Sporting Errors

If you think that the monthly review of topics that we’ve covered is a thing of the past, then you’ve got another thing coming. In fact, that’s what I’m presently writing.

While politics separates us at times, sports often unites us together as we gather in our media rooms or man caves (rooms we seem to frequent a lot) and root for all of our teams to have a perfect 16-0 record. Sports goes acrossed political divides and collegiate rivalries (I graduated college many years ago) and gives us an opportunity to make a few snacks (try to avoid violating the two-second rule), avoid the world full of actual facts and overly hyped news coverage (Hurricane Ike coverage), and watch football on a Sunday afternoon.

That’s all well and good, but by Monday, the excitement of Friday will be long passed, and we will have to concern ourselves with the ordinary things of life, such as the weather forecast for the week and trying to save money.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, monthly reviews, sports | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

It’s Friday!

I might be incorrect since I don’t know him, but sports talkshow host Jim Rome strikes me as a person who isn’t obsessed with grammar rules. He’s articulate and communicates well; otherwise, he’d never have been successful in his field, but I doubt that grammar and language are of great concern to him. Even he, though, has at least one langauge pet peeve. One two recent Friday afternoon shows, he warned his callers to not respond with an It’s Friday when asked How are you. I believe he also said that he doesn’t want to hear that It’s Monday in response to How are you to start the week.

I couldn’t agree with him more. I know what point people are trying to make–they’re looking forward to the weekend, so they’re feeling good–but telling someone what day it is when asked how you are is illogical and annoying. I guess it makes sense if saying 34 miles per gallon in response to what kind of car do you drive makes sense to you. It also makes sense if you want to make the point that 5/7 of your life is wasted while you wait for the weekend. That’s always a good way to make a positive impression on people.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, sports, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Friday!

No One Ever Graduates College

It’s true. You can’t graduate a college—-or a high school—–or any other institution of learning. It isn’t possible.

The preferred usage of the verb graduate is the following: The local high school graduated 300 students this year or He was just graduated from college. The school, itself, is doing the graduating to the students, or the students were graduated by the school. This is its original usage.

For the past 300 years, the phrase was graduated from has been used as just graduated from, as in This year, 300 students graduated from the local high school.

Even more recently, usage has become more sloppy, with the preposition from being omitted, as in This year, 300 students graduated the local high school or I just graduated college. This is substandard grammatical construction—and it doesn’t make any sense.

I know that time is precious, and we’re all busy these days, but are we really so busy that we have to try to save time by cutting prepositions from our sentences? Say either I was graduated from school, The school graduated its students, or even I graduated from school, but not I graduated school.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on No One Ever Graduates College

Actual Fact

A fact is something that exists; it’s reality or the truth.  It’s a fact that the collapse of banks is an indication of a very poor economy.

Actual is an adjective that is used to describe something as existing or being factual, such as The bank actually went bankrupt.

You may notice the repetition in the definitions, and our tendency to use the two words together, as in actual fact, is yet another redundancy in our language.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Actual Fact

Hurricane Ike Coverage

Many of you know me as a writer and language expert; however, I’ve been a meteorologist for over 20 years, and even though I no longer forecast the weather, I continue to have an intense interest in the weather. With that in mind, I wanted to share some observations about the non-stop coverage related to Hurricane Ike. It’s my belief that non-stop, live coverage of a hurricane provides little value to viewers and often distorts the perception of a hurricane–and hurricanes, being extremely dangerous storms, should not be distorted.

Much of the distortion, in my mind, comes from the fact that reporters, including meteorologists in the path of the storm, are talking and talking and talking even though they have access to little or no information. When a major hurricane is moving through a region, there is no electricity and little communication. Most residents have evacuated, and those who have stayed are most likely hiding in an interior room of a building. Emergency responders are often not permitted to respond to calls for help. As a result, facts about the storms are extremely limited, and some reporter or meteorologist who runs from the lobby of the building into the storm every 10 minutes doesn’t have access to any more facts (and usually fewer facts) than a reporter tucked safely inside of a New York studio. That doesn’t, however, keep the person in the storm from continuing to talk—so I ask you, what are they reporting?

Not only is that of little or no value to anyone, but it often distorts the impression of the storm. This largely uninformed person standing in the storm is usually standing in a location where it’s relatively safe (where the most intense part of the storm is not occurring), typically telling people to stay inside. How ridiculous is that? Since these people are “in the middle of the storm” and are not being killed by the storm surge, not being blown away by the wind (save the over-acting and swaying that is so often embellished when the red light is on), and these “reporters” on the scene are not reporting any of these things directly, the perception is often that the storm is not doing those things in any location. That can be horrendously inaccurate. I remember that initial reports from many of the same people who were standing in Ike’s rain and wind initially reported that New Orleans was spared the worst of Katrina. Keep up the good work, people.

Having said that, my friend and former colleague, Jesse Ferrell, has an outstanding weather blog (Weather Matrix). He’s not one of the people that I’m ranting about; he’s not sitting in the middle of the storm, and he provides actual information about the weather related to the storm on his blog—information about the weather (radars, satellite, facts about storm surge), not hypothetical information about what might or might not be happening in the darkness. If you like the weather, then you’ll like his blog.

It’s not his information, but he includes some tidbits about what various news outlets are reporting, and I want to share some of that, with commentary.

Someone on Fox News, a senator I believe, predicted that 125,000 homes would be destroyed by Hurricane Ike and $81 billion dollars of damage would be done. (My comment: That’s an irresponsible prediction; forecasting the amount of damage and number of homes destroyed is not possible. It’s possible to predict how high flooding will be and how strong winds will be, but the amount of damage done by water and wind cannot be forecast and should not be forecast. If less damage is done than predicted, then the perception will be that the storm was not as intense as it “was forecast,” leading to people not heeding weather forecasts in the future.)

Geraldo Rivera reported a 120-mph wind with his hand-held anemometer. (Comment: Please, Geraldo. I know that facts are sometimes optional on Fox News, but even the great Geraldo could not stand in a 120-mph wind. Mike Sidel, on the Weather Channel, can barely stay on his feet when the wind is blowing at 45 mph. Of course, Mr. Sidel either is a bit melodramatic or has a balance disorder, but that’s another story. Regardless, inaccurate information helps no one in any instance.)

Jesse mentioned that Fox News was reporting that officials stated that people who decided to stay on Galveston Island should write their social security numbers on their arms so that their “bodies” could be easily identified later. (Comment: I’m not saying that anyone who chose to stay on Galveston Island is not in grave danger, but that type of fear mongering, again, only leads to a perception that the storm was not as bad as forecast if we’re lucky enough to not have massive casualties.)

Final notes (I know that this is the longest blog I’ve ever written) on television reports that I’ve seen while writing this blog:

I saw Anderson Cooper standing outside in the wind, chastising those residents who were outside in the wind; Mike Bettes (Weather Channel) told people to stay inside while he was standing outside. Bettes also said that “we’re going to help people through this storm–that’s for sure,” as if standing in a storm and saying it’s windy with rain is going to help anyone through a storm.

Much of the in-house (not from the people in the field) discussion was about how much worse the storm would be if it were a category 4 or 5 rather than a strong category 2 or minimum category 3. That is a factor when talking about the intensity of the wind, but it’s not necessarily the case when talking about the storm surge. The surge, which is effectively the amount the ocean level rises when a storm approaches, is a reflection of the size, speed, and direction of the storm, along with the topography of the area it’s approaching. This surge in Hurricane Ike will be the most dangerous part of the storm for those reasons. Its surge will be massive.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in off topic, weather | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hurricane Ike Coverage

If You Think This Is Correct, Then…

Which is correct: If you think that you’re going out of the house in those ripped jeans, then you have another thing coming or If you think that you’re going out of the house in those ripped jeans, then you have another think coming? If you said the first one, then think again.

The correct phrase is If you think that you’re going out of the house in those ripped jeans, then you have another think coming. It means that you get another crack at coming up with an answer—another think, if you will—since you’ve obviously gotten it very wrong this time around.

The only way that it could be you have another thing coming is if the first part of the sentence said If you thing that you’re going out of the house in those ripped jeans—but then you’d have to stay in anyway for making even less sense.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on If You Think This Is Correct, Then…

Weather Forecast: Is Anyone Listening?

Listening, as I stated in a recent post (Political Attacks), is as important to communication as what is being said and, thus, is never more obvious than with a weather forecast. As a meteorologist with many years of experience, I enjoy hearing a weather forecast being discussed by the general population almost as much as the general population enjoys making jokes about forecast accuracy. The reason I enjoy it so much is that it’s usually treated the same as a good old-fashioned rumor, with key words being omitted or the meaning being interpreted differently as it’s passed from person to person.

Two words often omitted by those discussing the weather are chance or possible, and these are important words for a meteorologist. Chance of snow tomorrow is often abbreviated to It’s going to snow tomorrow—but those don’t mean the same thing. In fact, many forecasters often add a percentage chance to the precipitation possibility in order to make it more clear, such as 30% chance of a shower. That actually means 70% chance of dry weather, so blindly changing it to It’s going to rain tomorrow is not logical.

When Partly sunny with a shower possible becomes It’s going to rain tomorrow, there’s another, potentially bigger, problem. A shower is often a short event, generally 30 minutes to an hour long, while rain is often an all-day affair. The forecast that it’s not going to rain all day is probably why the weather man used the term shower instead of rain in the first place. He doesn’t come to work and change your reports before you hand them to your boss, so you shouldn’t change his either.

Another common problem includes dismissing the lower end of a forecast snow amount; a forecast of 6-12 inches of snow tomorrow means that six inches is as likely as 12, but it’s nearly universally repeated as We’re going to get a foot of snow.

I could go on–I’ve got a million of them–but you get the point. Now that I’ve had my fun, you may resume making jokes at the weather man’s expense.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, off topic, weather | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Weather Forecast: Is Anyone Listening?

Political Attacks

There are two aspects of communication—speaking and listening. The blog focuses mainly on the speaking part, of course, but I’ll look at the listening part today since it’s just as important.

The Democratic and Republican conventions have come and gone (please hold your applause), but the most intense part of the long (isn’t it about two years long now?) presidential campaign is just beginning. From now through Election Day in November, it will be a non-stop battle for votes, and one of the most important responsibilities of potential voters is to listen to (and making judgments about) what is being said rather than accepting it at face value. (I heard it on the tv, so it must be true.)

We’re in a society in which every negative political comment is viewed as a political attack, but that generalization often leads to an uninformed group of registered voters. As voters (I’m a registered Independent, for the record), we need to be able to discern an accurate negative criticism from a lie. Both are negative, but the accurate criticism has validity. As long as it’s accurate, a voter can then decide—based on facts—whether the criticism is important enough to influence his or her decision.

The examples I’m about to give are not the point of the blog (although I’ll be accused of being partisan), but they are one example of each. Obama stated that McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, and that’s often considered a negative statement about McCain because of Bush’s low popularity rating; however, it’s an accurate statement. Since it’s accurate, the potential voter can then fairly decide whether that is of concern to him or her. 

On the other hand, the McCain campaign’s insistence that Obama’s proposal will result in higher taxes is, if not a lie, a distortion of the truth since Obama promised in his speech to give 95% of Americans a tax decrease. He will increase taxes for the richest 5% and close tax loopholes for businesses, but to generally label Obama as proposing a tax increase is not accurate.  

Both statements are likely to be called political attacks; however, one is accurate, and the other is not. The candidates aren’t going to tell you which are accurate, and the media may or may not tell you which are accurate. You, though, can decide for yourself–and listening and judging are important parts of communication.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Political Attacks

A Frequent Redundancy

A “business expert” guest on a popular news channel boldly suggested that new business owners trying to impress clients should take them to restaurants that they frequent a lot. Is there an echo in here, or do I need to make an appointment with my local audiologist?

When used as a verb, frequent means to visit often. Thus, to frequent a lot means to visit often a lot (or to visit often often), which, of course, is a grammar redundancy—and a grammar error.

Speaking of the business sector, nothing against it—I, myself, am a big fan of the ingenuity that brought us everything from the hula hoop to the automated supermarket self-checkout—but I find that much of the current overblown, melodramatic, redundant, trendy grammar comes from the collective conference room.

In this case, if business owners just take clients to restaurants that they frequent, that should be often enough to keep everyone in business.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Frequent Redundancy

Perfect 16-0 Record

 I wrote about the redundancy of saying a perfect 16-0 record in Literally, the Best Language Book Ever (pick up a copy, will ya?), so I won’t repeat that here. Even if the redundancy were to stop being used by announcers and fans (not likely), we’d still have the problem of our obsession with the topic.

 

I would hope that when a couple of teams start the 2008-2009 NFL season with 4-0 records,  we’ll remember the lessons taught to us way back in the 2007-2008 season and not start obsessing over whether one of the teams will go 16-0. I know that was a long time ago, but if you’ll recall, fans and announcers spent an inordinate amount of time talking about whether New England would win every regular-season game. They did, but this supposedly momentous accomplishment has not been mentioned since New England lost to the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. Maybe we could remember how insignificant it seemed in the end before we start with that again this year.

 

There was almost as much obsessing going on about whether Miami would have an 0-16 record (which, to make a parallel redundancy, should be referred to as an imperfect 0-16 record) last season, which might make more sense since there’s no chance of that team ruining their flawless record in the playoffs. Regardless, I don’t remember as much attention to such trivial matters even five years ago, and I’m not sure why it’s become so important recently. My guess is that it has something to do with our need for drama.

 

All I know is that I hope that all 30 teams are 1-1 heading into week three so that we can pay attention to the games at hand rather than some trumped up historical drama.

 

–Paul

 

 

Posted in language, off topic, sports | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment