Since we’ve always viewed the blog as more of a source of information rather than a forum for discussion, we have decided to close the comments sections on all posts.
We will re-open the comments for the Your Pet Peeves page in a few days. (Update–comments on Your Pet Peeves page have been re-opened.)
–Paul and Sherry
I just want to get something straight since this sometimes seems to get confused: The word minority, as it applies to a population of people, means “a smaller party or group opposed to a majority, as in voting or other action.”
Minority Doesn’t Mean Inferior
In other words, the word minority is not synonymous with inferior. Minorities do not deserve equal treatment because the majority decides out of the kindness of their gracious hearts that these inferior people may now have what the majority has.
They should be granted the same rights as the rest of us because they’re the same as the rest of us; there are just fewer of them. Sadly, it’s more difficult for minorities to gain access to the same rights since they have less political and social influence–because of their number, not because of something inherently inferior about them.
Rush Limbaugh
That brings me to Rush Limbaugh’s quote about how President Obama wants to use Haiti to “burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion.”
Most Americans, thank goodness, want to help the people of Haiti because they see people who need help. Rush sees a minority–apparently a minority who may or may not deserve our help. If we want to help them, it’s because we want to score political points with other minorities.
I’d love it if Rush Limbaugh went to Haiti to do his show on one condition–as long as he is treated the way he thinks a minority should be treated. He’d be a minority there–at least 90% of the population of Haiti is of African descent.
He probably thinks that the country is full of minorities, which doesn’t seem possible–unless his definition includes more than a reference to a relative number.
–Paul
I recently heard an esteemed celebrity football announcer say during one of the Sunday games that the referee was going to change out the football. Change out?
What does it mean to change out? Is it more important to change it out than to simply change it? Does it sound more exciting, more challenging, more game-changing to change something out?
This wasn’t the first time I’d heard the expression change it out when change it would have been correct. I’m not even certain whether changing something out really is the same thing as simply changing something, but what I do know is that the referee was going to change the ball.
Sherry
I’ve received some criticism related to my book (Literally, the Best Language Book Ever) for my tendency toward prescriptivism, and we’ve also had some negative comments on the blog for the same reason, but the “word” factoid probably explains the need for rules and consistency in language as well anything.
Factoid is not included in any print dictionary we own, but it is defined in many online dictionaries, including dictionary.com, where it means either an insignificant fact or something fictitious or unsubstantiated that’s presented as fact.
In other words, factoid means either fact or fiction, rendering the term an instant source of confusion. The person saying it, or the person hearing it, can rightfully interpret the word in two opposing ways.
So much for the prescriptivist philosophy of “all that matters is that listener knows what the speaker means.”
–Paul
One of the easiest ways to get a discussion going online is to ask people what words or phrases annoy them more than others, similar to what we’ve done on our Your Pet Peeves page.
The Opinionator (Stanley Fish) at the New York Times (why can’t I have that job?!?!?!) did so recently when he highlighted a series of “utterances that, when encountered, produces irritation, distress and, in some cases, the desire to kill.” That might be a bit harsh, but I can relate.
The blog entry, Can I Put You on Hold?, mirrored some of the opinion entries in my book, Literally, the Best Language Book Ever, highlighting how incredibly annoying it is to hear things such as “Your call is important to us,” “Please hold,” and “This may sting a little.”
–Paul
The Oxford English dictionary recently announced its new word of the year for 2009, unfriend. This was no doubt made popular by Facebook, where the act of “friending” and “unfriending” happens all the time.
I have wondered about the need of turning the perfectly fine noun friend into a verb since I joined Facebook, especially since the verb befriend has expressed the sentiment effectively since about 1850. (That was before Facebook, right?).
Friending seemed like such an awkward word choice–although it seems graceful compared to its newly ordained counterpart, unfriending. Maybe that’s why I don’t spend much time of Facebook….
For more on the topic of unfriending, stop by Mighty Red Pen (Don’t make me unfriend you).
–Paul
If you love language and grammar, then the page 100 Fun & Informative Blog Posts Every Grammar Geek Should Bookmark 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
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
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
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
Paul Yeager's weather book
Paul Yeager's language book
Everything Language and Grammar 