Flesh Out, New Friends

Posted on April 1, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Don’t let the title confuse you–I’m not fleshing out new friends, whatever that might mean. This entry covers two issues. (By the way, how many of  you read that sentence and thought that it was a post that covers two problems, not two topics, because of our obsessive use of issues to mean problems?) The first topic is the overuse of the expression flesh out, and the second is the introduction to a few of our new blog friends.

Flesh out has become the most popular way of saying to give substance to or to provide details for in the world of business. In other words, we think of ideas in general terms first; then, we flesh them out later. For instance, we typically say That’s a great idea for a new product; let’s meet tomorrow to flesh out the details. It’s used at the exclusion of nearly every other possible way of expressing the same idea, many of which would be more articulate and thorough. No one meets to discuss an idea more thoroughly; they meet to flesh out the idea. No one wants to analyze the idea, but they most certainly want to flesh it out.

In other words, not only is it a pet peeve because of its overuse, but it’s also a pet peeve because it’s inarticulate and ineffective. It’s probably a good example of template talk, a term that I first heard from a commenter to this blog about the term pushback.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

New Blog Friends

Our goal is not to have the biggest blogroll but, rather, to have a varied, interesting blogroll. With that in mind, we thought that we’d introduce you to a few of our new blog friends. We’ve already introduced you to Frume Sarah’s World. If you get a chance, also check out Mighty Red Pen, Grammar Police, and Watch Yer Language.

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

What Does the Word Dictionary Mean?

Posted on March 31, 2008 by languageandgrammar

On several occasions in this relatively young blog, Sherry and I have stated that the mere presence of a word in a dictionary does not necessarily mean that the word is an acceptable word, and, understandably, some of you have asked us to expand on what we mean. I will try to briefly do so here.

We believe that dictionaries are best used as sources of common usage, not necessarily correct usage. In other words, dictionaries accurately reflect what is being said by the public; however, what is being said is not always correct. I often use ain’t as an example. When I was young, we used to say ain’t ain’t a word because ain’t ain’t in the dictionary. Well, during the nearly 40 years since then, ain’t has been said so often that it does, indeed, now appear in many dictionaries. It’s still not an acceptable word; however, widespread use means that nearly all dictionaries have decided to include it.

Granted, ain’t is typically listed as substandard or non-standard, both of which should let readers know that it’s a less-than-acceptable word choice; however, many of us have been so trained to believe that any entry in a dictionary is a word so that it can be interpreted as being acceptable by its mere presence in a dictionary.

I use ain’t as an example because we should all know that it’s not a word; however, there are other words that have equally questionable backgrounds that have been used often enough to be accepted in dictionaries–sometimes without the delineation of being substandard or non-standard and sometimes with it. Sherry wrote about drug as a non-standard past tense of drag. That’s a good example since there is no logic to having two past tense forms of the same verb, and dragged is most certainly correct since drag is a regular verb, not an irregular verb. Read her post (Look What the Cat Dragged In) for more details. Another good example is dove, which is encouraged as an accepted past tense of dive but does not have the delineation of being either non-standard or substandard; Sherry will write about that word soon.

We understand, of course, that this is a grey area of language, and many of you will not agree with us when we challenge dictionary usage. We will, however, use common sense in addition to grammar rules in order to explain the logic of our recommended usage; then, you can decide whether you want to follow our suggestions or follow your favorite dictionary. 

It’s quite all right if you don’t agree–after all, the name of the blog is Everything Language and Grammar, not We’re the Dictators of Everything Language and Grammar.  

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Hit-and-Miss Misses the Grammar Mark

Posted on March 30, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I’ve heard the grammar error hit-and-miss used instead of the correct hit-or-miss by almost every meteorologist on television and by many meteorologists who write weather blogs. Hit-or-miss is an adjective that describes something that either might or might not occur (usually in one particular spot), such as hit-or-miss thunderstorms.

Even if talking about storms that might occur in many spots, they are still hit-or-miss because that’s what they will do—either hit OR miss. There will be hit-or-miss showers in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado today (not hit-and-miss).

The last time that I checked, something, whether it’s a snow shower, an idea, a thunderstorm, or a meteor, could not both hit AND miss simultaneously. The correct adjective is hit-or-miss. Anything else defies the laws of physics.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar, weather | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Misspoken Identity

Posted on March 27, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I watched an hour of cable television news recently, and that means two things: 1) The only newsworthy items in the world were what Senators Clinton and Obama think of each other and what issues Senator McCain was flip-flopping on that day, and 2) I got to hear my newest pet peeve of a word approximately 24 times. Clinton misspoke about her experience in Bosnia. Obama misspoke about the support of his former pastor. McCain misspoke about al-Qaida in Iraq and Iran. Misspoke. Misspoke. Misspoke.

It’s not just misspoke, of course. It’s also all of its variations: misspoken, misspeak, and misspeaking.

I haven’t done enough research to know whether this is actually even a word (another post will follow shortly)–and not just another case of mistakenly slapping a prefix in front of a word and pretending it’s a word, especially without a hyphen since there’s a temptation to pronounce it as miss poke instead of mis spoke–but that’s not even the point here.

This is simply yet another instance when we’ve decided to use a kinder, gentler way of speaking instead of telling the truth. Politicians may lead the league in this category, but the so-called hard journalists who are on the trail of truth follow like a duckling follows its mother.

If we think that someone has lied, then we should say so–especially if you’re a reporter on the news who is trying to give the viewers at home a truthful account of what has just happened. I don’t necessarily expect a political candidate to step up to a podium and say, “Yeah, you caught me. I made up that story”; however, I do expect the reporters covering the story to say, “The politician didn’t misspeak; none of the facts of the case matches the politician’s story, so it seems as if he or she is not telling the truth.”

Mark my words: Misspoke will soon be to lie what issue is to problem.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

No Regard for Irregardless

Posted on March 26, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Irregardless isn’t a word; the word is regardless, which means despite or without regard.

I’m going out regardless of the bad weather means I’m going out despite the bad weather or even though the weather is bad. 

The prefix –ir is a negative, so irregardless would mean not despite or not without regard. I’m going out irregardless of the bad weather means I’m going out not despite the bad weather or not even though the weather is bad, which makes no sense.

I’m going to quit my job irregardless of the consequences. This means I’m going to quit without not having any regard for the consequences or not despite the consequences. Again, this makes no sense.

What you want to say is I’m going to quit my job regardless of the consequences, which means I’m going to quit without any regard for the consequences or despite the consequences.

I see that irregardless is in more modern dictionaries as non-standard (it should be in there as substandard), and one on-line dictionary says that it is used in casual speech and writing and sometimes even by more educated people even though it’s considered to be a grammar faux-pas. That is a perfect example of what both Paul and I have said on many occasions: Just because it’s in the dictionary doesn’t mean that it’s correct, and just because someone who is considered to be intelligent uses it doesn’t mean that it’s correct. You have to look beyond that to decipher what’s really going on.

As I like to say, irregardless is not a word regardless of its presence in the dictionary.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Should I Imply, or Should I Infer?

Posted on March 25, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Imply is to implicate or suggest or hint at something without expressing it plainly or directly, which is something done by the speaker, the writer, or someone performing an action.

Infer is to interpret or conclude or deduce from the evidence that is presented, which is something done by the listener, the reader, or the person who sees the action being done.

  • When the company president said that he was going through tough financial times, we inferred that he meant there would be no raises this year. (We are the listeners; we made a decision about what we assumed he was hinting at.)
  • The company president was implying that there would be no raises this year when he showed us the graph of declining profits. (The company president is the speaker; he hinted that there would be no raises.)

You could even say We inferred that the company president was implying there would be no raises this year when he said he was going through tough financial times.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Should I Imply, or Should I Infer?

Poor Communication or Poor Taste Test?

Posted on March 24, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Ok, I’ll admit it. This is another post that’s more of an off-topic rant than a true language or grammar post, but, hey, there must have been some lack of communication for my informal Pepsi taste test to go the way it did. That’s a good enough reason for this post to end up on my language blog!

Before I get to the details of the taste test, I’ll need to give a little background information. About ten months ago, I read a story about Kosher Pepsi and Kosher Coca-Cola. The article explained that high fructose corn syrup had replaced pure sugar as a sweetener around 1990 (I don’t remember the exact year) but that the Kosher colas still contained pure sugar. That explains why I’ve thought that the cola that I drank when I was younger tasted crisper and cleaner than the current soda, so I’ve been waiting for Passover with breathless anticipation.

After stocking up with six 2-liter bottles of Kosher Pepsi one day last week, I raced home, dropped a few ice cubes into a glass, and poured a glass of Kosher Pepsi. As I was lifting the carmel goodness toward my lips, I was ready to be transported to the days of my youth.

Mission aborted. The Kosher Pepsi tasted like, well, every other Pepsi that I’d had in the past 18 years. I was shocked. It must have just been me.

