Career Opportunites

Posted on January 16, 2008 by languageandgrammar

For decades, when a business was looking for employees, a Help Wanted sign would be hung in the window. Now, the help wanted sign is as rare as finding a pearl in a plate of oysters at a restaurant; now, the signs usually say something very similar to Career Opportunities Available or Join an Exciting Team–Apply Within.

The change in language was made for an obvious reason–it’s an attempt to switch the power from the employee to the employer. Instead of an employer having a need (a sign of weakness), they’re doing the potential employees a favor by offering them these wonderful career opportunities (a sign of strength). It’s ironic that most of these jobs are minimum wage jobs–with favors like that, who needs enemies.

Even in the few instances when a store or business posts a sign similar to the old help wanted sign, such as Now Hiring, it is now typically followed with something similar to A Great Place to Work.

Perhaps it’s merely a reflection of a change in times. Before there was as much efficiency through technology and as much outsourcing, jobs were more numerous, so maybe it’s only reasonable for employers to make it seem as if offering people a job is doing them a favor.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

You Have Problems, Not Issues

Posted on January 14, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Somewhere, at some point over the recent past, someone decided that it was no longer acceptable for a person to say what he or she means; it was no longer acceptable to speak in precise, direct words. And what’s worse, someone, somewhere decided that we should all be offended when someone calls a problem a problem. Everything has to be translated into some sort of euphemism. I don’t really know why it started, but can we please stop referring to every problem as an issue?

An employee no longer has a problem keeping up with production; he has an issue. A child no longer has a problem behaving in class; she has an issue. A married couple in therapy no longer has problems in their marriage; they have issues.

Even bad weather now causes performance issues on the football field and traffic issues on the road; and a basketball player with a sprained ankle has an ankle issue. I’m not sure what’s so offensive about discussing traffic problems, health problems, or a sloppy football game. Is it just me?

The problem—that is, what’s wrong—with substituting issue for problem is that those two words are not synonymous—and no amount of being politically correct, disingenuous, or even condescending—yes, it can be condescending—will make it so.

An issue is a topic, such as The candidates will discuss the issues at the debate. That means that the candidates will discuss the different topics, or subject areas, involved in running our country.

A problem is something negative. A problem is something that needs to be solved. A problem is something that we try to overcome. A problem is something that we don’t want. There, I’ve said it. And it feels great.

An issue is not a problem, but I’ll tell you what is a problem: the grammatically incorrect trend of telling someone that he has an issue when what you really mean is that he has a problem. Call it what it is, and it’ll be easier to solve.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

50% Chance of Rain

Posted on January 12, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I’m a meteorologist, so how long did you expect this blog to go without a weather post? While a 50% chance of rain may not be a grammar error, this type of language use is representative of the information included in the upcoming book since the statement just doesn’t make much sense.

A 50% chance of rain is the meteorological equivalent of flipping a coin, and believe me, as a meteorologist with nearly 23 years of experience, I’ve heard variations of that coin-flip joke made more often than a career police officer has heard the standard doughnut joke. Talk about being stale.

A 50% chance of rain is not a forecast since it gives equal chances of dry weather and wet weather. What good does that do the person at home who wants to know whether he can use one of the items in his prized umbrella collection?

I know what it’s supposed to indicate–that there is a better chance of rain than there is on most days, but a good forecaster will make a more definite forecast than this. The job description includes giving the public a better forecast than the public could get from watching the Comedy Channel.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, language, weather | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Subtle Sexism

Posted on January 9, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Obvious displays of bias are often less dangerous than subtle displays, just as it’s better to know that your co-worker is actively campaigning for your job than it is to find out that there’s a microphone under your post-it notes.

The choice of the television media to consistently refer to Senator Hillary Clinton as Mrs. Clinton is a subtle form of sexism. I have never heard Barack Obama referred to as Mr. Obama or John Edwards referred to as Mr. Edwards on television–the word Senator invariably precedes their references; however, even when the discussion involves all three of them, there are many instances when Senator Clinton is referred to as Mrs. Clinton. (Note: I have seen Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards in print many times.)

It’s obviously important to some people in the media to make sure that we notice that Hillary Clinton is a woman first and a senator second.

It’s also important that we think about our language choices.

As an aside, I find it fascinating to hear the onslaught of attention (mainly criticism) about Senator Clinton’s “crying” episode. First, she didn’t even cry–she showed a little emotion. I cry more when the alarm goes off on Monday mornings! Second, all of the comments about the weakness of someone who cries–or about how leaders shouldn’t cry–seems a little weak after the praise heaped on President Bush when he shed a tear at a military funeral last January.  

For a male leader, it’s a sign of strength to cry; for Mrs. Clinton, it’s a sign of weakness.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Subtle Sexism

Symbolism of Patriotism

Posted on January 6, 2008 by languageandgrammar

There are many ways to communicate, and our word choice is just one way. We also use non-verbal communication, such as body language, and a good old-fashioned eye roll says more than most of our sentences possibly could. Symbolism is another effective communication tool, which brings me to today’s topic–patriotism.

Personally, I find it very telling that our symbol for patriotism is almost invariably a military symbol. Because of our history–having to literally fight for our freedom and having myriad wars in the couple of centuries that have followed–we often associate freedom with the military. In fact, any time we’re involved in any type of military action, most of us reflexively respond with “the soldiers are fighting for our freedom” even if the conflict has nothing to do with our personal or political freedom.

That’s why nearly every time The Star Spangled Banner or God Bless America is sung, at either a state funeral or the ball game or any other function, it’s typically represented by war planes flying overhead or cannons blasting or the presence of military personnel.

Patriotism represents all of the great things about our country, including freedom of speech, being able to assemble peacefully in protest, and having religious freedom.

It might be nice to see some of those represented as symbols of patriotism on occasion.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Price Point Has No Point

Posted on January 5, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I recently saw a popular fashion expert on television talking about what she knows best–fashion–where she said There’s a perfect black pant for every price point.

There’s also a perfect solution for every grammar problem–well, maybe not every grammar problem, but there is for this annoying one. Is the price point the point at which we have a price? Then isn’t that just called the PRICE? Or is the price point a price range? If it is, then maybe we should call it a price range.

It sounds as if, once again, some middle manager somewhere came up with a term to make the graphs and charts in his reports sound more important. But what does that say about the rest of us who mimic this absurdity?

If it’s a price range, then say price range. If it’s a price, then say price. Those words have been in our vocabulary for quite some time, and they’ve served us quite well.

Sherry

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

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Price Point Has No Point

Choosing Later Retirement Age?

Posted on January 2, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I talked about the subtley of language a couple of days ago in a post about politics (Democrat Party). When a politician says something, he or she clearly does so for a specific reason; when it’s done in a news article, it’s less clear whether subtle language manipulation is intentional or accidental, which brings me to the topic of today’s post.

In the print edition of a local paper (that’s right, some bloggers still use those, which explains why I didn’t link to the story), a short story in the business section noted that many workers are choosing to work past normal retirement age. Choosing, huh? That’s what it’s called now? It used to be called having, as in many workers now have to work past retirement age since common sense tells me that very few people would choose to work longer than retirement age. The logical conclusion is that fewer people have the financial security needed to retire at a normal retirement age.

A few people do, of course, make the choice to keep working. They love what they do, and they want to continue. That’s not most of us, though, and it would be surprising to me if that number were growing. More people are living longer, but given the opportunity (meaning, being financially independent), most would choose to retire earlier and spend more time doing what they enjoy most–rather than doing what they’ve needed to do for decades.

I guess that, technically speaking, it’s still a choice. It’s a choice between continuing to work and not paying the bills; it’s a choice between continuing to work and living on the streets.

Was it done because the writer of the article believed that an increasing number of people want to work longer? Or was it done because the writer wanted to disguise the fact that the economy now is forcing people to work longer than they used to? What do you think?

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

See You Next Year

Posted on December 31, 2007 by languageandgrammar

Do yourself and everyone you know a favor–fight the nearly uncontrollable urge to say see you next year today.

I know that it’s New Year’s Eve, which means that the next time you’ll see many people, it will, indeed, be next year. That’s how it works when we all use the same calendar! I know that nearly every 12-year-old in the country thinks that saying it is the epitome of cleverness. I know that you’ve said it to your co-workers every December 31 for the last two decades. I know that everyone says it to you. I know. I know. I know.

And so does everyone else, so don’t say it!

In my upcoming book, I have a chapter called You Thought You Were Clever, But…, and saying see you next year on December 31 is a classic example of the everyone-knows-it’s-no-longer-clever-but-we-still-say-it line that made me write that chapter–and, perhaps more important, annoys everyone!

Try Happy New Year instead. It works just as well, and you’re more likely to not spend Near Year’s Eve alone with Dick Clark (and that Seacrest guy).

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in humor, language | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on See You Next Year

Democrat Party

Posted on December 27, 2007 by languageandgrammar

A politician’s image is as finely crafted as a pink flamingo made of hand-blown glass, so when something is repeated by a politician or a political party, there can be no question that it’s being done for a reason. There are no oversights; how the politician or political party is perceived is too important.

That’s why it’s no accident that President Bush and his Republican counterparts occasionally refer to the Democratic party as the “Democrat party.” They have made the conscious decision to drop the -ic when referring to their political counterparts, so that leaves us to determine the reason.

I doubt that the answer will come from Karl Rove’s new blockbuster tell-all account of the current administration since indications are that the history is considered as malleable as play dough, so let me take a guess–from the perspective of language, of course. Our system is a democratic one, and as such, the word democratic has a very positive connotation in the eyes of Americans. The goal of changing the reference to his political opponents from Democratic Party to Democrat Party is to attempt separate their opponents from something positive.

It’s subtle, and this isn’t the most heinous abuse of language I’ve ever seen, especially since it makes it seem as if the speaker just made a verbal mistake since we all know that it’s the Democratic Party. It is, however, a good reminder that we need to listen closely to the subtlety of language. 

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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

Controlling Destiny

Posted on December 25, 2007 by languageandgrammar

Bob Costas, on Sunday Night Football, made a good point about language, so I though I’d share it.

It’s common for sports announcers and fans alike to talk about how a team “controls its own destiny” when the team playoff chances rests completely on whether the team in question wins or loses. Other teams do not need to lose for the team in question to make the playoffs–their winning their own games is enough.

He made the point that “destiny” is typically thought of something that happens regardless of our own efforts, such as “I was destined to find this job.” I had no control over it; a higher power had pre-determined that I would be in the right place when the job became available. Personally, I don’t believe much in the whole destiny thing, but that’s not the point here.

Costas’ point was that teams can’t control the uncontrollable, and he’s right. If we believe destiny to be something that is pre-determined, then it makes no sense to talk about controlling it.

–Paul

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

Sherry’s Grammar List

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