Media Room

Posted on August 29, 2008 by languageandgrammar

It’s 2008, and any person who doesn’t have a media room in his house is so 2003.

 

 

What I don’t understand is why so many people have the need for a room devoted to the media, which, of course, includes radio stations, newspapers, television stations, and certain Internet reporters. These otherwise ordinary people must hold many more press conferences than I do. I have never needed to entertain members of the media in my house, and if that need ever arose, I’m sure that my living room would suffice. It’s hard to imagine a time when I would need an entire room just for that purpose.

 

Wait a minute–maybe people aren’t referring to the media room as a room for the media but, rather, as a room where they watch television and DVDs on their 62-inch plasma screen with enough speakers to annoy people two towns away or as the place where the family gathers to play video games or listen to music. That seems to be what they’re talking about, but that sounds suspciously like rooms that we already have, such as entertainment rooms, family rooms, or dens.  

 

It could not possibly be that we’ve invented a new, trendy word in order to describe something that already exists in an attempt to sound more important or more stylish, could it?

 

–Paul

 

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Media Room

Let Us Unite–Together, That Is

Posted on August 26, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I recently heard a political consultant discuss how important it was for one of the political parties  to unite together. I must admit that I was shocked—oh, no, not at his suggestion of togetherness or his fervor in endorsing unity; rather, I was shocked at his grammar.

Is there any way to unite other than to unite together? Is it possible to unite apart? How about uniting separately? Any chance that we can unite and go our separate ways?

To unite means to put together, join, or bring together in some way. The together part is already built into the meaning, so there’s no need (read it’s wrong) to add it.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Man cave

Posted on August 25, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I know that it’s hard to believe, but even though I’m a man, I don’t require a separate room for my male friends and me to watch sports, watch action movies, drink beer, play poker, hang deer heads, and play pool, with a sign hanging on the door that says “no women allowed.” In other words, I don’t require what is so often referred to as a man cave, man room, or guy’s room. And I’m not saying that because I’m a lousy pool player and don’t watch many movies.

It’s not just because it’s a gender joke (maybe we’ll rid ourselves of those by 2108?), but it’s also because it’s a trite, boring, and predictable gender joke. Poker, deer, sports, action movies–there’s nothing new in that kind of humor even if it’s put in the form of a room instead of a generic comment. It’s also trendy, meaning that it’s said too often. If I were a real estate agent, I’m sure I’d tire of this one pretty quickly…but…with 6% commission, I guess they’re happy to play along with the joke.

I don’t have to.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Man cave

Spend and Grow Rich

Posted on August 20, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Napolean Hill’s motivational book, Think and Grow Rich, is based on the concept that we can draw wealth to ourselves by focusing our thoughts in a specific way. Many people still claim that the ideas presented in the book work even though the book was first published in 1937. Some of the credit card companies of today, though, must believe that we don’t think at all based on one of their schemes to get us to save money.

At least one credit card offers users the opportunity to save money by rounding the cost of a purchase up to the nearest dollar and putting this “change” into a savings account for the customer each time he makes a purchase with this special card. The commercials show customers buying myriad products with their credit cards, with each purchase resulting in more money being put into the savings account. Spending $19.12 at the grocery store means $0.88 in the savings account. $34.51 at the gas station means another $0.49 cents saved. The idea is simple: The more you buy with your credit card, the more money you save.

It’s a brilliant concept, but I must have been home sick the day that lesson was being taught in high-school economics class. I was taught that saving money, earning more money, and making wise investments was the key to wealth. In fact, I believe that my teacher mistakenly urged us not to use credit cards–other than a minimal amount of the time in order to establish a good credit rating.

Now, it all makes sense: The best way to accumulate wealth is using your credit card as often as you can, never mind the interst fees.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Two-Second Rule

Posted on August 14, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The two-second rule is not an updated version of the five-second rule for our fast-paced society. In fact, it has nothing to do with eating food off the floor or ground at all—that’s disgusting; the two-second rule is an easy, quick way to ensure that you’ll never have to clean the inside of your microwave oven again.

After doing years of exhaustive research, I’ve come to the conclusion that every time food has exploded inside of a microwave, it has done so during the final second of cooking. There has never been an exception to this rule. If you toss a cheesy, saucy lasagna into the microwave for 3:00, then it will explode at 2:59, and the splattered remnants of baked-on sauce will haunt you for the next five years. Set the time for 2:58, though, and you’ll be taken on a nostalgic journey back to the days of your youth when you, mom, dad, sis, and Rover dined in a scene reminiscent of a Father Knows Best episode.

Cook the instant oatmeal for 1:30, and the stress from seeing a lava of hot oatmeal that rivals the molten rock spilling from Kilauea will instantly increase your risk of a heart attack. Set the time for 1:28, though, and you’ll enjoy a lovely breakfast full of the heart-healthy goodness of whole oats.

For years of peaceful co-existence with your microwave, remember to subtract at least two seconds from your cooking time. Either that, or you could learn to use power-level 9 instead of power-level 10…but that would be too easy!