With that in mind, I decided to have an informal, unscientific taste test at work–Kosher Pepsi versus ordinary Pepsi. With paper cups half filled with ice, I poured multiple samples of each. This is where the lack of communication came in. The question was simple: Which do you think is made with sugar, and which do you think is made with corn syrup? Simple enough, right? Apparently not.

One person said I don’t think you should have used ice even though I used an equal amount of ice in all samples. I’m not sure what that had to do with anything anyway. Someone else said This one tastes as if it came out of a can, which, to be fair, was a legitimate comment even though it didn’t answer my question. (A true scientific test would have had both either coming from a can or coming from a bottle.)

A common response was I like this one better, which answered the question as well as Do you have any pretzels? would have answered it since this wasn’t about preference but, rather, about whether it’s possible to tell sugar from corn syrup. A particularly well-informed participant, after carefully tasting both samples, asked Why are we doing this again? Drink first–ask questions later. One of the most unusual responses was Do you mean that Jewish people can’t eat corn? Since I know that’s not the case, perhaps our new blog friend, Rabbi Sarah (Frume Sarah’s World), might be able to help explain why corn syrup isn’t Kosher for Passover.

One of the few people who understood the purpose of the taste test and the question asked was someone who, oddly enough, can’t tell the difference between Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. It’s a good thing that I called him out of an important meeting for that type of expertise. Yes, I actually paged him over the building intercom. (The conversation went something like this: He asked You paged me for this? I replied Yes, get the hell up here.) By the way, he correctly identified the Kosher Pepsi, which is more than I can say about myself.

Maybe Kosher Coke is better.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Site Updates

Posted on March 21, 2008 by languageandgrammar

We’ve received a couple of questions lately about how to print out single entries from our site, so we checked it out to see what the problem was and how to correct it.

It turns out that you actually can print out single entries, and there are a couple of ways to do it. The first way is to highlight the entry that you want and print from there, just as you would with almost any other Internet text. You’ll get the entry, but you’ll also get all of the other information on the page, which will be unformatted.

The second way is to highlight the entry that you want, paste it into a Word file, and print it from there without saving it. It’s an extra 10 seconds of work, and it’ll get you just the text.

We also wanted to update everyone on additions to our site. We’ve added Paul’s Posts and added more (future) entries to Sherry’s Grammar List. This will make it easier to search for exactly what you’re looking for and click on individual entries (for either perusing or printing!).

In addition, as the publication date for Paul’s book (Literally, the Best Language Book Ever) gets closer, we’ll add information to Paul’s Upcoming Book.

Sherry and Paul

Posted in grammar, language, off topic | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Site Updates

Sweat Equity

Posted on March 20, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Equity is the amount of money that a property or business is worth beyond what is owed. For instance, if you owe $200,000 on your home, and it’s worth $300,000, then you have an equity of $100,000 (breaking news: languageandgrammar.com does math!). Sweat, of course, is the perspiration that comes through the pores of the skin.

That must mean that sweat equity is the amount perspiration beyond the amount that you owe, which, I guess, is how much sweat that you’re expected to produce.

I don’t know about you, but I’m never going to use that term again. I think I’m getting nauseated! 

–Paul

Posted in language, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Sweat Equity

Most Important, Not Most Importantly

Posted on March 19, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The correct phrase is most important, and the same goes for more important; they are often, if not always, shortened versions of what’s most important or what’s more important.

Importantly means in an important way, just as slowly means in a slow way. Using the full phrase what’s more importantly in a sentence illustrates the error well. What’s most importantly is that we try our best; this sentence doesn’t make sense. (Of course, it should be What’s most important is that….) It’s like saying What’s most clearly to us is that she’s trying her best; I’m sure it’s clear to everyone that the latter sentence is grammatically flawed, yet we give a pass to using importantly in the same way.

One on-line dictionary says that more important and more importantly are used in all kinds of text and by reputable writers, which means that there’s no reason not to use importantly.

Well, I can think of one reason: it’s wrong.

I agree that they are both used by reputable writers; however, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Writers aren’t necessarily grammarians, and many reputable writers and respected editors make some not-so-great grammar choices. Asserting that a particular usage is correct because famous writers or high-level editors use it defies logic; none of us knows everything.

I’ve seen editors print sentences such as These kind of ideas…. Does that mean that we should toss subject/verb agreement out the window? I’ve seen reputable writers use reason why. Does that mean that it’s not a redundancy? The answer to each question is, of course, no.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Most Important, Not Most Importantly