Mmmmmm, Probly (Probably)

Posted on February 6, 2009 by languageandgrammar

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 on Mmmmmm, Probly (Probably)

Smarter Planet; Dumber Advertising

Posted on February 5, 2009 by languageandgrammar

It must be something about companies with initials for names since both IBM and BMW are producing “smarter” products. In fact, IBM, which always has grand plans, wants to make the entire planet smarter.

Smart, as an adjective, typically means having a good intelligence, such as saying a straight-A student is smart. In a less formal way, smart is often used as a way to describe something that is sharp or impressive in appearance, as in He’s a smart dresser.

IBM and BMW are not talking about the sharpness of their products; they’re talking about the intelligence of their products, trying to correlate them with a product that can do more, be less ecologically damaging, or be safer as something that’s smarter than something that can’t. The problem, of course, is that inanimate objects can’t be smart or stupid.

Large corporations certainly know this, but they consider it to be a good marketing gimmick. IBM claims to be making smarter utilities (My electricity is smarter than your electricity), smarter traffic (I was in a brilliant traffic jam the last time I drove to New York City), smarter food (I guess it knows how to cook itself), and smarter infrastructure (Roads that fix their own potholes?)

All I’m saying is that it’s a good thing that I don’t work in marketing.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Not-So-Super Advice

Posted on February 2, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Having days and days and days of Super Bowl preview shows is analogous to 24-hour-per-day news coverage. With so much time to kill, there is simply not enough good information to fill the time, and the result is quite a bit of useless coverage and senseless reporting.

Much of the coverage is intended to be quirky or funny, such as the report on the history of the tradition of dumping Gatorade on the winning coach, reports of the statistics related to stock market success following a Steeler Super Bowl victory, and predictions about which song Bruce Springsteen will sing first.

Some of the coverage, though, is intended to be serious analysis but falls flat. Ron Jaworski, a former quarterback, is one of the quarterback experts on ESPN. I enjoy his analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of quarterbacks—it’s clear that he studies the current players and understands what talents are needed to be a successful quarterback; however, I don’t understand why he (and so many other experts) feel as if all quarterbacks need to do the same things in the same way at all times.

Jaworski, on Sunday, was critical of how long Ben Roethlisberger holds on to the football—as every other “expert” has been. Ben Roethlisberger has been in the league for five years and has won the Super Bowl twice. Jaworski was in the league for 15  years and never won the Super Bowl. Perhaps Jaworski didn’t hang on to the football long enough; Roethlisberger seems to be doing pretty well playing the way he plays. Perhaps Jaworski should be taking advice from Roethlisberger.

I’m not attempting to single out Jaworski in my criticism; my point is bigger. Perhaps we should consider that there is more than one way to be successful———-and we shouldn’t spend so much time trying to fit people into predetermined molds.

–Paul

Posted in off topic, sports | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Not-So-Super Advice

Waiting for You, Waiting on Table #3

Posted on January 30, 2009 by languageandgrammar

There’s a song whose lyrics include Must I always be waiting on you and I can’t always be waiting on you.

When I hear must I always be waiting on you, I can’t help picturing him wearing a bowtie and holding a tray of canapés and caviar. Waiting on should be reserved for what a server does for people in a bar, dining establishment, or cocktail party; he or she waits on them.

If you’re sitting around and doing nothing until a guest shows up for dinner, however, then you’re waiting for him or her.

Don’t use wait on (serving someone) for wait for (putting your plans on hold). We wait on tables, and we wait on customers, but we wait for colleagues to show up at the morning meeting, and we wait for the next train.

Sherry

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

Like a Bull in a China Shop

Posted on January 29, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Most cliches have enough truth to them that, while the use of the phrase is monotonous and ineffective, there is at least some logic behind using it. That’s apparently not the case with the ever-popular like a bull in a china shop.

Based on a recent episode of The Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters program, bulls are apparently discerning and respectful shoppers when it comes to china. In an episode when they tested whether red was a color that infuriated bulls (it’s not), they also set up a mock china shop to see how the bulls would react, fully expecting that grandma’s china would soon look like the windows of a home that had had the misfortune of being located along the 18th fairway during the Beer and Vodka Semi-pro Golf Tournament.

The staff set up rows of shelves loaded with plates inside of a bull pen, and the bull walked up and down the aisle as if he were shopping for the perfect wedding gift. Even when a second bull was added to the pen, the china was left largely unscathed as the bulls dodged deftly down the aisle and between the rows of china.

To me, what was busted was another cliche.

–Paul

Posted in language, off topic, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Like a Bull in a China Shop

Big Off-Season Move

Posted on January 26, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Winter is nearly as important to baseball as summer, when the games are played, because the foundation for the team is set during the winter off-season. With that in mind, it appears as if the Pittsburgh Pirates, the team that I’ve followed for about 40 years, are setting the stage for an outstanding year.

Oh, I know that the Pirates have been in a slump lately–their last winning season was 16 years ago–but I think that’s all about to change. While some teams continue to waste time acquiring new and better players (winter transactions), the Pirates have taken a more enlightened approach.

The New York Yankees have signed the two best pitchers available (CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett) and the best offensive player (Mark Teixeira), but it’s the Pirates who have stolen the headlines recently:  They’ve added sleeves to their uniforms (Pirates Add Sleeves to their Uniforms).

My initial reaction to the headline was  “What? The Pirate uniforms didn’t have sleeves last year?” I’ll admit that I didn’t watch many games (who would? They lost 97 of them), but I don’t recall seeing them in tank tops or sleeveless shirts.

Then, I thought about the big picture (which is hanging over a very large sofa in the Guggenheim, I believe). There’s an adage in fashion that a person should dress for the job that he or she wants. The theory is that dressing for the life you want will help you to prepare for that life, making it more likely to actually happen.

That’s what the Pirates are doing. While the Yankees waste their time signing players that will help them win baseball games, the Pirates are preparing themselves to be a good team by focusing on looking good. And what is a better way to do that than by wearing sleeves?

Better times are ahead.

–Paul

Posted in humor, sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Off-Season Move

We versus Us: We the People

Posted on January 23, 2009 by languageandgrammar

I’ve already written about general pronoun choice, but the we/us dilemma is worth tackling separately. We is a nominative pronoun, which means that it is used as a subject, and us is an objective pronoun, which means that it is used as an object, but I doubt that clears up the confusion that occurs when we or us is next to a noun that describes it.

We/Us humans are composed of 60 chemical elements.

The noun humans describes the we/us pronoun. This kind of construction often poses a problem, but the solution is generally simple: Just drop the noun that describes the pronoun, and the correct pronoun choice becomes obvious.

In our example sentence, we would drop humans, which would give us We/Us are composed of 60 chemical elements. The correct choice is, of course, we, so when we put humans back into the sentence, it reads We humans are composed of 60 chemical elements.

There’s nobody here but we/us cowards.

Just drop the noun cowards, which describes the we/us pronoun, and the correct pronoun choice becomes apparent. Is it There’s nobody here but we or There’s nobody here but us? Obviously, the correct one is us, so when we put the noun cowards back in, the full sentence becomes There’s nobody here but us cowards.

More examples:

We/Us students get too much homework. (We)

The company takes advantage of we/us employees. (us)

Note: You’ll notice that in each of these cases, we is, indeed, the subject of a verb and us, indeed, is an object.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We versus Us: We the People

It’s Not What It’s Cracked Up To Be

Posted on January 22, 2009 by languageandgrammar

I don’t know the origin of the phrase It’s not what it’s cracked up to be, and I’m not particularly interested in finding out. The phrase is overused and doesn’t make sense to most people who use it.

It’s not what it’s cracked up to be is often used as a way of explaining that something isn’t as good as was advertised or expected. That terminology must have made sense at some point in our history, but few people saying it now know that history. They’re just spitting out a long-outdated phrase that has no literal meaning in our current language.

I know that there is a segment of our audience who doesn’t care about whether a phrase makes literal sense (or about following traditional grammar rules, for that matter). There is a larger segment, however, who is  interested in questioning the meaning of what they say in an attempt to choose more articulate, effective language (and learning traditional grammar rules).

All I know is that this phrase isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, whatever that means.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Not What It’s Cracked Up To Be

Can’t Help But Cringe at This Construction

Posted on January 20, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Try to avoid the can’t help but construction. While it has been around for a while, most grammarians agree that it’s not the most logical construction. It’s considered to be a confused mix of the expressions can but and can’t help. It’s better to use the always correct can’t help —ing construction.

For example, instead of I can’t help but think he wasn’t telling the truth, say I can’t help thinking he wasn’t telling the truth.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Can’t Help But Cringe at This Construction

Man Up

Posted on January 19, 2009 by languageandgrammar

Man up is a relatively new term that’s all the rage. All I can say is:  Oy.

I know that it’s intended to be funny. I know that men-are-different-than-women humor has been popular since Eve picked the apple from the tree and gave it to Adam to eat. Such humor has been responsible for careers in stand-up comedy and fodder for countless sit-com scripts. I know. I get it. I know that the man up phrase is the bread-and-butter of the popular morning sports talks show, Mike and Mike on ESPN radio. Every day is a rerun—different topic but the same tired jokes.

I know that the phrase is not used as an attempt to add yet another sexist, pointless term to a language that already has too many such words—that’s just a bonus.

Perhaps I’m the only person in the country who feels this way (based on how often the term man up is being used, I wouldn’t be surprised), but I tire as much of the phrase as I do of the countless times each morning that Mike and Mike refer to the manliness of Mike Golic and the lack of manliness of Mike Greene. Enough already.

By the way, the term lawyer up is not any better, and any other such up words that are waiting to be upped aren’t going to be any better either.

–Paul

Posted in grammar, language, sports | 3 Comments