commentary Archives - Page 8 of 13

These are the words that try men’s (and women’s) souls.

The The Tar Tar Pits — A Smilodon and Canis dirus debate proper word usage.

I recently asked for suggestions for an article. That I had to ask may reflect better word usage in the population as a whole. Or it could mean people are changing the way of their errors. Here are some suggestions, courtesy of a Boston-based reporter at a national news magazine:

Not sure how many of my pet peeves you’ve already addressed but here are a few options: “decimate” as a synonym for “destroy,” “on accident” vs. “by accident,” the word “irregardless,” “pressuring” vs. “pressurizing,” “circumventing the globe,” “jibe” vs. “jive,” “make due” vs. “make do,” “safe haven,” “less than” vs. “fewer than,” the way people use “fit as a fiddle” to mean “physically healthy” when it really means “well suited to the job.”

Lexicide has covered decimate (somewhat). Others, such as the war between less than and fewer than, we don’t intend to tackle; writers have spilled much ink on that particular distinction. We also try to stay away from tautologies (phrases that repeat themselves or use self-evident descriptors) like safe haven, frozen tundra (suggested by Andrew from Pennsylvania) and my personal favorite, salsa sauce. Picking on salsa sauce may be mildly unfair (see what I did there?) to the Spanish-illiterate, just as most Anglophones won’t see the error in please R.S.V.P. Scott from L.A. went further and panned La Brea Tar Pits, as la brea is Spanish for “the tar.” Which means The La Brea Tar Pits translates as “the the tar tar pits.” Ay, carumba.

Scott in Los Angeles also asked: How about “free reign”?

Lexicide has covered a few homonyms, but as a rule (I did it again!), we don’t touch them. In case you don’t know, you give someone free rein, just as you rein a person in — rein as in those straps of leather you use to steer or stop a horse. If you type free reign and then justify it by claiming your giving someone the powers of a monarch, you are wrong. Just wrong.

Claire in in Delaware suggested synergy, which I’m not sure actually had a meaning to begin with.

Andrew also suggested notorious, which many use to mean well-known (with no negative connotation) as opposed to infamous. I seem to recall hearing colleagues misuse notorious that way, but a search of news sites comes up snake eyes. We’ll keep an eye on this one, though, as it would follow the pattern of negative words shifting into neutral (see fulsome, postmortem and stagnant).

Lylah from Boston went on to criticize meteoric rise when, in fact, meteors only fall. Speaking of falling, Elisa from Virginia hates fail as a noun. Sorry, Elisa. I think that one is here to stay.

Anne, an English teacher in North Carolina (wouldn’t you know it?), does not like the conflation betwixt everyday and every day. Finally, Andy from Florida, disses newly created words without vowels like “pwn.” Obviously, Andy, you’re not a fan of the Czech language.

“New dictionary definition of ‘literally’ will literally make your head explode”

From the Syracuse Post-Standard, in an article literally titled “New dictionary definition of ‘literally’ will literally make your head explode“:

Back in March, The Week pointed out that Merriam-Webster had recently added a second usage of the word “literally” to mean the same as “virtually,” but as hyperbole for emphasis. The Oxford English Dictionary has also included the informal definition, “used for emphasis while not being literally true,” since 2011.

But while traditionalists are complaining about the demise of English, many are quick to say that language evolves over time and dictionaries reflect those changes.

“Our job is to describe the language people are using,” OED senior editor Fiona McPherson said, according to the Daily Mail. “The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it the wrong way.”

Your rite! My head did literally explode!

Reference: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/literally_definition_dictionary_wrong_english_languageyour_head_explode.html

Olde tyme lexicide: “Against Singular Ye”

Ye-Thou
The perversions the youth wreak upon our our shared language grate on the ear and distract from semantic content. While most of their petty acts of verbal vandalism are limited to the realm of vocabulary where they do little lasting damage, it is now the very foundation of our language that is under threat. I speak, of course, of a recent assault on our grammar, that of so-called “singular ye”.

If you like Lexicide (and I know you do), you will love this rante most exercifed on Jeff Kaufman’s blog. Just goes to show that there is nothing new under the sun.

http://www.jefftk.com/news/2013-07-21

Sea Change

SEA CHANGE: “…a poetic or informal term meaning a gradual transformation in which the form is retained but the substance is replaced… For example, a character from literature may transform over time into a better person after undergoing various trials or tragedies, i.e. ‘There is a sea change in Scrooge’s personality towards the end of the play.’” – Wikipedia entry for sea change

What’s the difference between a change and a sea change? Nothing, if you only read memos and press releases. Or these recent headlines:

Aviva push into rented housing is ‘sea-change’

Barbara Walters’ Retirement: Sea Change Or Revolution?

