Category: sightings

Egregious examples of vocabulary under assault in the mainstream media and elsewhere.

It’s not grammar!


Grammar is not spelling. It is not punctuation. It is not syntax or mechanics. And grammar is most certainly not word use. So why do so many people — knowledgeable people — call us “grammar nazis” or point out “grammar errors” that are actually vocabulary errors, as in the video above and the examples below:

The 11 Most Common Grammatical Mistakes And How To Avoid Them

8 Common Grammar Mistakes You Should Never Make Again

10 Common Grammar Mistakes Even Smart People Make

Not as smart as you think, huh, Ms. Desmarais?

If you use the wrong they’re/their/there or it’s when you should have chosen its, that is not a grammar error — you either picked the wrong word or you can’t spell. Likewise if you loose your principals with deleterious affects. A friend recently asked someone online if she “liked piña colada’s” and was accused of “bad grammar.” No, that’s piss-poor punctuation (and a gag-worthy pick-up line, too. Just so you know, Tom).

Using an adverb when you should use an adjective (“I feel badly!“) is a grammar error. Subject-verb disagreement (“We has cheeseburger!”) is a grammar error. You want a common grammar mistake smart people make? Subject-verb disagreement: “Every one of the employees in VeryBig Corporation’s Marketing, Quality, and Technology groups are entitled to free drinks in the canteen on Thursdays.” (In case you don’t follow, the subject is every one, which is singular, so the sentence should read “Every one of the employees in VeryBig Corporation’s Marketing, Quality, and Technology groups is entitled to free drinks in the canteen on Thursdays.”)

We are not “grammar nazis.” That’s not what Lexicide.com is about. We’re here to fuss at your awful word usage, your malapropisms, and your ignorance in matters of vocabulary and definition. If you use literally to mean “not literally,” we’ll shake our heads. But we won’t write an article about it. Because it’s not a lexicide. And it’s also not grammar. It’s just stupidity.

Hack

HACK: “1. informal An act of computer hacking; 2. a piece of computer code providing a quick or inelegant solution to a particular problem” —Oxford American Dictionary

25 Life Hacks to Make Life More Livable!

88 Useful Hacks to Get Better Gas Mileage!

1500 Best Disneyworld Hacks!

Please stop. And by “please” I mean “unless you want to see what comes out of this rifled barrel.” Seriously, where did this use of hack for tip come from? These aren’t hacks. They are helpful hints (Notice Heloise has not changed her column to Hacks from Heloise). Everyone knows darn tootin’ well that true hacks require a computer, possibly a modem, and maybe also a voice synthesizer. You can hack NORAD. You cannot hack your dryer.

So how did clickbait writers come up with hack as a trendy synonym for suggestion? As with so many other terms, it’s probably because we crave secret knowledge or membership in some exclusive club – something hackers have enjoyed (or at least fancied themselves enjoying) since the term came into being. Breaking into mail servers requires skill and knowledge, while placing a dryer sheet on your air conditioner requires – well, none. But if you think of it as a hack, you can pretend you’re Kevin Mitnick instead of a marketing assistant wasting your B.A. in creative writing on web copy for cloud solutions.

In other words, a hack.

— Otto E. Mezzo

P.S. By the way, a hack requires a computer or computer analog, otherwise it isn’t a hack. So says Adam Penenberg.

P.P.S. Not every corporate copywriter is a hack. See: Thomas Pynchon, Dana Gioia, Otto E. Mezzo. Don’t be one.

References:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-short-history-of-hack
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/26/the-real-meaning-of-hack/

From the WSJ: How ‘Secular’ Became a Word for Clerics and Economists

Companies can be agnostic, and Ben Zimmer has penned a recent article on how economies are secular. No, economists did not borrow the term from the Church or Voltaire. As Zimmer writes:

In economics, “secular” is not opposed to “spiritual” or “sacred,” as it is in theological circles. Rather, it describes trends that are not cyclical but persist indefinitely.

