather than "afflicted with" cerebral palsy.
Yesterday on campus I heard a middle school student who was attending a camp there refer in all seriousness to a young man she was working with as "vertically challenged." He was shorter than she by far, but I noticed there was no word for her "condition." Is she "vertically superior?" "Vertically enhanced"? He's short. She's tall. That happens in middle school. Kids know it. They may be uncomfortable about it, but we don't have to wrap them in cotton and speak in code about a simple fact.
Could we just use common sense? Of course, we want to call people what they want to be called, but fashions wax and wane, and not everyone prefers the same term. If you don't know, ask the person what he or she would like. Does she prefer "African American" or "black"? Does he mind if you refer to him as a "diabetic" or would he rather you say, "My friend has diabetes"?
We have become so afraid of offending one another that we often avoid meaningful discourse altogether. As I read about George Carlin's death--the man who noticed that in his lifetime "toilet paper" had become "bathroom tissue" -- I thought about what a field day he would have with "idea shower." He certainly had a wonderful ability to skewer the whole PC parade, and I hope that in his memory, we might all become more linguistically honest.
It's good to be sensitive, but it's always best to go to the source if you don't know what to say. That's what happened years ago when we were unsure about the word "handicapped." When associations that served that population were asked what to do, they came up with what they called "people first" language, that is "people with a disability." Years and years ago, the first association that served those with cerebral palsy said that they perferred "affected by" rather than "afflicted with" cerebral palsy.
Yesterday on campus I heard a middle school student who was attending a camp there refer in all seriousness to a young man she was working with as "vertically challenged." He was shorter than she by far, but I noticed there was no word for her "condition." Is she "vertically superior?" "Vertically enhanced"? He's short. She's tall. That happens in middle school. Kids know it. They may be uncomfortable about it, but we don't have to wrap them in cotton and speak in code about a simple fact.
Could we just use common sense? Of course, we want to call people what they want to be called, but fashions wax and wane, and not everyone prefers the same term. If you don't know, ask the person what he or she would like. Does she prefer "African American" or "black"? Does he mind if you refer to him as a "diabetic" or would he rather you say, "My friend has diabetes"?
We have become so afraid of offending one another that we often avoid meaningful discourse altogether. As I read about George Carlin's death--the man who noticed that in his lifetime "toilet paper" had become "bathroom tissue" -- I thought about what a field day he would have with "idea shower." He certainly had a wonderful ability to skewer the whole PC parade, and I hope that in his memory, we might all become more linguistically honest.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)