Aquatica is a major sea change for water park

Okay, so that last one is a pun. But seriously – “The View” needs a replacement, and our choice of descriptors is sea change or “revolution?” Once again, hyperbole reigns supreme, with every advance hailed as a sea change. Just scouring the headlines, we have sea changes for surgery, banking and even the art of tax avoidance. In our opinion, better-looking mastectomy scars do not constitute a sea change in medicine. Patients not dying on the table from routine infections? Sea change. But in our modern media (which, by the way, is also undergoing a sea change), Florence Nightingale doesn’t merit the label. Barbara Walters does. That may be as media-fawners like it. I call it a comedy of errors.

– Otto E. Mezzo

Diverse (and, not to be excluded, Diversity)

Wow! Each one of us is diverse! (Except for the white guy on the end.) — Wow! An exciting example of diversity and hackneyed stock photography!

DIVERSE: “very different from each other and of various kinds” – Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

“I am an intelligent, diverse individual.”

Like hell. You may have diverse interests, but you are not diverse. One thing cannot be diverse.

Yes, yes, I know what you mean – that you’re interesting (or maybe unique). Or maybe that’s not what you mean. More and more I see advertisements seeking a “diverse candidate,” meaning, of course, a minority candidate. Now who in the adult working world doesn’t know what diverse is code for? Is it really so terrible to say “minority,” or heaven forbid, “black,” “Hispanic,” “Asian,” or whatever you need? After all, you can have a diversity of personalities (outgoing and reserved), temperaments (introverts and extroverts), even political outlooks. But hey, if it’s racial diversity you seek, fine. Just don’t use diverse to refer to an individual.

I close with this reminiscence. I once worked at a Fortune 500 company, designing recruiting brochures. “We need more, um – diverse people,” the recruiters would say, the “um” signifying the brain shift from “black/Asian/Hispanic” to more politically correct term. So I’d find a few more goshawful stock photographs, careful to select models who differed from the existing models. When they complained they weren’t um – diverse enough, I’d throw in a few beards for variety. I know I was being a jerk. But I felt bad for misleading our new hires. They were expecting to join an ethnically-mixed team of six enthusiastic people in suits. What they got instead were five bored white people in polo shirts.

– Otto E. Mezzo

References: “There is No Such Thing as a Diverse Candidate” http://www.rosettathurman.com/2011/12/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-diverse-candidate/

How now, Ho Hum?

I am old. So my children tell me. So also says my 20-something friend and officemate. She says a lot of things I don’t get, actually. Then again, she watches a lot more TV than I do, so I usually dismiss her catchphrases as culturally irrelevant to those of us who still think REM is alternative.

One of her more arresting utterances is “ho hum,” a response to one of my many witty and cutting remarks:

Me: Yes, your new Tom’s shoes are fabulous. Because nothing says “urban sophisticate” like burlap.

Her: Ho hum!

By ho hum she means “what-EVER!” or, were we not at work, a visibly raised middle finger. That’s not what ho hum means to me (or, it seems, to nearly everyone on the web). So I’m asking a question: who among you has heard ho hum used in this manner? Who uses it thusly? The answer will help settle an ongoing argument about the vigor of youth vs. the merits of age.

— Otto E. Mezzo

CNN: “LOL isn’t funny anymore.”

John McWhorter laughs out loud. LOL.

In a CNN.com opinion column today, linguist John McWhorter makes this observation:

Take LOL. Today, it wouldn’t signify amusement the way it did when it first caught on. Jocelyn texts “where have you been?” and Annabelle texts back “LOL at the library studying for two hours.”

How funny is that, really? Or an exchange such as “LOL theres only one slice left” / “don’t deprive me LOL” — text exchanges often drip with these LOL’s the way normal writing drips with commas. Let’s face it — no mentally composed human being spend his or her entire life immersed in ceaseless hilarity. The LOLs must mean something else.

A little late to the game McWhorter is (Lexicide observed this four years ago, probably a year after everyone else). But the man is no slouch. Here’s his analysis:

[LOLs] signal basic empathy between texters. What began as signifying laughter morphed into easing tension and creating a sense of equality… That is, “LOL” no longer “means” anything. Rather, it “does something” — conveying an attitude — just as the ending “-ed” doesn’t “mean” anything but conveys past tense. LOL is, of all things, grammar.

Well put. He concludes: All indications are that America’s youth are doing it quite well. Texting is not the mangling of language — it’s the birth of a new one.

If anything, then, texting will keep Lexicide going for years to come.

Reference: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/opinion/mcwhorter-lol/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

From Slate.com: Death to “Bridezilla!”

snowmageddon

On March 5, as a winter storm approached, I posted this on Facebook:

If you want to be my friend, do not — repeat, do not — repeat or use an annoying portmanteau “word” such as “snowquester,” “snowpocalypse” or “snowmageddon.” And realize for these constructions to be clever, the replaced syllable should actually sound like the original syllable.

