Everything Language and Grammar

Archive for February, 2009

Scratch and Dent Sale

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 27, 2009

Language and marketing are inseparable since the key to effective marketing is effective communication, and with that in mind, I’d like to mention that I’m troubled by the frequency of scratch and dent sales that take place at a local appliance store.

It’s troubling that they feel they need to draw people in by giving lower prices for items that are not in perfect condition (although the “dented” washer I bought 12 years ago continues to work wonderfully) rather than because of their good service, quality products, and competitive prices. It’s a great store; they shouldn’t have to resort to a “come and buy our imperfect merchandise” marketing scheme several times each year.

What I’m more concerned about, though, is what’s going on in their warehouse. Why are so many appliances dented? Is the appliance industry in such bad shape that they also use the warehouse as a training ground for professional wrestlers? Are the appliances stored under a big tent next to the golf course? Don’t they know that they could call the references listed on employee resumes to find out if the would-be employee has a history of dropping, kicking, or otherwise abusing household appliances?

I guess I shouldn’t concern myself with that—-my 12-year-old washer isn’t going to last forever, and it’s nice to know that I can get a good deal.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, humor, language | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Symbols of Patriotism, Obama Address to Congress

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 26, 2009

With all due respect to EF Hutton, when President Obama speaks, people listen–well, most people. I didn’t listen to the entire Obama address to Congress; however, I heard an important part of the speech–one that made a fascinating statement about our language and symbols of patriotism.

Surprisingly, perhaps, this post is not about Obama’s much-heralded oratory skills. It’s about how viewers reacted to statements about patriotism.

MSNBC included a real-time gauge of reactions to Obama’s speech by both McCain (remember him–he’s the old, grouchy guy that used to be on tv all the time) and Obama voters. It was displayed in the form of a red line for people who voted for McCain and a blue line for people who voted for Obama. The lines would immediately rise and fall to indicate approval or disapproval.

When I first tuned in, both lines indicated high approval, with the blue line (not surprisingly) slightly higher than the red line. I was startled when the lines temporarily switched places during a part about everyone loving the country and wanting it to succeed. Both numbers were still indicative of high approval, but the McCain voters reacted with slightly more approval than the Obama voters. I didn’t remember exactly what was said, so I reviewed the transcript today.

“There are surely times in the future when we will part ways, but I also know that every American sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed.”

I’d like to think that the slight decrease in approval among Obama voters (and slight increase in approval among McCain voters) was a Democratic party reaction to Obama using the wrong tense–it should have been “there will surely be times” instead of “there are surely times,” but the likelihood of that is as great as the likelihood that we’ll stop referring to problems as “issues” starting tomorrow.

Maybe it was a reaction to statement of political disagreement (“we will part ways”), but I doubt it. If that had been the case, then both sides would’ve reacted more negatively; however, the scale seemed to have indicated that McCain voters liked the line more than the preceding part of the speech, while Obama voters liked it less than the preceding part.

That leaves me to draw one conclusion:  It was a reaction to how we have politicized the language of patriotism in this country.

Republicans have laid claims on linguistic symbols of patriotism, such as “loving the country,” to the point that Democrats react somewhat negatively toward the words, while Republicans react favorably. Democrats are not reacting negatively toward the sentiment (Republicans do not love the country more than Democrats–please), but there is some slight negative connotation associated with the words that the Republicans use to represent themselves–Republican branding, if you will. Obama voters would most likely have had the reaction to the Republican staples of  God, freedom, flags, and family values had they been mentioned.

It’s sad because Obama is correct–Democrats and Republicans alike do love the country and want it to succeed, but to some small degree, Democrats feel that “loving the country” is a Republican line.

For those interested, I wrote about the symbolism of patriotism about a year ago.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

THAT’S Incredible; I’M Incredulous.

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 24, 2009

I’ve heard the word incredulous attributed to situations, as in That’s an incredulous story. The problem is that incredulous means skeptical or disbelieving, which is a human trait, not something that can be attributed to an inanimate object, a theory, or a situation. I was incredulous of his story (I was skeptical of his story) is the correct use of incredulous.

