July 9, 2009
I doubt that many people who started on the career path of marketing ever dreamed of the day when they would need to promote a laxative, and it’s not exactly the type of product that’s easy to market. We know what it’s for. We know what it does. We don’t need (or like) to talk about it.
Having said that, I think that Dulcolax could have done better job of separating their fine product from the competition other than saying that the pill is comfort coated.
I have nothing else to say on the topic–other than to say that I’m surprised that you can buy laxatives from Amazon.com.
–Paul
July 6, 2009
The rarely ever grammar goof is really just a hybrid of rarely and hardly ever, which both mean the same thing; thus, together, they create a type of redundancy.
Use either rarely OR hardly ever, not rarely ever.
I rarely ever arrive at work on time. (wrong)
I rarely arrive at work on time. (correct)
I hardly ever arrive at work on time. (correct)
Sherry
July 5, 2009
I always like to say that everyone has at least one pet peeve, and based on the number of comments that we’ve received on the Your Pet Peeves page, I’m obviously right!
We’ve decided to occasionally highlight some of your pet peeves, so here are about 20. Since the first 10 are from the same person, I guess it’s safe to say that many of us have more than just one pet peeve!
- Complaining about colloquialisms on the pet peeves page is a pet peeve of one reader (I will note that these are your pet peeves–they are neither write or wrong, just something that bothers you, so complaining about colloguialisms is not our pet peeve–keep ‘em coming.)
- Pet peeves related to the work place. Those pet peeves included: “as per,”“on a going forward basis,” “touch base,” “shoot me an email,” “send this FYI.”
- Sportscasters saying things like “The Green Bay Packers have perhaps one of the top 4 or 5 passing defenses in the National Football League.”
- Saying “utilize” instead of “use”
- When people use two words that mean the same thing, but make them sound different. For example, “Please specify a due date or deadline for this project.”
- Irregardless, anyways
- Using “proactively” before something to show your enthusiasm.
- Saying things like “In these tough economic times…” or “In these times of violence and hate…”
- Saying “to be honest with you” as if you aren’t normally honest
- Refer back
- Untimely death
- Saying “We wanted it more” in sports (Oh, I hate that, too. Although it’s difficult for fans to imagine, there are times that “their” team loses because they weren’t good enough, not because they didn’t try hard enough.)
- Where is it at? (Did I already post this one earlier? I dont’ remember, but I did write about it.)
- Replacing “thank you” with “have a nice day”
- Using “advises” when it should be “informing”
- The construction “. . . wait, that did happen.”
- Sentences like“I’d love for you to visit me,” “We’re going out for dinner,” and “I love that you painted it green”
- Usaing “notwithstanding” instead of “not-with-standing”
- Saying things like “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” since it’s redundant. There is only one chief justice–the one on the Supreme Court
- Hisself
July 3, 2009
Language and meteorology are intertwined, of course, since communicating the forecast accurately is just about as important as getting the forecast accurate in the first place, and cliches in meteorology are as ineffective (and annoying) as they are in any other field.
For weather cliches related to the Fourth of July, read my Hot as a Firecracker for the Fourth of July post on cloudyand cool.com.
–Paul
July 1, 2009
A reader wrote to us to say that she’s heard, on several occasions, people in the media use the word unorganized when they should have used disorganized.
If something (or someONE) is a mess, thus creating a difficult situation, then it (or HE) is disorganized.
Papers that need to be filed at the county court in 10 minutes shouldn’t be flung up in the air so that they settle back down in a variety of piles on the floor and are picked up in a random fashion; that would make them disorganized (and probably get you a lot of sighing and eye-rolling from the people behind the counter at the courthouse).
If your desk has piles of old papers on top of dry pens and broken staplers, which are next to files that have some of their papers falling out of them, and you can hear your phone but you can’t actually see it, what with the computer cords and last night’s pizza box on top of them, that’s disorganized (not to mention a possible health violation).
