Everything Language and Grammar

Archive for December, 2009

Grammar and Language Geek Heaven

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 30, 2009

If you love language and grammar, then the page 100 Fun & Informative Blog Posts Every Grammar Geek Should Bookmark from onlineuniversities.com will be like opening 100 little birthday presents.

I’m certainly not saying that because we’re numbers 41, 42, and 59–although that didn’t hurt!

A number of important topics are discussed, such as the misuse of the word literally (a particular favorite of mine, for some reason), commonly confused words, and punctuation errors–certainly worth a look.

–Paul

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

The E in E-mail

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 27, 2009

With the advent of the Internet, many new words and phrases have popped up in our common vocabulary, for example, Web site, on-line, and log on. Along with those new additions has arisen the question of correct spelling. Is it Web site or website, online or on-line, etc?

One of the most commonly used words is e-mail——–or is it email? For this particular word, the problem is easy to solve. E-mail is really just a shorthand way of saying electronic mail, so the correct spelling is with the hyphen, e-mail.

That’s something upon which I’m sure we can all agree—-unless, of course, you think that electronicmail is one word!

Sherry

Posted in language | 2 Comments »

Quickly Growing Derogatory Terms

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 21, 2009

I’m guessing that the late George Carlin might have done a better job with the headline than “Quickly Growing Derogatory Terms,” but now that you can say pretty much anything on television, his headline of “Seven Things You Can’t Say on Television” is outdated.

A recent New York Times article (More Than Ever, You Can Say That on Television) highlights the increasing use of certain derogatory terms on television.

It seems as if the word “douche” is becoming the new “bitch,” having been said 76 times on 26 different shows so far this season; the use of bitch has tripled in the last decade, having been used 1,277 times on 685 shows in 2007. That’s a lot of female dogs.

The use of the terms, of course, is intended to shock us and lure us into watching more episodes, just to see how far they’ll go. The problem is that the shock value is lost in overuse, and it teaches our children that any language is acceptable.

–Paul

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

No Exclusions!

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 14, 2009

I recently received a  flier in the mail from a major department store that was obviously trying to lure me in so that they could make their Christmas quota——oh, I mean so that they could personally alert me to their latest beneficent offer.

Their “big” news———and by big, I mean barely worth my time——was that I could get 10 dollars off my sale or clearance purchases of at least 25 dollars. (Well, I suppose if I were only to spend 25 dollars on something that I’d planned on buying regardless, that would be a 40-percent savings, which really would be worth it.)

In large, red letters, the ad proudly proclaimed NO EXCLUSIONS ON APPAREL! (Yes, that exclamation point was theirs, not mine.) Wow! No exclusions on apparel. I thought that perhaps I should take a look after all since I’d been eyeing up a little cashmere number anyway. That’s when the trouble began——-and when I say trouble began, I mean it became apparent that their crack marketing staff was trying to use language as a way to be a little less than forthright.

Under the NO EXCLUSIONS! promise was smaller red print that read (except specials and super buys). On another part of the ad, it read TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY ‘TIL 1 P.M. (By the way, why did they feel the need to use ‘TIL instead of UNTIL?) And tucked away on the bottom of the ad, I was informed that I couldn’t get the 10 dollars off on any morning specials or super buys. (I still don’t know what a super buy is. It sounds like some sort of retail superhero.)

So, I thought, let me get this straight: I need to spend at least 25 dollars—-on either Tuesday or Wednesday——–until 1 o’clock——but if it’s a special or a super buy, then I can forget the whole thing. I was intrigued.

I opened the catalogue to get a closer glimpse of my potential choices only to find an item of APPAREL that was NEITHER A SPECIAL NOR A SUPER BUY but was, indeed, on sale on both TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY that read under it CANNOT USE 10-DOLLAR COUPON.

The moral of the story: If you’re going to say NO EXCLUSIONS ON APPAREL!, then that’s what it should be; otherwise, saying NO EXCLUSIONS is, quite frankly, a lie. This is a wonderful example of using language to mislead rather than to communicate honestly. For the one promise of 10 dollars off, I found 3 caveats on the same page and one blatant exclusion on the first page to which I opened.

It’s enough to make a person want to say “what does NO EXCLUSIONS ON APPAREL! mean?” Or, as I like to say, Bah! Humbug!