Incredible means not to be believed, as in That’s an incredible story (a story that’s difficult to believe).

Here are other examples:

  • He looked at me with an incredulous stare. (a stare of skepticism)
  • I was incredulous of his request. (disbelieving of his request)
  • The details of his excuse were incredible. (the details were unbelievable)

Oh, I can hear it now:  Didn’t Shakespeare use incredible to mean incredulous at some point in his writings? Ergo, doesn’t that mean that incredible and incredulous are synonymous?

In a word—-no. And considering the common belief by scholars that he had a very limited education, it shouldn’t be surprising. Shakespeare may have written some insightful works (then again, the works attributed to him may have actually been written by someone else—-the jury is still out on that one, much like the hotly debated Great taste! Less filling! Miller Lite controversy), but that doesn’t necessitate a perfect command of vocabulary and an absolute deference to his grammar skills. None of us can boast such perfection, and, really, who would want to? It’s too much of a burden.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off

Look Mom, Hands Free

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 23, 2009

One of the terms that I wrote about in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever was our use of -friendly. We use the same construction, pairing a word with -friendly, in ways that are inconsistent, which leads to understandable confusion. For example, user-friendly means that something is easy to use, child-friendly means that it’s safe for the child to be around, and carb-friendly means that a food is conducive to a low-carbohydrate diet. Since trendiness encourages us to slap a -friendly on any word we’d like, it might be nice if it always meant the same thing.

We do the same thing with -free. Typically, when we use this construction, which isn’t terribly articulate to begin with, it is done with -free meaning that we’re free of whatever it is we’re referring to. For instance, a germ-free environment is one without germs, and a carb-free food is one loaded with fat, I mean without (free of) carbs. A child-free zone is one where children are not permitted. Well, you get the idea.

That brings me to the oft-used (and oft-annoying) term hands-free, such as a hands-free phone. Logically, it would mean a phone without (free of) hands, which isn’t all that revolutionary. I’ve seen plenty of phones in my 40+ years, and other than the odd Mickey Mouse phone, I can’t recall any with hands.

What hands-free seems to mean in trendy 21st century America is a phone that you don’t need your hands for in order to operate. That’s a completely different meaning than all of the other -free words, which makes me wonder if I should go back in time and go to my mom and say Look mom, hands free when riding my bike down the street.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Political Pundits

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 17, 2009

Being a political pundit must be a great job. That has to be the case with being able to provide opinion, mainly critical, without having the responsibility to do any better—especially when it’s done on national television or in a syndicated newspaper column.

Even though it might be clear that I don’t have the most respect for the position, I do believe that we should say and spell the word correctly. It’s pundit, not pundint, no matter how many times you hear the one with the extra n. I’ve heard politicians say it (including now-former President George W. Bush and one-time VP candidate Sarah Palin), as well as some of the pundits, themselves.

–Paul

Posted in language, politics, writing | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off

More Than an Upgrade Needed

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 13, 2009

Although not everyone will agree with us, we at languageandgrammar.com believe that language subtlety is important. Thoughts are precise, and a lack of subtlety in language usage is often a reflection of a lack of sharpness of thought.

That brings me to today’s topic—the word upgrade. If you’ve watched any of the dozens of shows about buying and selling houses, then you have heard people speak of appliances that need to be upgraded often. A more accurate statement would be to say that the appliances need to be replaced. Home owners either want appliances that look better, work better, or can’t be cleaned of finger prints (Stainless Steel Appliances); they don’t want the current appliances to be improved, which is what the word upgrade means.

A computer is often upgraded; memory can be added to an existing computer, improving it. Replacing a burnt orange oven (with burned-on grease from 1975) with a restaurant quality oven from 2009, however, is a death sentence for the old oven; it’s not an upgrade for the oven unless you would consider the move from a comfortable kitchen to a scrap heap to be an improvement.

It would be accurate to say that the new appliances are an upgrade for the house or the kitchen; these statements would be accurate since new appliances would be an improvement for the house or the kitchen, but saying the appliances, themselves, need to be upgraded is not accurate.

