sightings Archives - Page 11 of 15

Slate: Typos and bad typography in Hitchcock restoration!

You may not know this (or care), but I majored in film (if you hadn’t guessed from my nom de plume). So even more egregious to me than word abuse is thoughtless filmmaking. And still more unforgivable is incompetent film restoration – because if a film is worthy of restoring, it is not thoughtless filmmaking.

But venturing deeper into the circles of hell, we find the combined sin of careless restoration coupled with dunderheaded copy editing.

What they did to Hitchcock's Frenzy — Click on image to see larger version

According to the blogger who caught the errors:

“Do a few misspellings really matter that much?” – Yes they do. “Nobody would really notice would they?” – That’s not the point. Think how insulting it is to these crew members, their families, descendants. This HD master of FRENZY will now become the master that everyone will see for decades on TV, on iTunes, in DCP, and on this bad disc.

We’re not seeing the film as released in 1972 and signed off by Hitchcock, we’re seeing an approximation of the opening titles, the text of which looks like a PS3 videogame, completely static, with digital fades between each piece of text. All done in a vain attempt to make the opening credits look a little better than they probably do, and to save cleaning up the original.

Look at that awful un-smart apostrophe. (Did I mention I also worked as a graphic designer? Yes, third in my inner circles of hell is thoughtless typography, like using Arial in place of Frutiger or using Comic Sans – ever.

Read the Slate article here.

– Otto E. Mezzo

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/09/13/hitchcock_frenzy_blu_ray_new_typo_filled_restoration_botches_its_copy_editing_.html

Agnostic

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.”

thhuxleywoodburytype — Thomas Huxley, who may not know about God, but knows more than you.

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

Urbane

nyc-sunset1

URBANE: “(of a person, esp. a man) suave, courteous, and refined in manner.” –New Oxford American Dictionary

“Urbane landscape: are city anthology films just a way of boosting tourism?”

This was the title of a recent movie review in The Guardian, and I knew immediately this would be our July entry. Provided the review made no references to the film’s sophistication, its gentility. Nope. Too much to hope for.

Urbane is not the same as cosmopolitan, which is the opposite of provincial. And it is most definitely not the same as urban, although they clearly share a common root. So urban planners attempt to mitigate urban problems such as traffic, crowding and too many Starbucks on the same block. Urbane planners make witty jokes about public transportation, but never at the expense of sanitation workers.

I will allow the use of urbane in this headline is probably intended to be a pun. But it’s a bad pun because it goes nowhere. Maybe the urban planner can help. To me, this looks like a job for the sanitation workers. It pays not to piss them off.

– Otto E. Mezzo

Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/03/7-days-havana-city-anthology

Inconceivable!

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

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/

Hopefully, the AP gives in

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the AP’s surrender on hopefully. Now if you think Lexicide is pretentious, please read the editorial, which leads with “The barbarians have done it.” We at Lexicide would never refer to anyone as a barbarian. (We prefer “knuckle-dragging troglodyte.”)

On hopefully, I feel less severe than the Post. After all, using it to mean “it is hoped that” (“Hopefully, writers will stop using words incorrectly.”) does not eliminate the traditional meaning of “full of hope” (“She waited hopefully for word of her husband’s fate.”). Both seem to coexist peacefully, clarified by context. Also, “it is hoped that” is awkward and passive, and there are times when the first person “I hope that” is not appropriate.

You see? We at Lexicide welcome useful language drift — some of the time, at least. We promise to always be open-minded about these things. Hopefully.

Shoo-in

shoo-in

SHOO-IN: “a person or thing that is certain to succeed, esp. someone who is certain to win a competition.” – New Oxford American Dictionary

This is not a real lexicide, and to be honest, the perpetrator here is yours truly. Recently, I used the improper shoe-in on, of all places, Facebook. A “friend” (yes, one of those) called me on it. Like a preacher caught in a brothel, somehow the offense seems dirtier coming from me.

So off I went in search of shoo-in’s origin. Like many other useful terms (“hands down” comes to mind), shoo-in comes from the world of horse racing, where the nippy nags are literally shooed in to the finish (to shoo meaning, of course, to drive an animal where you want it to go). Presumably all the jockeys are shooing in their mounts, so how did this term come to apply only to sure bets? Opinions vary, but William Safire wrote that in a fixed race it was the other jockeys who shooed in the decided winner while simultaneously holding their own steeds back. This origin story sounds murky to me, but as this site demonstrates, crisp logic is not a prerequisite for etymology.

So please forgive this foray into non-lexicidal, non-corporatese misspelling, but I do feel like I’ve done a kind of penance. All the better to shoo away future lexicides.

– Otto E. Mezzo

References: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sho1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/1034.html

Bemusement (spotted on Trendhunter.com)

Subway Slides: HIK Ontwerpers Gives City Commuters a Post-Transit Thrill

July 24, 2011

“The engineers at Dutch design firm HIK Ontwerpers clearly know how boring, stressful and generally uncomfortable commuting can be. Why not inject some childish bemusement into the whole process?”

If the “subway slides” (a fantastic idea, if you ask me) are meant to “puzzle, confuse or bewilder” commuters, then the writer of this article is spot on. For that is the definition of bemuse, according to the New Oxford English Dictionary. Bemusement is not the same as amusement, even though (here it comes) they sound and look the same.

On the other hand, a bemusement park sounds like a great idea. It could be where bad writers spend eternity stymied by turnstiles that go the wrong way and cattle chutes that get you tantalizingly close to the rides — yet somehow never reach them.

— Otto E. Mezzo

Hail Britannia!

The BBC News Magazine asked their readers for their favorite “Americanisms.” As published in “Americanisms: 50 of your most noted examples,” the examples range from the hilarious to the sobering to the nitpicky (Sor-ree if we pronounce words differently). Here is my favorite excerpt:

I hate “alternate” for “alternative”. I don’t like this as they are two distinct words, both have distinct meanings and it’s useful to have both. Using alternate for alternative deprives us of a word.

The very definition of a lexicide! O frabjous day! Somebody gets it! Further on up the ladder, another reader writes:

The word I hate to hear is “leverage“. Pronounced lev-er-ig rather than lee-ver -ig. It seems to pop up in all aspects of work. And its meaning seems to have changed to “value added”.

Surely, Brits must be guilty of their own lexicides. But today, I think I’ll have bubble and squeak for dinner, in honor of this transatlantic alliance in defense of our words. After all, words are our speciality.

— Otto E. Mezzo

Holistic

HOLISTIC: “adjective, chiefly Philosophy: characterized by the comprehension of the parts of something intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.
“Medicine: characterized by the treatment of the whole person, taking into account mental and social factors, rather than just the physical symptoms of a disease.” — New Oxford American Dictionary

If you don’t know what a word means, you have no business using it. By my logic, there are thousands — nay, millions of people who should not be using the word holistic. Ever.

Holistic does not mean “whole,” as in “Let’s look at the holistic flowchart.” You also cannot refer to “the holistic process” unless your process (whichever one that is) is indeed holistic. And considering how many “green” companies don’t even recycle, I’m betting good money your process is far from holistic.

I don’t know enough about holistic business practices to lord it over you. Go read about Six Sigma or Ed Deming. And quit it with holistic, simplistic and minimalist. They are not the same as “whole,” “simple” and “minimal.”

— Otto E. Mezzo

My holistic “sighting”