Metrosexual

Posted on November 3, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I often comment on the use of trendy words since a trend in language is about as good as a trend in fashion–if you’re not aware of when the trend fades, you’re left looking outdated. The word metrosexual, though, has most likely been around long enough now to not be considered a trend–I’m afraid that it might be here to stay, so let’s take a look at the word and see whether the word makes sense.

Heterosexual means a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and homosexual means a person who is sexually attracted to the same sex. It only makes sense, then, that metrosexual would mean a person who is sexually attracted to metros, which seems to be short for metropolitan areas. Yes, that makes complete sense–many people are sexually attracted to cities. Perhaps it’s that the high rises are a phallic symbol. I’m no Sigmund Freud.

Metrosexual, according to Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary, actually means a heterosexual male who has a strong aesthetic sense and inordinate interest in appearance and style, similar to that of homosexual males. Oh, I guess that’s supposed to make more sense. Any man who lives in a city and cares about himself is deserving of being labeled—labeled with a word that promotes stereotyping members of the homosexual community.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Brain ISSUE? Sounds Like a PROBLEM to Me!

Posted on November 2, 2008 by languageandgrammar
In the Buffalo/Jets game on Sunday, quarterback Trent Edwards took a hard tackle and was knocked to the ground, where he hit every part of his body, including his head. He didn’t leave the game, but the announcers were concerned that he might since, they informed us, Edwards had had concussion issues in the past. Concussion ISSUES? This is a perfect example of what issue does not mean and how not to use it.

The quarterback had had concussion injuries, concussion problems, or, plainly, concussions in the past. I doubt he would appreciate having his brain injury labeled an issue. An issue, as we’ve discussed before, is a topic, as in Where do the candidates stand on the issues or We have myriad issues to discuss at the meeting tonight.

Don’t refer to someone’s brain injury as an issue. It’s disrespectful——and grammatically incorrect.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, sports, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Brain ISSUE? Sounds Like a PROBLEM to Me!

Complete Lack of Tolerance for Tolerance

Posted on October 30, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Tolerate means to allow or to permit, and a person has no more right to allow or to permit another person (or group of people) to be different from himself or herself than I have to permit or to allow you to do what you’re doing right now.

I know that tolerance of others is considered a good thing, especially in political circles; however, tolerance is different–much different–from acceptance. If you decide to tolerate a person because of that person’s gender, sexuality, race, religious beliefs, or anything else, then you are doing so with the assumption that you have the right to establish some sort of random standard on what is acceptable—that the person somehow falls short of what he or she should be but that you are generously making allowances. You don’t, and you shouldn’t claim that right–unless you want others to make a claim on accepting–or not accepting–you based on your gender, sexuality, race, religious beliefs, or anything else and on their standards of what you should be.

Tolerance implies superiority.

Accept people for who they are–don’t tolerate anyone.

–Paul and Sherry

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, politics, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Complete Lack of Tolerance for Tolerance

True Patriotism

Posted on October 27, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The terms patriotic and unpatriotic have been tossed around in recent years more than a drunken rookie bull rider, with its most common usage being a repeated assertion by the McCain campaign (on many fronts–by himself, Governor Palin, campaign workers, and unofficial representatives) that certain parts of the country are more patriotic than others. That’s why I thought it would be a good idea to look what the word patriotic means.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (and with the word American in it, it ought to know what the word means!), patriotic means feeling, expressing, or inspired by love of one’s country. That sounds clear enough, but do we ever stop to think about what a statement like that might really mean?

It’s easy enough to see that swelling with pride when hearing the national anthem or saying the Pledge of Allegiance would fall into that category, as would feeling pride that we have enacted policies that assist our older Americans (such as Social Security, Medicare) or that we have a right to express our opinions as freely as we would like. We love our country at these times, and we are patriotic.

Americans can very well be patriotic (feeling, expressing, or inspired by love of one’s country) while disagreeing with invasions conducted by the country or yelling from the rooftops about perceived injustices in the tax code, health care, or a lack of government regulation. If the act of disagreement is done out of love of the country, then it’s patriotic–and, in many instances, the love requires those acts. What would our country be like if we just blindly accepted everything that is done in the name of patriotism?

Feeling pride at nationalistic displays can be true patriotism or it can be a mindless act that is done with no emotion and, therefore, no patriotism. Those acts, in and of themselves, do not make someone patriotic. Similarly, acts of defiance and protest can be acts of hatred or they can be acts of the truest patriotism, those that require action instead of mere acceptance.

Either the McCain campaign doesn’t understand the definition of patriotism or he is using patriotism as a way to further divide us in at attempt to be elected at all costs.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on True Patriotism

Transitive and Intransitive Verbs

Posted on October 24, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Verbs are either transitive or intransitive. That essentially means that they either need a direct object or they don’t. With a transitive verb, the action (verb) is being done to something else or someone else—a direct object. With an intransitive verb, the action is a state of being, not of doing to something or someone else—so there’s no direct object.

  • He feels the inside wall to find the light switch. Feel is transitive; it is being done to the wall.
  • He feels sick. Feel is intransitive; it isn’t being done to anything but, rather, it is a state of being.
  • They took their client to lunch. Took is transitive; they’re doing the taking to a client.
  • She grew tired. Grew is intransitive; it is her state of being, not of doing something to someone or something else.
  • She grew three cacti last summer. Grew is transitive; it is being done to the cacti.

Knowing whether a verb is transitive or intransitive can be helpful in deciding what form of a pronoun to use in the same sentence. For example, is it She gave the opera tickets to Bill and me or She gave the opera tickets to Bill and I? Transitive verbs take the objective cases, and intransitive verbs take the nominative cases. So, if we know that gave is a transitive verb, then we know that it should be She gave the opera tickets to Bill and me.

Here’s a tip: If you’re having trouble, you can determine whether a verb is transitive or intransitive by re-writing the sentence in the passive voice and adding a by phrase because only transitive verbs can be written in the passive voice with a by phrase.

  • Three cacti were grown by her last summer.
  • The client was taken to lunch by them.
  • The inside wall was felt by him.

You can’t do that with the intransitive sentences (he felt sick doesn’t make sense as sick was felt by him, and she grew tired doesn’t make sense as tired was grown by her).

For more common grammar errors, refer to Sherry’s Grammar List.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Transitive and Intransitive Verbs

Storm Chasers–I Don’t Think So

Posted on October 23, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Storm chasing is one of the rare instances where science and cool seem to meet, which is evidenced by the preponderance of television shows that highlight storm chasers. In fact, there is at least one reality show based on storm chasing (The Discovery Channel’s Storm Chasers). As a language expert and a meteorologist, though, I’d like to point out that the name should be more like Storm Approachers than Storm Chasers.

Chase means to pursue to overtake or seize, such as the police chasing a suspected criminal or a sprinter in second place chasing the race leader. The intention, to be clear, is to capture or to overtake the object in question. That’s not what I’ve seen from storm chasers, who are “chasing” tornadoes.

They want to get close to the storm–close enough to film it, close enough to feel the rush of adrenaline associated with nearly being killed. They certainly don’t want to catch up with the storm, though, and the proof is in the video that’s shown on television. When the chasers actually catch up with a tornado, they scream more than children in the Haunted Funhouse. They drive 100-mph in reverse. They hide in ditches and whimper. Believe me, they don’t want to catch up to a tornado, and I don’t blame them. The closest I come to storm chasing as it’s defined is looking out the window on the first floor as I head to the basement. My only point is that it should be called something else–perhaps storm approaching or storm getting dangerously close or even nearly completing a storm chase.

I guess that’s why I don’t have a job as a writer of reality television show titles.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, language, weather, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Vetting

Posted on October 20, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Vetting is just like the Olympics–there’s a lot of talk about it every four years whether we want to hear it or we don’t.

Vetting means to subject to a thorough examination or evaluation, and the only vetting that ever seems to happen is of a potential vice presidential candidate by a presidential candidate. That’s usually not just vetting, either; it’s a vetting process. Politics is very uncertain in this country, with misleading statements, candidates misspeaking or misremembering, and negative advertising; thank goodness no one ever LIES–a word that you’ll never hear. It’s good to know that with all of the uncertainty, the presidential nominees go through a detailed vetting process before selecting a vice presidential candidate.

This detailed, extensive, and thorough vetting process ensures that no one who is ever selected for vice president isn’t qualified to be president. For instance, no presidential candidate would ever select a candidate who is facing a scandal in his or her home state, does not have experience with international leaders, or cannot speak about the issues in detail.

Well, the election is almost here–and the word vetting will be put on the shelf for another four years.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vetting

Let Us Proceed from the Preceding

Posted on October 17, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I’d never really considered that proceed could ever be used incorrectly to mean precede—until I saw it on a job application—for a university—a major university that prides itself on admitting only those students with the highest scholastic records.

The application required the applicant to give his employment history for the proceeding seven years. Proceeding seven years?

Proceeding means what will come after the present; preceding means what has come before the present. What the application should have asked for was the employment history for the preceding seven years, the seven years before now—and it did—after my trusty red pen and I got finished with it.

Sherry

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let Us Proceed from the Preceding

McCain Condescension

Posted on October 16, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Senator John McCain accurately made the point in the final presidential debate last night that you need to look closely at the words people use. He did it in reference to a point about Senator Barack Obama, but I’ll do it in reference to McCain.

McCain stated that he was proud of his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin. Being proud of Sarah Palin is much different from being proud to have Sarah Palin as my running mate. Being proud of Sarah Palin is a sign of superiority, such as a parent is proud of a child who does well in school. The child did well, and the parent, who is in large part still responsible for child’s action, feels that the child’s success is a reflection of the parent. And that’s largely true for children. It’s appropriate be proud of a child’s accomplishment to some degree. Sarah Palin, of course, is not in the same situation as a child; she is as qualifed to be President of the United States as John McCain is; otherwise, she would not have been selected to be his Vice Presidential nominee. She is not in need of his approval; she is his peer.

In contrast, being proud to share the ticket with someone places the other person on the same level, not a level below. The ticket, of which we are both a part, is something we, together, can take pride in. While the presidential candidate has a higher place on the ticket, it is still a team.

There is a huge difference in being proud of someone and taking pride in a shared accomplishment, and if the McCain campaign wishes Palin to be treated with respect, perhaps it should start with McCain talking about her as if she were his equal.

–Paul

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

A Buck Ten Left in the Game

Posted on October 13, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Oy. I don’t know if any trendy announcer-speak is more annoying than the tendency for announcers to start referring to the time left in a game in terms of money, such as There’s a buck ten left in the game. They only seem to do it when there is less than two minutes left in the game (or the first half); it’s always a buck something left (sometimes they even say a buck and change left), but with inflation, it’s likely to spread to two, three, or 10 minutes left soon.

I’ve been trying to decide why I find this so annoying, and I think it’s mainly because it’s just a ridiculous thing to say. It doesn’t make sense. I would never tell someone that I have a doctor’s appointment in five bucks rather than in five minutes because that would obviously be incredibly stupid, but once the clock ticks down to under two minutes in a football game, time and money become the same unit.

I know that they don’t literally mean money instead of time; they’re just following a trend that someone started a few years ago. And I want a name–I need to send a letter of complaint or something. It was probably Joe Time, I mean Joe Buck.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, sports, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments