Category: commentary

Socialize

SOCIALIZE
(intransitive verb) “to participate actively in a social group”
(transitive verb) “1:  to make social; especially :  to fit or train for a social environment; 2a :  to constitute on a socialistic basis <socialize industry>; b :  to adapt to social needs or uses; 3:  to organize group participation in <socialize a recitation>”
– Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Socialize, as you can see above, bears several definitions. The most widespread is the first one listed: “to participate actively in a social group” — to parlay, mingle, visit, hang with the posse. But there is a very strange use in the corporate world that essentially equates socialize with disseminate [information]: “Beth, would you please socialize the meeting notes?” In some cases, the context of discussion is present: “Let’s socialize the proposal requirements and circle back.”

Some will argue (don’t they always?) that this meaning comports with the third transitive verb definition above. I think this use of socialize is jarring because, first, it is still rare and therefore does not bear the spark of familiarity, and second, there are two other well-known definitions for socialize that crash against the corporate definition: the abovementioned “to participate actively in a social group” and the more sinister “to constitute on a socialistic basis,” meaning to appropriate a private enterprise and place it under government control. You still want to socialize that profitable startup concept?

Socialize as a synonym for “disseminate,” “discuss,” or “make widely known” is not new, but it’s still awkward and causes confusion. Avoid this usage at all costs, even if your pipeline is social media. And read this column on the word by the New York Times‘ Ben Zimmer. Then feel free to socialize among yourselves.

– Otto E. Mezzo

See also: Socialism

References: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04FOB-onlanguage-t.html?ref=on_language&_r=0

IANAL. That’s why I don’t write like one.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), so I do not write or speak in legalese. Why would I want to? The dense, antiquated language of legal documents makes for great bedtime reading – if you’re an insomniac. I understand its purpose (married to a lawyer, thank you), but like most jargon, it has no place outside a legal brief.

AND YET business writers love borrowing jargon. They steal from scientists and pilfer from engineers, so what’s to stop a marketing director or analyst from using legalese? For example: including but not limited to. As we have covered before, the word including already implies the following list is not all-inclusive.* Lawyers add “but not limited to” to make doubly clear the parties of the first and second parts understand that, but you don’t have to.

Making points doubly clear is actually the point of legal language. English courts set up by the Normans used French terminology (including but not limited to estoppel, mortgage, plaintiff and defendant, force majeure, and attorney, which is why we pluralize “attorneys general” a la française), but also used the English (Germanic) terms alongside, creating doublets we use to this day:

  • Aid and abet
  • Free and clear
  • Null and void
  • Sole and exclusive
  • Will and testament
  • And, of course, law and order

As you can see, usually the Anglo-Saxon term comes first, often because it’s shorter. (One notable exception: to have and to hold, a phrase that does not mean “to possess and cuddle,” but rather “have care of”. Yes, I think this is sweet, too.) The point being twelfth-century English barristers had a reason for redundancy: making themselves clear to both English and French speakers. Today’s lawyers cite tradition as their reason. What’s yours?

You have no excuse. Including but not limited to belongs in contracts and nowhere else. The same goes for whereby (use where) and hereby (cut altogether). Also, joint and several does not simply mean “several.” It means “together and separately” (sever forming the root of several). And no, several does not connote a specific quantity, so it is fine to boast of your company’s several, multiple or plentiful achievements rather than insist on only using the vague numerous.

So please stop using legal terminology in company communications. I understand you like verbiage. But no company ever got sued for glowing, yet truthful, PR. And YANAL. Court adjourned.

– Otto E. Mezzo

*And for the sake of the great Learned Hand, please do not end your not-all-inclusive list with etc. We get it already.

Reference: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/historical-roots-redundant-synonyms/

Epic

EPIC: “An epic (from the Ancient Greek adjective ἐπικός (epikos), from ἔπος (epos) “word, story, poem”) is a lengthy narrative poem, ordinarily concerning a serious subject containing details of heroic deeds and events significant to a culture or nation.” – from the Wikipedia entry for epic poetry.

My oldest child is eleven, and like most Americans his age, his panoply of modifiers is limited to epic, awesome, ultimate and boss. I had no intention of covering middle school slang, but then I saw this poster: From the Noah Movie Facebook page Okay, not this poster, but one like it. Anyhow, there in bold letters is a single word excerpt from Peter Travers’ mostly positive review: EPIC. Considering Rolling Stone’s core audience, I’m sure Paramount Pictures assumed Travers meant the movie was AWESOME and BOSS, but I had different suspicions. Here is the lead sentence from the review, which confirms my cynicism:

Pick your gospel: the Scriptures or rock & roll. Both figure into director Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, a biblical epic that follows no rules except its creator’s teeming imagination.

“Epic” in this case only describes the genre, not the quality. I’d seen this before, when I staffed a video store* as a summer job. “A ROMANTIC COMEDY!” proclaimed the box, hoping to attract an inattentive renter looking for just that (a romantic comedy, I mean). But never you mind. Any bored 13-year-old will see the poster and assume “Noah” is indeed EPIC.

So the poster fails twice – first, for resorting to teen slang, second for misrepresenting the comment in the first place**  Of course, the movie has made more than $300 million, which proves my definition of “fail” is an epic fail itself.

– Otto E. Mezzo

*A “video store” was a retail outlet where one rented “VHS tapes,” an old magnetic media on which was recorded a movie – the forerunner to DVDs. Rather than Redboxes, these locations were staffed by “employees,” who would make recommendations and help you distinguish between “The Seventh Seal” and “The Seventh Sign” – if you didn’t annoy them, in which case, they would recommend the Bergman film.  

**Which may explain why I can’t find the poster in Google images anywhere. I also searched for news of Travers protesting the use of his “review,” but to my surprise (not) I find nothing – media companies are very good about covering each others’ misdeeds. Then again, repentance is a good thing when the judgment of God is on screen.

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/noah-20140327#ixzz30CWxoxNn

From The Telegraph: “Be short, be simple and be human.”

The Complete Plain WordsWhat he hated above all was jargon – partly because it was impossible to understand, and partly because it demeaned people by making them feel stupid. The more monolithic bureaucracies became, Gowers felt, the more they reinforced their remoteness by using impenetrable language. He suggested three golden rules that everyone in government and business should abide by: “Be short, be simple and be human.”

If a better maxim exists for institutional writers, I haven’t heard it. A recent Telegraph (UK) feature profiled Sir Ernest Gowers, who sounded the alarm against corporatese in 1948 by publishing Plain Words. Now his great-granddaughter is taking up the fight and updating The Complete Plain Words for the 21st century.

This article is well worth the read, if only to be reminded how long jargon and glittery language has plagued us. I was also struck by this nugget of wisdom by the great Sir Winston Churchill:

“Broadly speaking, the short words are the best,” Churchill said, “and the old ones when short are the best of all.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10710840/Speak-plainly-are-we-losing-the-war-against-jargon.html

 

From Slate: From whence “the plot thickens”?

PlotThickens

A reader (also an academic, teacher and top-selling author) pointed us to this article exploring the history of “the plot thickens.” Because it comes from Slate, the article must contain some hipster hook, in this case a Wes Anderson film. But what is most intriguing is how this seemingly unintuitive turn of phrase spread. Just as today, when one boss uses leverage incorrectly or talks of a mute point, and others carry the banner without question, so it was in the 17th century.

And I said seemingly unintuitive — because once the article makes it clear plot refers to both “scheme” and “patch of ground,” the plot thickens makes perfect sense.

Reference: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/03/12/_the_plot_thickens_the_phrase_s_etymology_and_origin_at_the_request_of_grand.html

Refute

RefuteREFUTE: “prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove” – Oxford American Dictionary

You might think our last entry signaled a new direction for Lexicide – perhaps one in which we refute our antagonistic ways. As usual, you would be wrong. And wrong again.

Refute does not mean simply “argue against,” “rebut,” or “deny.” Refuting a premise means you are disproving it (or attempting to, at least) with data or hard evidence. It is the way intelligent and thoughtful folks debate, in contradistinction to the way most people “debate” today.

Some headlines that use refute correctly:

CDC Data Refutes New Anti-Gun Study’s Claims

Progressive Economists Refute AP, Defend The Buffett Rule*

Tesla uses data to refute New York Times report

…and incorrectly:

Oil producing provinces demand parliament to refute 2014 budget law draft

Trend of local violence hard to ignore, refute

Harare refutes Arsenal’s decline

Sheesh. Even The Economist.

You’ll notice two of the “good” headlines contain the word data.** This is because my first Google News search turned up zero correct usages. Only when I added the word data to the search did I get some proper hits (and one about Donald Trump). I also tried “scientists refute,” but most of those hits involved scientists “refuting” the existence of God – probably not a lot of hard evidence there.

A refutation (yes, that is a word) has nothing to do with the moral or political righteousness of an argument (which is why I deliberately picked one article from the NRA and one from Media Matters), so please don’t tell me that someone didn’t actually refute a position because you reject their data. They may not have persuaded you, but that’s not the same thing. Just as refute is not the same word as reject.

– Otto E. Mezzo

* I would have preferred the headline to say “Economists refute AP fact check”, as opposed to the AP itself.

**You know data is plural, right? So “data refute” is correct.

References:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/11/cdc-data-refutes-new-anti-gun-studys-claims.aspx

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/09/21/progressive-economists-refute-ap-defend-the-buf/182920

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130214/CARNEWS/130219905

http://www.zawya.com/story/Oil_producing_provinces_demand_parliament_to_refute_2014_budget_law_draft-ZAWYA20140126061542/

http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/opinion/article_3d2f93f0-7e42-11e3-ad75-0019bb2963f4.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2013/03/football-africa

Against the pedants: an alternate view from Stephen Fry

Ladies and gentlemen, the always-spot on Stephen Fry:

Are his views contrary to Lexicide’s mission? Somewhat, and yet, the man has many points. Pedantry, the sense of academic superiority which informs so much language correction (and is often on display here), makes a poor evangelist. Can one tell the difference between disinterested used wrong (“uninterested”) and used correctly (“impartial”)? Often, yes. But then this (at 4:57): “I think what offends…when confronted with extremely informal, unpunctuated and haywire language is the implication of not caring that underlies it.”

Yes, this.

Never let it be said that we don’t enjoy language. Our love of language is what drives Lexicide – maybe now a little lighter on the pedantry.

– Otto E. Mezzo