Zimmer goes on to explain that secular derives from the Latin saeculum, a word denoting the outside span of a human life, roughly 100 years. To the Romans, secular events did not occur often, and marked the passing of generations. To Christians, saeculum signified things temporal — as opposed to God, who represents aeternum. (Note Paul’s description of the time between Christ’s Resurrection and Second Coming as “this present evil age” — praesenti saeculo nequam.)

In other words, secular derived two definitions from the same root meaning. Eventually, the Christian church began to use secular to describe activities outside church life, which remained the dominant definition for centuries. In the 1800s, scientists (including the dismal sort), began using secular for lengthy trends  — for example, secular stagnation.

Zimmer’s article led me to ask Lexiciders for other words that sport dual meanings derived from the same root. Debbie G. suggested gross, a versatile word meaning “disgusting,” “unrefined”, “calculated before taxes or costs”, and “twelve dozen”, among others. They all originate from the Latin grossus (“large”), a meaning that lives on in gross anatomy and gross motor skills. David M. proffered current, from Latin currere (“run”), which gives us a flow of water or electrons (noun) and also that which is newest or most contemporary, such as current events (adjective). David also notes that the same Latin word gives us currency, which clues us in to how quickly money (and economies) can change.

And that brings us full circle back to secular stagnation, which complains economies sometimes don’t change quickly enough. You can’t please everyone.

— Otto E. Mezzo

Reference: http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-secular-became-a-word-for-clerics-and-economists-1423249134

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

Thematic (sighted on The Washington Post)

Potential Hillary Clinton supporters told ‘inevitability is not a message’

“A tough thematic will be, ‘a time for change,’ and you can shove a lot under that thematic.” Ickes said.

Any word worth using wrong is worth using wrong twice.

Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/potential-hillary-supporters-told-inevitability-is-not-a-campaign-strategy/2014/11/21/df8978bf-eec8-4d40-8e53-c80ef51be874_story.html

Block and tackle

450px-Block_and_tackle_(PSF)

BLOCK AND TACKLE: “A piece of equipment for lifting heavy objects, which works by a system of ropes and pulleys (small wheels around which the ropes are stretched).” – Oxford Advanced American Dictionary

I’m losing my touch. I used to encounter weasel words weekly, and now it seems I’m behind the curve. Last week, a client on a conference call averred that we had to block and tackle a project. When I brought this up to colleagues, they were shocked – shocked! – that I, proprietor of Lexicide.com, had not encountered this term until now.

As if my status was not already in jeopardy, my co-workers also thought I was being overly fussy about the weirdness of this term. They always assumed blocking and tackling referred to defensive American football plays. To me, block and tackle as a phrase refers to a pulley system – a machine one uses to lift the engine out of a car. Both metaphors are equally apt and also equally imprecise. If you go with the football analogy, what’s the blocking for? Why not just tackle a problem? If you’re mechanically inclined, block and tackle seems overly wordy. Brainstorm, fix or attack a problem, and you’ll sound just as masculine and action-y. But no one in American business ever got a raise for conciseness.

In the end, my colleagues defended block and tackle as both entirely appropriate and birthed not in the garage, but on the gridiron. Just like tight end, which has become my new nickname in the office.

– Otto E. Mezzo

References: Wikipedia page for Block and Tackle
Ask the Manager’s “The 25 Most Annoying Business Phrases”

 UPDATE (September 3, 2014): Several readers have blitzed me for an incomplete pass. Block and tackle, they claim, is not an expression for attacking a problem. More precisely, to block and tackle means to get down to basics of a problem and solve it at that level – in other words, to not overthink the problem. They assume this because blocking and tackling are the foundations of defense in American football.

That is not the sense I got on my call. My client’s manager only said “I think we just need to block and tackle this,” or something equally prosaic. Was she imploring us to not overthink the solution? Considering the project was a one-page microsite on which she “tweaked” the font size four times, I think not.