On March 6, a friend posted a link to a Slate.com article titled: “Please Do Not Chillax: Adjoinages and the death of the American pun,” published that morning.

We have a word for that, and it isn’t synergy.

Anyhow, I learned from the article that this type of awkward construction is called a neolexic portmanteau, as distinguished from a true pun. Bridezilla, stagflation and chillax (I hadn’t heard that one) are neolexic portmanteaux, whereas they classify bromance, gaydar and staycation as puns because rather than simply trying to jam two dissimilar words together, there is the attempt to replace a syllable or syllables with similar sounds.

I suppose it says something about human creativity and the wily nimbleness of English that these words exist. Maybe it also says something about our culture that a close male friendship is mildly derided as a bromance or a female activist seeking equal treatment could be labeled a feminazi.

Then again, it also pegs us as a culture prone to gross exaggeration (Obamanation, anyone?). Case in point: we got less than an inch of snow last night. Snowmageddon, indeed.

— Otto E. Mezzo

Want to be taken seriously? Be a better writer! (h/t Linked In)

The number of poorly written emails, resumes and blog posts I come across each month is both staggering and saddening. Grammar is off. There are tons of misspellings. Language is much wordier or more complex than necessary. Some things I read literally make no sense at all to me.

So begins this brief and insightful article from Linked In. If you need validation that good writing is good for you, please read. My favorite tip (the one I hammer into my children)? Number 5: READ.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130221123241-15077789-want-to-be-taken-seriously-become-a-better-writer

Long Tail

LONG TAIL: “The long tail is the large number of occurrences far from the “head” or central part of a distribution of popularities, probabilities or such. In statistics, a probability distribution is said to have a long tail if a larger share of population rests within its tail than would under a normal distribution.” – from the Wikipedia entry for long tail.

I know a man who drives a tow truck. He is a happy man. He makes a decent living and takes pride in his family. But that’s not why he’s happy. He’s happy because he is secure. When he encounters a long or obscure word, he shakes his head and says in a folksy way, “I have no idea what you’re saying.” He will probably live until he’s 100, blissfully enjoying his beer on the porch whilst looking up at the stars.

I know many people who are not like this man. They are very insecure, and when they encounter an impressive word, their first reaction is typically the same as Mr. Tow Truck Driver: “I have no idea what he’s saying!” This is followed by much hand-wringing and fretting they will be found wanting. Of course, the definition of said word will be Googled, and these insecures will then utter, email or memorialize this word as much as possible. By doing this, they: 1. prove they are smart; 2. embarrass others who don’t know what this obscure or misused jargon means. And so the cycle repeats.

And that is how long tail entered the common lexicon. The phrase hadn’t existed long before Chris Anderson wrote his groundbreaking article in Wired magazine explaining how Amazon had changed commerce by enabling retailers to sell less popular items to smaller, niche markets. On a statistical distribution graph, these markets are in the skinny “tail” of the curve, falling off to the left:

long-tail1

Long tail theory became everyone’s favorite buzzword because – I don’t know, it was in Wired or it was the hot thing. Most likely because marketers and retailers figured they had just overheard some secret formula to success (forgetting that Wired has a circulation of more than 800,000 slackjawed lemmings just like them). So everyone jumped on long tail retailing – except everyone didn’t. Yeah, see, it sounds cool and hip, but in the end, big business wants big business. They don’t want to sell a few Tuvan throat singing MP3s when they can sell a gazillion Miley Cyrus CDs. Still, long tail sounds cool, so it’s off to the races. Now we have long tail marketing, long tail SEO, long tail video production, long tail bread bakeries… I’m kidding on that last one (for now).

And we also have headlines like these:

The Long Tail of a Hurricane

The Long Tail of the LIBOR Scandal

Neither of these news stories have anything to do with long tail theory or statistics. Nope. They’re just about the long-lasting fallout of hurricanes and financial malfeasance. Would they have used the words long tail were it not for the Chris Anderson article and the fawning lip-service it spawned? Does a bear short in the exchange?

Now, I close this lengthy article with my typical entreaty to write smarter. But I know most of you reading this are too insecure to not use a juicy, trendy phrase like long tail if you can get away with it. (“We need to facilitate a postmortem on our long tail strategy to stakeholders!”) Fine, don’t listen to me. But the next time you need a tow, just remember the guy hauling your Beemer out of the ditch is a happier person than you.

– Otto E. Mezzo

References: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2012/11/29/166165560/the-long-tail-of-a-hurricane
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-long-tail-of-the-libor-scandal-rbs-settlement-opens-the-gate-to-civil-penalties-12089