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, off topic | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Two-Second Rule

Presently Is Not Now

Posted on August 12, 2008 by languageandgrammar

A commonly misused word that I’ve come across more and more lately is presently. I think the reason that I’m seeing it more frequently is this indisputable need we seem to have developed to try to use longer, and sometimes more complicated, words to convey simple thoughts and feelings; that is, we’re all trying to sound smarter by discarding simple language and using bigger words.

The problem is that sometimes, the bigger words we choose aren’t at all synonyms for the simple words we’ve discarded; thus, what we end up saying isn’t what we mean.

Presently is being misused as a synonym for the words right now, as we speak, as in Research is presently being conducted on creating a more durable asphalt. (Research is being done now.) That is not, however, the proper, standard use of presently.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, presently was first used around 1380 to mean immediately, and then in 1566, the meaning was expanded to mean sooner or later. Neither one of these means something is happening right now, as we speak. They both contain an intrinsic reference to the future, not a current action, even if that action should be done in the very next minute. (Immediately does not mean it’s happening right now; it means the next thing that should be done.)

Use presently to mean soon or in a little while. Research on creating a more durable asphalt will begin presently. (Research will begin soon.)

Some readers will argue that presently has been used to mean now long enough for it to now be acceptable. The problem, though, is that having a standard, historical definition that is in contrast to a newer, less standard definition means that some people will be legitimately confused. If some of us use presently to mean right now and others use it to mean soon, then readers might not know when something is being done.

Sherry

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Presently Is Not Now

The Errors of Summer

Posted on August 11, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Even though I was initially uninterested, it peaked my curiousity when I read that, as we get older, we actually perceive time as moving more quickly. That might explain why it’s already time for my monthly post highlighting all of the errors in the past month–whomever (or is it whosever) said that the summer is flying by is right. I feel badly about that.

As a result, we at languageandgrammar.com (Sherry and me) are preparing for a staycation since getting some time off this month was doable. We’re staycationing instead of vacationing not because of a negative savings rate or because her and I want to watch the Red Sox and Yankess on television, but because the summer has been comprised of so many activities. By the time year ends and the election has been decided, we want to have drank some lemonade by a pool.

If I weren’t doing some stealth advertising related to my book, then we were concerned about compromising the user experience by not writing enough posts or shopping for ripe fruit or reading about nuclear power (it’s the ultimate green energy source, you know!).

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, monthly reviews, off topic, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Errors of Summer

If The Election Were Held Today…

Posted on August 9, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Every time that I hear a reporter or guest on a “news” program talk about the upcoming election in terms of “If the election were held today, then…,” I want to finish the statement with “not very many people would vote since they’re expecting the election to be held in November as scheduled.”

Reporters obviously don’t mean that the election date might change; what they intend is more like “If the latest poll numbers remain the same, then such and such will happen in November.” 

I would prefer that they say it that way, of course, especially since I heard it several times in one evening of news coverage last week, but my overall preference would be that they not focus so much attention on the election. We don’t need a daily electoral vote count estimate; it’s not something that changes from day to day or week to week. It’s a one-time event that won’t take place until November. It’s not like a on-going event, such as a pennant race in baseball that requires a daily update.

I have a better idea: Instead of focusing on projected or estimated vote counts for months from now, focus on how the Senators Obama and McCain differ on issues so that those people who aren’t voting today will be better informed in November when it is time to vote.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, off topic, politics | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on If The Election Were Held Today…

Staycation

Posted on August 5, 2008 by languageandgrammar

We here at languageandgrammar.com understand that not everyone agrees that the evolution of language, which is normal, should be done based on logic and need rather than on acceptance of mistakes or on a whim. That brings me to the suddenly trendy non-word staycation. I hope everyone agrees with me on this one–it’s too unnecessary and annoying to be used!

Staycation has become the trendy way to describe a vacation that’s spent at home. It’s a particularly popular term now since more people have chosen to stay at home for their vacation, partly because of the poor economy and partly because of the expense of gasoline. Staying at home for vacation, however, is not a new phenomenon even if it’s being done more frequently than before, so we certainly don’t need a new word for it–especially a  new word that sounds destined to make you sound as articulate as the award-winning word ginormous!

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Negative Savings Rate

Posted on July 31, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I heard the term on a recent radio report, which stated that 2005 was the first year since the Great Depression in which Americans, as a whole, had a negative savings rate. What I would like to know–and leave a comment if you think you know the answer–is why the fact that 2005 was the first year in which Americans spent more money than they earned was phrased in such a strange way.

Negative savings rate? Is that a poor attempt to make a straightforward point in a way that is intended to sound more intelligent? Is it a deliberate attempt to confuse? Is it a way to try to make the fact that Americans spent more money than they saved, which is clearly a negative event, into a perceived positive since negative savings rate doesn’t sound that bad? It’s a savings rate, which is good, but it’s not a positive one.

All I know is that I had the absence of a positive reaction when I heard it.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments