Archive for March, 2009
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 30, 2009
I’ve heard it said that if you’re not ready to have children that you might want to start with a pet. I’ll take that a step further, though. If you don’t think that you’re ready for a pet, then you might want to start with adopting a word. They’re easy to take care of–no morning walks in the cold, no trips to the vet, and no kennels needed for vacation.
A Web site, savethewords.org, encourages you to do just that–adopt a word. I believe it’s a creation of Oxford Dictionaries. After you go to the site, you will be sent a virtual room where words facing the possibility of extinction will vie for your attention. Clicking on the word will give you a definition, an example of how to use the word, and the opportunity to sign in and adopt the word.
Adoption is a responsibility, so signing up comes with a pledge: “I hereby promise to use this word, in conversation and correspondence, as frequently as possible to the best of my ability.” Keep it up, and you’ll be able to get that dog soon.
I have to be honest. I have not adopted any words myself, and I have no intention of doing so. I’m more interested in clear communication than in just throwing around a couple of frutescents and senticouses just to prove how smart you are.
By the way, it’s just a coincidence that I have no children, no pets, and shaky record with plants–and I’m not going to adopt a word.
Of course, if hitherto and henceforth were on the list, that might be a different story.
–Paul
Posted in language | 4 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 25, 2009
While the title of this post must be shocking to those of you who read this blog regularly, it’s true. We here at languageandgrammar.com have diverse skills and interests, and one of mine is meteorology.
Having worked as an operational meteorologist (weather forecaster) for more than 20 years before shifting to the editorial side of the weather (managing editor of a weather Web site), I always have something to say about the weather. With that in mind, I’ve recently started a weather blog called cloudyandcool.com (cloudy and cool is my favorite type of weather).
It’s not a weather forecasting blog–there are enough of those out there. This will be a blog that gives opinion on weather-related topics, such as observations about how weather is covered in the media, fallacies of weather forecasters, improvements in the field, weather wives tales, strange weather phenomenon, and anything else that strikes my weather fancy.
If you’re interested in the weather, stop by–and if you have weather questions that you’d like to have addressed, leave a comment on cloudyandcool.com or send an e-mail to pyeager123@verizon.net.
–Paul
Posted in off topic, weather | Tagged: off topic, paul yeager, weather | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 22, 2009
Last week, a reader asked that I talk about the words orient and orientate and their, ummmm, evolution, so here we go.
According to Webster’s dictionary, orient first appeared in 1727 and meant to cause to face and turn to the east or to simply turn to the east, as well as “to build a church or temple with the longitudinal axis pointing eastward and the chief altar at the eastern end.” In the 1840′s, it started being used to mean getting your bearings, and according to the Online Etymological Dictionary, it was in 1850 that it started to be used in the figurative sense of getting your bearings.
Again, according to Webster’s, orientate did not appear until 1849 and meant to turn to face to the east. In 1868, it started being used in much the same way as orient. Does anyone else see a mutational red flag of misuse here? (Our descriptivist friends will surely argue that it’s not an egregious mutation but, rather, a legitimate evolution of language—oh, wait, we’ve already determined that we don’t have any descriptivist friends.)
In any case, most grammarians that I know prefer to stick with orient.
Sherry
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: English, grammar error, language, orient, orientate, writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 20, 2009
March Sadness is not as famous as the trademarked term that rhymes with it, but it more accurately reflects how I feel about the basketball fever that sweeps through this country more quickly than a logging company through a South American rain forest.
An informal poll—meaning I asked a couple of people—revealed a shocking statistic: 75% of people follow the NCAA tournament because they like to gamble on the sport. The statistic was shocking because I thought that the statistic was closer to 99%.
Anyway, for those of you who don’t follow the sport closely, here are a few terms and phrases that you’ll need to know in order to have something to talk about at the water cooler for the remainder of the month (and into April, which makes me wonder if the NCAA shouldn’t consider trademarking a different phrase).
“Bracket” is the term universally used to describe the most common type of gambling on college basketball that’s not done in Las Vegas. A synonym might be “misdemeanor.”
“There are a lot of upsets” is one way in which people who fill out brackets try to make it sound as if it’s not their fault that most of their picks were wrong.
“Upset special” is that special little pick that you say you made because you wanted to separate yourself from the pack since you had “special information,” but you actually got the schools confused (thought it was Iowa, not Iowa State).
“I’m so mad—I originally picked it, but I changed my mind at the last minute” is said when you realize that your 23-year drought of not winning the office poll will continue.
March sadness is also that special time of the year when a team of men who are all 6′ 5″ tall might be said to lack a “big man.” It’s also when “being in the paint” doesn’t mean that there was a home-improvement accident, and “shooting from downtown” doesn’t mean the city isn’t as safe as it used to be.
–Paul
Posted in humor, off topic, sports | Tagged: college basketball, humor, March madness, March sadness | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 17, 2009
I’ve done extensive research and analysis, and I feel comfortable is proclaiming that the least-used phrase in the language is….wait for it (no, that’s not it; that’s one of the most overused)…I can’t believe it’s already Tuesday.
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, I can’t believe it’s already Tuesday is officially the least-used phrase in the English language–although it’s not going to stay that way if I keep saying it. Since we seem to gauge our feelings about days based on whether we have to work, Tuesday is the least considered day of the week.
You often hear people say I can’t believe it’s already Friday, either with joy because the beloved weekend has approached more quickly than expected or in a sarcastic way because the week dragged. I can’t believe it’s already Thursday is often said in anticipation of the upcoming weekend, and Wednesday, being the middle of the week, is also often met with an I can’t believe it’s already Wednesday line. After lunch, it’s all downhill toward the next magical weekend. Life is good suddenly.
Sunday is a big day to say I can’t believe it’s already Sunday (especially its sister phrase, I can’t believe it’s already Sunday night) because the only days worth living for, the weekend, are winding down. It seems as if everyone says I can’t believe it’s already Monday every week, and it’s said with that resolute sadness that makes me wonder if we shouldn’t all abandon organized society for a non-stop party weekend since our role in society is clearly such a burden.
Tuesday, though, is the sad, forgotten day of the week. It’s not Monday, which is good, but it’s not as hopeful as Wednesday. No one ever looks forward to it–or dreads it enough–to bother saying I can’t believe it’s already Tuesday. The only phrase that might compete is I can’t wait to go to work.
–Paul
Posted in humor, language | Tagged: humor, language, least-used phrase in the English language, Tuesday, weekend | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 16, 2009
Fine, it’s not a major controversy, but I figured I would need a sensationalistic headline in order to get any but the most grammar- and language-obsessed among us to read about the proper use of meantime and meanwhile. It’s not exactly the type of debate that will keep people talking for hours, but it is annoying to hear the two being used interchangeably, especially the use of meantime at the beginning of a sentence.
I know. I know. That simple statement–that meanwhile and meantime should not be used interchangeably–resulted in our descriptivist friends (Wait, do we even have any descriptivist friends? Ahh–probably not) to fall off their chairs in horror since the two words are often used interchangeably. If you believe that common usage is reason enough for you to use something, then please feel free to continue to do so; however, this languageandgrammar.com author was taught that the words have subtle differences in meanings.
Meantime means intervening time, and meanwhile means in the intervening time. The only difference between the two is the lonely, little words in the. Since meanwhile has in the built into its meaning, it should not have an in the in front of it when being used; however, since meantime does not have an in the built into its meaning, it does need to have those words added when needed. This is best explained through examples:
Meantime, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my argument is incorrect just as Intervening time, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my arguments would be incorrect.
Meawhile, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my argument is correct just as In the intervening time, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my arguments would be correct.
Along the same lines…
In the meantime, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my argument is correct since it means In the intervening time, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my argument.
And…
In the meanwhile, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my argument is incorrect since it means In the in the interverning time, descriptivists are writing comments to counter my argument, which has one too many in the‘s.
–Paul
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: descriptivists, grammar, grammar error, language, meatime versus meawhile, writing | 3 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 12, 2009
In Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, the chapter called You Thought You Were Clever, But… includes statements (often attempts at humor) that were clever at one point, but overuse means that they’re now as funny and charming as being caught in a monsoon without your umbrella. Mocking the Snuggie has officially fallen into that category.
Even though the overuse of these jokes is horribly trite and annoying, we often use these same tired lines the next time the opportunity presents itself—-as if the next time that we ask “Are we having fun yet?” at a non-funny time will result in non-stop laughter because of your undeniable charm and wit. I’ll give you a hint about your audience, though: If you didn’t think it was funny the last thousand times that you heard it, then your audience won’t be entertained this time, when you say it. It’s not about delivery. It’s not about picking the right opportunity. It’s over–it’s not funny any longer.
Now that every comedian, talk-show host, celebrity, blogger, and the not-so-funny guy in the office has made fun of the Snuggie, it’s time to move on. We know that it’s dumb to pretend that you can’t answer the phone while under a regular blanket. We know that people look like monks when they wear them. We know that a blanket with sleeves is effectively a robe, which isn’t revolutionary. We know. We know. We know.
By the way, the marketers were brilliant. They knew that they had a lame product, and they capitalized on the fact that people love to make fun of lame products. They even run the lame commercial on the Web site. Can you imagine how many were bought as jokes? There’s a huge profit margin in selling a piece of cloth with arm holes–for 20 bucks, plus shipping and handling. The problem is that the lame part is now the incessant jokes about the Snuggie.
Well, except for this one (the WTF Blanket)–it’s still funny.
–Paul
Posted in language | Tagged: language, literally the best language book ever, overused jokes, snuggie, writing | 1 Comment »
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 11, 2009
Just a short, little post today.
It’s absolutely essential that if we want to develop the best ever language skills that we all join together for a brief moment to eliminate all repetitive redundancy that we hear on a daily basis. Consensus of opinion is that good communication is is one of the basic necessities of a confident person; therefore, a key to person developing better self confidence in himself is learning what’s repetitive and what’s not.
All we need to do is completely immerse ourselves the way those around us speak, and we, over time, can develop better language skills.
–Paul
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: grammar, language, redundancy, redundant language, writing | 3 Comments »
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 9, 2009
Maybe I’ve been following the news too closely lately, but I am tired of hearing every event in Washington, D.C., being described as political theater.
When President Obama tries to get a bill passed and republicans fight him, it’s called political theater. When democrats talk about the need for universal health care and republicans complain about spending, it’s called political theater. When republicans talk about the need to lower taxes during this crisis and democrats counter by saying that’s how we got into this mess, it’s called political theater.
It’s not political theater; it’s politics. Sadly, much of politics, by nature, is theater. Politics is often dramatic performance after dramatic performance, often by players that we’ve been watching on the stage for years or even decades. The performers are often more interested in how they look rather than the quality of the script, which are policies that will set the path for the country for decades or generations to follow. Instead of the dramatic performance being for a rapt audience in an auditorium, it’s for an apathetic country that spreads from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Politics is not theater, and we’d be better served if we focused less on theater and more on policy.
–Paul
Posted in language, politics, writing | Tagged: language, political theater, politics, President Obama, trite words, Washington D.C., writing | Comments Off
Posted by languageandgrammar on March 6, 2009
Yo no hable frances (and my Spanish is kind of rusty, too), but if I did, I would be even more annoyed with how many times I’ve heard the word voila butchered by Americans.
It’s not Wa La or Walla or even Whaa-la. It doesn’t sound like Walla Walla, Washington. There’s not a W to be seen–it’s voila, with a v, but there IS a w sound–after the v. It’s pronounced like a vw, vwoila.
Speaking of v’s, when I hear walla or voila exclaimed when a pizza is pulled from an oven, a report is turned in, or a television is turned on, I want to vamoose. Think of another, less trite way to express excitement over mundane activities–or better yet, save the excitement for exciting events.
If there’s one way to never be taken seriously, it’s by making everything sound dramatic.
–Paul
Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: grammar, language, misused words, voila, writing | 2 Comments »