–Paul

Posted in language, writing | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Let’s Dive Right In

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 12, 2009

Ok, here’s the deal. Dive is a regular verb, and a regular verb makes its past tense form by adding -ed to the end (or just -d if there’s already an -e at the end of the word). The past tense of dive, then, is dived.

Dove has become widely used as the past tense of dive, and it is frequently listed in dictionaries as an alternative to dived; however, many experts, grammarians—-and English teachers handing out the latest grammar quiz—-still call it colloquial, non-standard, or even substandard. (I, myself, prefer to cut to the chase and call it wrong.)

I can’t say that I understand the logic of taking a verb that has been classified as regular and re-classifying it as regular and irregular. (As we all know, all regular verbs follow the same pattern of conjugation, but each irregular verb has its own pattern that must be memorized.) The evolution of dove as an alternative past tense of dive is obviously the result of an oft-repeated grammar error that went for too long without being corrected.

If you want to be certain of using the correct conjugation, stick with the traditional dived for the past tense of dive.

  • I dived in and did the necessary work.
  • We dived from the 25-meter board.

Think of the past tense of words such as skydive; we say skydived, not skydove.

The past participle of dive is dived as well, as in I have never dived from that height before or She’s dived off that cliff many times.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Road to Hoe

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 10, 2009

If there is anything worse than using a cliche, it’s trying to use a cliche and getting it wrong. You would think we wouldn’t get something wrong that’s been repeated so often! I like to call these instances Close but no cigarette.

One of the more common examples of this is saying It’s a difficult road to hoe instead of It’s a difficult row to hoe. They sound so much alike that the mistake shouldn’t be that surprising, but it’s also a good example of how we so mindlessly use a phrase. If we stopped to think about it even for a second, then we would never talk about how difficult it is to hoe a road.

Not only does it not make any sense, but we already have enough trouble with potholes in the roads—we don’t need people digging more with their farming tools.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Subordinating Conjunctions

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 9, 2009

While coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, nor, or, so, yet), which connect clauses of equal importance, get a great deal of press in every grammar book on the bookshelf , they’re not the only conjunctions in town. Subordinating conjunctions connect clauses as well, but theirs is the job of connecting those of unequal importance. Some common subordinating conjunctions are even though, unless, until, because, although, and since.

I find that the problem many people have with these conjunctions is in how to punctuate them. When a clause containing a subordinating conjunction comes before the main clause, a comma should separate them. This isn’t usually a problem.

Note: Remember, the main clause is the independent clause, and the clause with the subordinating conjunction is called the dependent (or, not surprisingly, subordinate) clause.

  • Because bacterial pathogens cause disease in plants, we need more information on how plants can resist bacterial pathogens.

Because bacterial pathogens cause disease in plants is the subordinate (dependent) clause that starts with the subordinating conjunction, so it needs a comma before the main (independent) clause.

The problem usually comes when the clause containing the subordinating conjunction (the dependent clause) comes after the main clause. While many people like to add the comma here, too, no comma is needed.

  • We need more information on how plants can resist bacterial pathogens because bacterial pathogens cause disease in plants.

Sometimes, it seems that many of us automatically place a comma before certain words, such as because or but or since, without examining how that word is being used in the sentence. This is the grammar equivalent of being on autopilot. What we need to do is to take back the controls and decide the appropriate speed—-I mean comma use.

  • Even though RNA replication of the virus already has been studied, there’s more work to be done.
  • There’s more work to be done even though RNA replication of the virus already has been studied.
  • Since you’ve been gone, I’ve been celebrating.
  • I’ve been celebrating since you’ve been gone.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, writing | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Mmmmmm, Probly (Probably)

Posted by languageandgrammar on February 6, 2009

While this is not a terribly common written error—-although I have at times seen it spelled this way on the information superhighway—-the pronunciation of probably as probly is constant and irritating.

You should probably have a good lawyer if you don’t want to be taken to the cleaners. (not probly)

It’s only an eight-letter, three-syllable word: prob-a-bly. And those syllables are awfully short. If you can’t say the extra -ab, then what do you do when you have to say onomatopoeia—or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious—or antidisestablishmentarianism?

I suppose I should file this one under Pet Peeves.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers