Everything Language and Grammar

Archive for June, 2009

It’s the Mothers, Not the Laws!

Posted by languageandgrammar on 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

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

Yellowbook It

Posted by languageandgrammar on 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

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

Googled It on Youtube

Posted by languageandgrammar on 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

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

Tornadoes Versus Reports of Tornadoes

Posted by languageandgrammar on 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

Posted in language, weather, writing | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Blame it on Lewis Carroll

Posted by languageandgrammar on 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

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

If I Could Put Time in A Bottle…

Posted by languageandgrammar on June 14, 2009

Time capsules  have been part of the high school curriculum for generations, with good reason. Children of today can have the enjoyment of picking out a few symbols of their time to bury for future generations to discover, and those who are lucky enough to dig up a time capsule get to glimpse into a time long gone. Unless, it’s a time capsule from a little town in Pennsylvania…

1979 Revisited

Imagine the rapt attention of the students of the class of 2009 as they opened the time capsule from 1979 after hours of digging (the class of ’79 apparently was very serious about their time capsule–90 minutes of digging only unearthed a small portion of the capsule) to find items that represented the long-lost decade, including:

  • McDonald’s wrappers
  • Mountain Dew can
  • Sports Illustrated magazine
  • Popular Science magazine
  • The Old Farmer’s Almanac
  • A Kiss concert program
  • Medical reports
  • Calculator
  • VHS tape of a Penn State football game
  • Various other articles

My How Things Have Changed

Before I continue, it’s important to note that classic rock is still very popular in places like central Pennsylvania, so picture the scene:  A 17-year-old boy, wearing a Penn State football hoodie, is listening to Kiss on an mp3 player while drinking Mountain Dew (and having eaten at McDonald’s last night) with a Sports Illustrated (Swimsuit edition) in his backpack, wondering why he just spent the last 2 hours digging a giant hole in the ground.

I’ll bet that the only thing that surprised these high school students were the pictures of people in the ’70s because those people wore pants that actually covered their butts.

Who knew that so little has changed in the past 30 years?

Note:

The story can be read here (Current, former students unearth ’70s time capsule), but you may not be able to read the story since, I believe, this newspaper still subscribes to the antiquated philosophy that archives should be not be free, or at least should only be seen by registered guests. The link will remain live only for a week.

–Paul

Posted in off topic | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Thoughtful Sports Figure?

Posted by languageandgrammar on June 10, 2009

We usually give examples of poor communication in the blog, but I recently heard a quote from an unusually candid and thoughtful sports figure. Since sports personalities usually answer in nothing but cliches, I thought the exception  was worth noting.

Honesty

When Pittsburgh Penguin (National Hockey League) coach Dan Bylsma was asked if his team had any doubts before a possible elimination game in the Stanley Cup Finals, he did not respond with the type of evasive and dismissive answer that we’ve grown to expect. He did not immediately say, “No. We always think we’ll win” or “No, our team always gives 110%” or even the tired, hubris-filled “If anyone on this team thinks we’re not going to win, he should just leave now” response.

Instead, he said (paraphrased since I wasn’t taking notes!), “I’m not the type of person who dismisses thoughts that come into my head. Of course, we have some doubt.” He then went on to explain that the team had a choice, either to focus on the doubt or prepare to win the game.

Positive Language

The quote was simple and, in my opinion, representative of a positive way to approach language and life–another example of words to live by. Many of us are so busy denying doubt or fear that we don’t ever get to the part about focusing on what we want.

When asked if we’re ready for a new challenge, we defensively say “I’m always confident” or “I know I won’t have any problem” or “I don’t worry about things like that” each time, always  suppressing and denying an honest emotion of doubt. The doubt will remain in your head until it’s addressed, at which time it will disappear, having done its job.

If you feel a doubt about an upcoming event (even a small amount of doubt), admit that it’s there. It’s a natural part of being  human. Then,  release the doubt and focus on what you want. You will then  approach the upcoming event with a complete focus on the task at hand instead of having your focus split between the task at hand and the doubt that has never been addressed.

By the way, Bylsma’s team, which had been one that lost as many games as it won prior to his taking over, has won 33 out of 43 games, including a regular season record of 18-3,  and is one win away from a championship.

–Paul

Posted in language, sports, words to live by | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Post-Consumer Material

Posted by languageandgrammar on June 7, 2009

We’ve all read something that was so full of convoluted words and confusing sentence structures that we knew it had to be written by someone very smart; it was clearly over our heads.

What was REALLY happening is that we were victims of a writer using inflated language.

A reader should never be made to feel as though he is not intelligent enough to understand something; a writer should be able to write something in clear, easy-to-understand terminology. Writing is about communicating your thoughts, not about trying to prove how smart you are.

Some inflated language has started to spill into everyday life. I’ve already talked about how there are no used car salesmen left in the country (Pre-Owned Car Salesman), but there are myriad examples, which can be humorous when making something simple sound complicated.

Post-Consumer Material

I recently saw a paper bag from a fast-food restaurant that was made out of post-consumer material. Apparently, the word recycled is too simple and accurate for today’s French fry (can we say that now that Obama is president, or do we still call them Freedom fries?) connoisseurs.

This change wasn’t made for the consumer since I doubt that there is one person in this country who would not buy French fries because they were delivered in a recycled paper bag; it was done because someone, somewhere, decided that the more complicated phrase sounded more intelligent.

Remember, you will be taken more seriously as a writer and speaker if you speak directly and succinctly.

–Paul

Posted in language, writing | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Passive Versus Patient

Posted by languageandgrammar on June 3, 2009

As I mentioned in the first Words to Live By post, Desperation Versus Determination, positive language leads to a more positive life. I also believe that any negative word (and associated emotion, belief, or action) has a positive side that we can choose to focus on instead.

Passive Versus Patient

Waiting is something that we’ve all had to do; however, there’s an important difference between passively waiting and patiently waiting.

Being passive means being inactive, and being inactive means that you’ve given up control. Being patient means waiting with calmness, which can be inactive, but it doesn’t have to be. Control hasn’t been ceded; patience allows for productive activity while waiting.

To illustrate my point, think of a passive farmer and a patient farmer.

Being Passive

The passive farmer would plant his seed and then do nothing. If it rains enough and if the ground has enough nutrients, then he will have a successful crop, and his passivity will have paid off. If it doesn’t rain enough or the ground doesn’t have the right nutrients, then he will have a poor crop.

Either way, it’s not up to him.

Being Patient

The patient farmer would plant his seeds and then wait with calmness. He will, however, remain active.  He will monitor rainfall and the nutrients in the ground, and if needed, he will irrigate and fertilize.

There is, of course, a limit to how much a farmer can do to assist his crops, but the patient farmer’s chances of success are greater than those of the passive farmer. He has more control.

If you are passive, then you must deal what is dealt to you. If you’re patient, then you will have some control over the outcome.

–Paul

Posted in words to live by | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

You Said It…

Posted by languageandgrammar on June 1, 2009

I’m sure that our regular readers have noticed that we’ve occasionally taken to making posts out of your pet peeves, so that’s what we’ll do again today.

We agree with most of them. We’ve written about some of them (links included). We appreciate all of them, so keep ‘em coming.

Leave a comment on the Your Pet Peeves page, and it’ll be highlighted in a post, eventually. Here is today’s installment:

  • “Supposubly” instead of “supposedly”
  • “None” with a plural verb, such as the incorrect “None of us are going” instead of the correct “None of us is going.”
  • Saying “so don’t I” when it should be “so do I”
  • Using “jounaling” as a verb (Oh, I hate that, too!)
  • Mentee
  • “Whether or not” instead of “whether” (Whether or not)
  • Using words such as “crisis” or “problem” in news stories to put a slant on the report
  • Confusion between fewer/less (Fewer Things; Less Stuff)
  • Saying “ask” when “question” should be used (example: “It’s the big ask”)
  • “Waiting on” when it should be “waiting for” (Waiting for You; Waiting On Table 3)
  • “Free gift” (This was included in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever)
  • “First annual”
  • “Overarching” as a new buzzword
  • “Fun” as an adjective (Are We Having Fun Yet)
  • “Functionality” when function would work (Oh, Brother; Can’t We Just Use the @!&# Telephone is the same concept)
  • “No problem” instead of “You’re welcome” (which I also wrote about in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever)
  • “Think out the box” instead of “Think outside the box” (although I vote for banishment of the entire, now tired phrase)
  • “Flush it out” instead of “flesh it out” (Is anyone else thinking about the bathroom right now?)
  • Using useless terms such as “at this point in time” or “in terms of”
  • Trying to sound overly important. The example given by the commenter was too good to not include: “Take a letter to my board members, Ms Smith: Dear Board Members, In terms of levelling the playing field at this point in time, I’m pleased to report that there has been an exponential paradigm shift as we advance up the learning curve and capitalise on discontinuous change with an intense sense of urgency to sandbox our activity within acceptable constraints.”

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers