Category: commentary

MISNOMER: “1. the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument; 2. a. a use of a wrong or inappropriate name; b. a wrong name or inappropriate designation.” – Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

Misnomer means, quite literally, “wrong name” (mis + nominare, the same Latin root for nominate, nomenclature and, oh, name). When something is a misnomer, it is misnamed. The ladybug is a misnomer because it is not a true bug. Same with the jellyfish and starfish, as neither are fishes. Pencil lead contains no lead (misnomer), and so it goes. What a misnomer is not is a misleading or false statement, regardless of the origin:

Pending bills aimed at decriminalizing libel are “incomplete” and also a “misnomer,” said Justice Secretary Leila De Lima. (Philippine Daily Inquirer) No, these bills may be a “joke,” but unless they are not actually bills, chances are they are not misnomers.

Terrorism is a tactic used by individuals with specific ideologies. Killing an ideology is nearly impossible. The war on terror is a complete misnomer. (Frontpagemag.com) This writer wants to convey the War on Terror is ineffective, a poorly conceived idea – not that it’s misnamed. Again, “joke” may be more what the author intended – or perhaps “lie.”

Aztecs coach Rocky Long says rush defense rankings are a misnomer, especially in the Mountain West. (North County Times) Blaaagh! They are not a misnomer. They don’t tell the whole story, or they mislead or create misconceptions, but “rush defense rankings” rate teams according to their rush defense. Sounds about right.

So why use misnomer to mean deception or misconception? Because it sounds learned. And because it’s a noun, and using nouns shields a writer from using verbs which assign accountability to an action. Observe what happens with a little editing:

Pending bills aimed at decriminalizing libel are “incomplete” and “so poorly written as to be impotent.”

The architects of the war on terror are willfully deceiving the nation.

A little too much punch for us, huh? Well, I won’t belabor the point. If your “global company” only does business in two countries, that’s a misnomer. If your global company doesn’t know its Australian office from its Austrian office, that’s no misnomer. Your company just sucks.

Okay, since I’ve been accused of always being a negative Nancy, here is the first correct example of misnomer that came up under a Google News search:

Almost any woman who has been pregnant can tell you the moniker “morning sickness,” is a bit of a misnomer since the nausea can strike at any time. (Washington Times)

Perfect example. Keep calm and carry on.

– Otto E. Mezzo

References: “Bills ‘decriminalizing’ libel a misnomer, says DOJ chief,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 7, 2012

“Why terrorist attacks have quadrupled since 2001,” Frontpagemag.com, December 5, 2012

“Aztecs hope to avoid potential trap game against Wyoming,” North County Times, November 23, 2012

“Severe morning sickness: A problem for more than just Kate Middleton,” The Washington Times, December 3, 2012

¹⁶ Then two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. ¹⁷ The one woman said, “Oh, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house, and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. ¹⁸ Then on the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth. And we were alone. There was no one else with us in the house; only we two were in the house. ¹⁹ And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. ²⁰ And she arose at midnight and took my son from beside me, while your servant slept, and laid him at her breast, and laid her dead son at my breast. ²¹ When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, he was dead. But when I looked at him closely in the morning, behold, he was not the child that I had borne.” ²² But the other woman said, “No, the living child is mine, and the dead child is yours.” The first said, “No, the dead child is yours, and the living child is mine.” Thus they spoke before the king.

²³ Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living one.’” ²⁴ And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. ²⁵ And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.” ²⁶ Then the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because her heart yearned for her son, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means put him to death.” But the other said, “He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him.” ²⁷ Then the king answered and said, “Give the living child to the first woman, and by no means put him to death; she is his mother.” ²⁸ And all Israel heard of the judgment that the king had rendered, and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice.

– I Kings 3:16-28 (English Standard Version)

“Great Solomon’s ghost! Did you have to include the whole dadblained passage? Couldn’t you have just split the baby and post half of it?”

No. And you just demonstrated why.

Splitting the baby, an attention-getting turn of phrase for sure, has its origins in this Biblical narrative. Directly preceding this passage is one in which God asks the young King Solomon, who has just taken the throne amidst a power struggle, to ask him for anything he wants. Instead of riches of fame, Solomon asks for wisdom to rule wisely. God is very happy at this choice. He grants Solomon this wisdom – just in time for this difficult she said-she said case. In the days before genetic testing, Solomon demonstrated both a clever mind and a keen understanding of human nature by “splitting the baby.”

Today, most people display neither cleverness nor understanding, especially when they use this term. Observe this gem from the New York Times:

Mr. Jobs rarely split the baby. And while there is no doubt that we’re moving toward a world devoid of spinning hard disks and optical drives, Apple clearly wants to give its customers the option to buy the older tech.

It is splitting the baby.

Or this one from Forbes, an article titled “Good Negotiators Don’t Split Babies”:

Splitting the baby is a common but ineffective strategy for resolving a dispute or negotiating a good business deal.

Successful negotiators don’t settle for splitting the difference between two unacceptable proposals.

Yes, those are the two opening paragraphs, and you will notice they reveal what this author (and so many other) thinks splitting the baby means: splitting the difference.

NO. If you mean “splitting the difference,” use the phrase splitting the difference, not splitting the baby. You “split the baby” if you propose an ingenious and drastic solution to an intractable problem, especially one that results in neither party getting what they want. Of course, it is instructive that Solomon knew he wouldn’t have to split the baby. The threat itself was enough to solve the problem.

Since ingenuity and creative thinking are discouraged in the business world, you will probably never find occasion to use splitting the baby in its correct form. Which is for the better. I’d hate to see what most managers do when handed a newborn and a sharp object.

– Otto E. Mezzo

See also Gordian knot, another unsolvable problem requiring an unorthodox solution. And also washing one’s hands (of a problem), another Biblical reference.

References:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/is-apple-splitting-the-baby/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2012/11/05/good-negotiators-dont-split-babies/

Sighting: House Democrats brace for some defections among moderates on impeachment of Trump

http://lexicide.com/seen-in-wapo-splitting-the-baby/

MEMORIALIZE: “1. to address or petition by a memorial; 2. commemorate: …an exciting period in history that has been memorialized in many popular books and movie; …at the entrance to the park stands a statue memorializing the novelist Sir Walter Scott.”

Is everyone straight on what a memorial is? It celebrates someone who’s dead. Dead dead dead. Memorial Day is for our war dead. A memorial hospital honors a philanthropist who is dead. If you’re in the memorial business, you know what you make? Tombstones. Not carpeting or cookware or lawn care implements. Tombstones. For dead people.

So when you read this sentence:

Such communications may be memorialized in emails, memoranda, or notes.

perhaps a tear comes to your eye. You think of the sage advice your grandmother offered, or perhaps a wedding homily from your favorite uncle, now deceased and sorely missed… except that this line comes from an official Department of Justice memo, and the “communications” involved are “‘[s]ubstantive’ case-related communications” that “may contain discoverable information.” Hmm. Hardly worthy of a memorial, but certainly bearing the need to be preserved or recorded.

Or how about this one:
This serves to memorialize and inform you and the other members of the Detroit Board of Education…

“Oh,” the Board members (and recipients of this memo) are thinking. “We’ve passed into the great beyond. Crap. I really wanted to plant those forsythia borders this weekend.” But wait – read on:

…of those certain events that took place during my weekly meeting with the Board President Mathis.

“I see,” the Board sighs with relief. “The Superintendent doesn’t understand that memorialize means something other than ‘record.’ At least I can plant those shrubberies.” (Read the whole memo here, but be warned, the content is – um, disturbing and sexually explicit. I wish they hadn’t memorialized it.)

But what bugs me more than this overblown alternative to “remember” or “commit to the record” is that memorialize, as I mentioned before, is for dead people. Not memos. Not sheaves of foolscap. And it’s only a matter of time before HR managers memorialize employee birthdays.

So unless you are dealing with the deceased, you have no business memorializing jack doodle. Unless Jack Doodle has recently passed on. In which case, a postmortem is also in order.

instead, use: record, remember, preserve, commit to the record, write down

Otto E. Mezzo

References: http://www.justice.gov/dag/discovery-guidance.html

http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/detnews/2010/pdf/0618mathis.pdf

Suggested by Nancy Friedman’s article “Weird Words from the Corporate Lexicon” at Visual Thesaurus.

AGNOSTIC: “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.” – Oxford English Dictionary

Derived from the Greek a (without) + gnosis (knowledge), agnosticism preaches that we don’t and can’t know the nature and existence of the Divine. As Bertrand Russell put it:

“An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.”

Thomas Huxley, speaking before the age of plausible deniability, summed it up even more succinctly: “I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man.”

Of course, Huxley is just some old dude who died before 2010 and didn’t even have a Twitter account, so what does he know? In our modern, enlightened age, agnostic simply means “impartial.” Exempli gratia:

The JPMorgan service will draw unneeded money and securities from however many clearing brokers an investor uses, Portney said. “It’s clearing broker agnostic,” she said. (“JPMorgan Bank to Hold Collateral After Futures Firms’ Losses,” Bloomberg Businessweek, August 14, 2012)

Spare Backup, Inc. (“Spare Backup”), a provider of data backup and security software for smartphones, tablets and PCs, which is carrier and manufacturer agnostic, announced today that it has successfully completed an agreement… (“Spare Backup Reaches Agreement on Principle Business Terms for Major International Telco Launch in 2012,” RedOrbit.com, August 9, 2012)

Aetna ‘Agnostic’ on Acquisition Size, CFO Zubretsky Says (headline, Bloomberg Businessweek, July 31, 2012)

What’s most interesting about this shift is that it seems so logical, but actually reflects the tortured, imprecise associations that have given rise to other lexicides. Just because one is agnostic (as a religion), it doesn’t mean one is impartial or accepting of any religion. Agnostics profess only a lack of knowledge in supernatural matters. True agnostics have arrived here through a process of thought, not through apathy or the desire to sleep in on Sunday, and do not profess neutrality in matters of faith. The Freedom From Religion Foundation claims to be “the nation’s largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and skeptics),” and no one would call them impartial. (Read their website and see if you can disagree.) So where did this idea that agnostics are the disinterested stakeholders come from?

Who knows? Maybe the Apple-PC “religious” wars. Or maybe I’m wrong, and companies who claim to be platform-agnostic really don’t (and can’t) know which system is Diabolic and which one Divine. Seriously, though – in a knowledge-based economy, why would anyone hire a know-nothing company? I’d be looking for the ones who preach predestination. They’re the ones you want on your side.

– Otto E. Mezzo

References: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-14/jpmorgan-to-house-client-collateral-in-bank-after-futures-losses

http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1112672736/spare_backup_reaches_agreement_on_principle_business_terms_for_major/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-31/aetna-still-has-appetite-for-big-acquisition-cfo-zubretsky-says

A few weeks ago, PR Daily posted a nice little article titled “8 words that may not mean what you think they mean.” One of the words, unique, is a word-in-residence here at Lexicide. Ms. Brockway’s column received an avalanche of responses, some suggesting words for the next article, others “insisting that the meanings of words change because ‘majority rules.'” In their estimation, literally means “figuratively” because that’s how so many people use it.

First, let’s address this ‘majority rules’ crap. I agree (and have written here) that language evolves. I agree we should roll with the changes and avoid words whose fluid definitions could cause confusion. But just because a gaggle of chowderheads use literally wrong by no means makes them “the majority.” Lexicide doesn’t cover words that have moved on  ̶  words like gay, nice (which once meant “foolish” and was used as an insult) or enthusiastic (my favorite  ̶  it started life meaning “possessed by spirits.”). We only fuss about words which a minority of people use incorrectly.

There wouldn’t be controversy about literally, leverage or disinterested if most people agreed on their (wrong) definitions. I argue that this is prima facie evidence that lexicidal maniacs are the outliers, and the rest of us are trying (sometimes failing) to do right by our words. Keep trying. And read “8 more words that may not mean what you think they mean.”

̶  Otto E. Mezzo

P.S.: I also recommend Laura Hale Brockway’s blog Impretinent Remarks.

SURETY: “1. security against loss or damage or for the fulfillment of an obligation, the payment of a debt, etc.; a pledge, guaranty, or bond; 2. a person who has made himself or herself responsible for another, as a sponsor, godparent, or bondsman; 3. the state or quality of being sure; 4. certainty” –dictionary.com

A good friend, who happens to be a distinguished professor of religion, wrote me this note:

Lexicide moment: “All that can be said with any surety . . . ” Really? Are you going to give me something in exchange for letting you say what you want to say? Reading a very frustrating article right now. Changed “surety” to certainty and thought of you.

Aww. In return for that thought (and the C-note you slipped me), Lexicide’s word du jour is surety, which according to the popular website dictionary.com can indeed mean “certainty.” Even the OED lists “the state of being sure or certain of something” as a definition. Merriam-Webster lists “the state of being sure” as the primary definition!

Color me surprised. No, really. I asked the missus, who usually defends language misuse, and she’s never heard surety used in any context outside of a guaranty (as opposed to a guarantee). Of course, since she’s a distinguished attorney who used to work in insurance, her readings are skewed. For example, she hadn’t read this web review of Dickens’ Dombey and Son:

It is a lovely book, I can say that with all surety.

And on Yahoo Voices, a writer snarks:

Once again, promised with all surety the rapture was upon us, disappointment results.

And if those sites aren’t “legit” enough for you, here’s a testimony from a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on their website mormon.org:

It took a lot of fasting and prayer on my part, but I can now say with all surety that God lives, that Jesus Christ is our Savior, and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Interesting that two of those examples cited here are religion-oriented. And my friend is a professor of Jewish studies who came across the first example in her work. Surely there’s a joke here involving an airplane and a shortage of parachutes.

Again, we at Lexicide have to ask – why use surety when there is already an established, uncontroversial word for certainty: certainty?

Okay, here’s the joke: A Jew, a Mormon and an atheist are flying together when their plane malfunctions. As it spirals to certain doom, the Jew announces, “I believe with all surety that my name is written in the Book of Life, so I will soon see G-d.” The Mormon counters, “I believe with all surety I will soon be with Jesus in the Celestial Kingdom.” The atheist then says, “I believe with all the surety my brothers put up on this airplane, they are going to be pissed!”

Thank you. Please tip your waitress.

– Otto E. Mezzo

References: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surety?s=t

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/surety

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surety

http://www.factualopinion.com/the_factual_opinion/2012/04/no-pictures.html

http://voices.yahoo.com/rapture-disappoints-again-8517171.html

http://mormon.org/me/7VQB/