If you can never find anything in your purse and always end up getting drenched while you’re looking for your keys on your rainy doorstep, then your purse is disorganized (and you’re giving women a bad name).
Unorganized denotes more of a neutrality, that is, things just aren’t in a particular kind of order. Disorganized denotes an utter, annoying, time-consuming, embarrassing mess.
Sherry
June 29, 2009
A faithful reader sent a comment about how hyphenated plural nouns such as mother-in-laws and sister-in-laws drives her crazy. She actually said that hearing this grammar error sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard, and since we all know how that can make us grind our teeth, I’m ready to jump in there and silence the scraping once and for all.
It’s understandable that making the singular noun mother-in-law into a plural noun would result in many of us making the grammar error mother-in-laws since plurals of nouns are usually made by adding the -s to the END of the word, for example, mothers, hurricanes, aardvarks, and molecules. In this case, however, the plural is made by adding the -s to the FIRST word, not the last. Think of it this way: It’s the mothers, not the laws, that are plural. The correct plural of mother-in-law, then, is mothers-in-law.
The same is true for other hyphenated nouns such as doctors-in-residence, attorneys-at-law, and fathers-in-law.
Sherry
June 25, 2009
I recently wrote a post about the expanding usage of google it (Googled It on Youtube), but now Yellowbook is actively trying to turn the name of its company into a verb by suggesting that people should yellowbook it when online.
I understand why the Yellowbook marketing team suggested this promotion. Yellowbook is often thought of as just a phone book, and they want to develop a stronger online presence. What better way to do that than to draw a parallel to Google–good call.
What I find ironic is that Google doesn’t–the last time I did research, at least–want to have their name turned into a verb since common words can’t be copyrighted. They, not surprisingly, want to hold on to their copyright. Meanwhile, Yellowbook is actively pursuing a transition into verb-ville.
–Paul
June 22, 2009
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. I actually heard someone say “I googled it on Youtube.”
Google, of course, is a search engine, not a verb. If it were a verb, it would most likely mean to search for something on the Google search engine. It would not logically mean to search for something on the Internet since myriad search engines exist, all of which are as deserving as Google to be turned into verbs.
I know. I know. Plenty of people who use yahoo google it rather than yahoo it, which doesn’t make any sense, but at least it’s the same concept–an Internet search.
If you’re someone who thinks that usage equals acceptance in language (and therefore believes that any noun that’s used as a verb instantly becomes a verb), then why would you google it on youtube instead of just youtubing it?
This is a good example of why some people prefer that traditional rules be followed. It’s actually simpler than sorting through arbitrary standards. Or, should I say It’s actually simpler than arbitrarying it?
–Paul
June 20, 2009
While you’ll most likely hear both the number of tornadoes and the number of reports of tornadoes in the media this weekend, these terms are not synonymous. Rather than go into that explanation here, I’ll refer you to the literally, the best weather blog ever (ha!)–mine.
The specific post on cloudyandcool.com is called Tornadoes and Reports of Tornadoes.
–Paul
June 17, 2009
A reader requested the following explanation: “…Perhaps you can tell me what word is used when a part of one word is combined with part of another word to form a whole new word.”
Well, the short answer would have been NEOLOGISM, which certainly would apply since a neologism can be a new word, a new meaning, or a new usage. Paul and I recently did an article for Forbes magazine for a special series on neologisms; we mostly talked about words for which the meanings have shifted rather than actual new creations——–but I digress in the name of self-promotion.
Neologism would be an appropriate general answer, but there’s a more specific answer that I think might apply. It’s called PORTMANTEAU. While a portmanteau was originally——and still is——-a leather bag with two compartments for carrying clothing while traveling, it is also two words that have been combined to make a new word that combines the meanings of both original words. The use of portmanteau in this way can be attributed to Lewis Carroll, who first used it toward the end of the 19th century. Wikipedia has a detailed history of the word portmanteau. For those interested in language, I recommend it.
Sherry