Sherry

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

White Christmas and Global Warming

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 11, 2009

I know. I know. You’re thinking that this post has absolutely nothing to do with grammar or language, and I want to assure you that you are absolutely correct. It’s not relevant to the blog; it’s relevant to the blogger, and that’s close enough for me.

For those who are interested, please read my article, It’s Beginning to Look Like a White Christmas, on sphere.com. Sphere is the redesigned aol news, with a focus on original reporting, analysis, and commentary (about sphere).

I was also interviewed by sphere.com editor Steve Pendlebury for his article, A Perfect Storm: When Politcs and Weather Collide.

I know that this smacks of shameless self promotion, but at least I didn’t mention my weather blog, cloudyandcool.com.

–Paul Yeager

Posted in off topic, weather | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Fake AP Stylebook

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 10, 2009

Fellow grammar and language geeks might enjoy a twitter page called the Fake AP Stylebook, where humorous (well, at least supposedly humorous) contributions are given to a Fake AP Stylebook.

Some of the content is genuinely funny, such as:

  • The passive voice should be avoided by you.
  • To show that words have been removed from a quote, use ellipses. If ellipses are removed from a quote, we’ve got nothin’.
  • In a byline, ‘with additional reporting by’ can be shortened to “with big ups to.”

As with all user-generated material, however, many of the entries are not funny and some are in bad taste, so, as always, choose who you follow on twitter with care!

–Paul

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

Hitherto-s and Tautologies

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 6, 2009

I recently wrote an article about an art exhibit for a local newspaper. Having been both an editor and a copy editor for many years (and those of you who are editors, copy editors, and proofreaders know what I’m talking about), it’s admittedly a bit difficult to surrender my copy to someone else, knowing that he or she has the final say on my brilliant exposition. (You CAN see my tongue in my cheek, right?)

In any case, in this article, I used one of my favorite words: hitherto. I’ve already expounded on why I like the word, so if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you can read about it here. Hitherto, of course, means up to now or until this time, and my original sentence read Artist names and their works that have hitherto been unfamiliar will become more familiar to those who see this rare exhibit …. The copy editor changed it to Unfamiliar artist names and their works likely are unfamiliar to those who see this rare exhibit. This change seems to me to be a good example of a tautology. A tautology is, according to Merriam-Webster, a needless repetition of a statement, idea, or word. I’ve also seen it defined as circular logic.

Unfamiliar names are unfamiliar. Well, OF COURSE unfamiliar names are unfamiliar. What else could they be? If they’re not unfamiliar, then how could they be unfamiliar? The change was not only incorrect, but it’s also quite embarrassing. Some people who read my work will now view it as sophomoric, undisciplined….and just plain bad. (There’s also an incorrect tense use in their change, but that’s for another post.)

So why am I writing about this? I have two reasons: I thought that readers might like to re-visit my post on hitherto (which also includes the word henceforth), but more important, it’s a good reminder to be very careful when you’re responsible for someone else’s final copy, especially when it’s going to be read by thousands of other people. Mistakes happen, people suffer, and reputations can be ruined.

Sherry

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

Guestimate

Posted by languageandgrammar on December 1, 2009

This is just a rough guestimate, but I believe that I’ve heard “guestimate” said five times in the past two weeks. If you ask me, that’s six times too many–if you count the time I just said it.

I’m not going to debate whether guestimate (or guestimation) is a word since I’m sure that some descriptivists out there would find it listed in some dictionary or would simply argue that its use is all that’s needed to make it word, so I’ll focus, instead, on the lack of logic of its usage.

Guestimate is clearly a combination of the word guess and estimate, most likely a humorous concoction by a clever person in the 20th century, and the lack of logic arises from the fact that the word estimate means “an approximate judgement,” which means that it’s a conclusion drawn without complete evidence. A guess is to “arrive a conclusion without having complete knowledge.”

In other words, a guess and an estimate are effectively the same thing, so the words don’t need to be combined; they need to be separated–separated into different sentences since pairing them is a redundancy.

I know. I know. I’ve heard it argued that a guestimate is a less precise estimate than an estimate but more precise than a guess. That’s what I call I stretch, or a stretchtimation of language.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers