words Archives - Page 10 of 16

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.

Troll

TROLL: “One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument” – Urban Dictionary

I used to engage in political debates with a certain relative. The discourse would usually proceed like this:

Relative: I would never vote for [Politician]. His positions demonstrate his lack of sincerity.

Me: [Politician] is plenty sincere. I think he strongly believes in those positions.

Relative: Well, then he’s just stupid.

And there you have the lexicide of troll in a nutshell. Let me explain.

Troll used to serve as internet slang for a provocateur – someone who sought attention by posting controversial or contrary sentiments on a message board (e.g., a paean to steak tartar on a vegan website). Eventually, we all learned to ignore them, or not to “feed the trolls.” Since their comments existed only to get a rise out of people, we knew trolls lacked sincerity.

But as the world turns, so do the meanings of our words. Troll is now an all-purpose insult for anyone with whom you disagree or find nettlesome:

Commenter #1: Vote for [Politician]! She understands the plight of the poor!

Commenter #2: She was raised in Newport and went to Choate. How does she understand the poor?

Commenter #1: Get lost, troll!

Commenter #2 is fielding a legitimate counter to Commenter #1’s thesis, but in doing so, she raises an inconvenient truth, hence she is a troll. This lexicide reveals much about the psychology of the commenters who use it. When they label someone a troll, they assert that their opponent is just voicing a conflicting opinion for attention – because no one in his right mind would really believe that claptrap. In other words, whereas troll used to describe one who lacked sincerity, now it describes someone you think is just stupid – because they don’t share your viewpoint. That’s public discourse in America for you – intolerant of diverse opinions and proper word use. Which is worse? I’ll let you decide.

– Otto E. Mezzo

Reactionary

REACTIONARY: “(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform” – New Oxford American Dictionary

More specifically, a reactionary “holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies.” (from the Wikipedia entry for Reactionary) So if one advocates a return to the gold standard, legal slavery, machine politics, undoing women’s suffrage or rolling back the clock in any other way, one is reactionary.

If a company does not lead or innovate – if it finds itself behind the curve, always reacting to market changes – that company is not reactionary. It is reactive. Reactive is the opposite of proactive (and we so like that word!).

I find it endlessly interesting that people: 1) use the wrong word so often, and when they do; 2) use a wrong word that imparts a negative connotation. For that is what reactionary is – a negative. Go ahead. Do a search and see if you can find anyone, even Rush Limbaugh, who boasts of being reactionary. You won’t find it. If we really dig, I’m sure we can find reactionary legislation that most people favor (the 21st Amendment comes to mind). And of course, whether a position is reactionary or conservative depends on both your opinion and where you are in time. But generally speaking, you don’t want to be a reactionary.

Now, I understand that unlike simplistic or verbiage, reactionary, when used as a synonym for “behind the curve,” is meant to sound negative. But it is the wrong negative. If you wish to change your company’s reactive ways, get more proactive. If you wish to make your company less reactionary, become more progressive. Or get a dictionary. Even Rush can get on board with that.

– Otto E. Mezzo

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/

Utilitarian

UTILITARIAN: “of or relating to or advocating utilitarianism”

UTILITARIANISM: “a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” – Merriam-Webster.com

Corporate Americans love philosophy. We try to make our software agnostic, our designs minimalist and our business plans conform to a schema. Bookshelves and Kindles must be bursting with Russell, Van der Rohe and Kant! Cogito ergo vendo!

Add Jeremy Bentham to that library, because managers love utilitarianism! You know, the philosophy that promotes policies proffering “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”* What? That’s not what you meant when you demanded the website have a “utilitarian look?” You meant you wanted it to be functional but not florid, easy to use but not necessarily pretty?

Oh, pardonez-moi! And here I thought you were asking for a site that offered navigation and interface that appealed to the greatest number of potential visitors, which is actually a noble goal. (Except that we fired our user experience architect, figuring the sales manager could do her job.) No no. What you meant to say was “I want the site to be minimalistic.” Ha. Just kidding. What you want is to fire your creative director and get your UX expert back. Then you’ll have what you want. Won’t be pretty, though, especially with what you’ll have to pay her.

– Otto E. Mezzo

*What Bentham actually wrote, in his preface to A Fragment on Government, is: “…it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong…”

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

Stakeholder

STAKEHOLDER: 1. (in gambling) an independent party with whom each of those who make a wager deposits the money or counters wagered; 2. a person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business. – New Oxford American Dictionary

I’ve been wanting to address stakeholder for a while. It is certainly an overused “corporatese” word, but what fascinates me most is that in the legal and gambling world it refers to a disinterested party who holds money or other assets (the “stake”) while some contest decides who gets the kitty. That’s the opposite of the common, business-speak meaning – an interested party.

The trouble with throwing about phrases like “stakeholder engagement” is two-fold: when you get down to it, everyone’s a stakeholder – shareholders, investors, customers, employees, vendors, managers, executives, the community, your great-aunt Pootie in Puyallup… The second problem is that true stakeholder engagement is time-consuming, costly and thoughtful, and often yields long-term benefits. If you’re like most corporate managers, you may conduct a few focus group sessions and call it “customer engagement.” As for the other stakeholders, you will simply kiss up to executives, dictate policy to employees, browbeat your vendors and ignore your community. (How you deal with great-aunt Pootie varies, depending on the product you’re launching.)

So why even mention stakeholders? Because it’s a long word that makes you sound either responsible or smart, like you studied stakeholder theory at Wharton. Granted, writing stakeholder is quicker than listing all your interested parties, but as I posited, it’s not like you care about most of them. Other people’s opinions often get in the way of what you want to do, and worrying about profitability and marketability could mean your billion-dollar vampire elephant project never sees the light of day. Better to bury it under jargon to keep it away from the Abraham Van Helsings at your company. They’re the stakeholders you have to worry about.

– Otto E.Mezzo

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_engagement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)

The ultimate paragraph in this entry is the most revealing:
The word “stakeholder” has been listed as one of the top ten classic jargon terms used by English councils, and as such alarms or confuses ordinary people and is best avoided. It is recognized as jargon by the UK government, and defined as such by the Learning and Skills Council. Councillor Tony Greaves actively objects to the word “stakeholder” considering it to be an example of management speak adopted by the Labour Party under its New Labour guise to avoid sounding like socialists.

Misnomer

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

Splitting the baby

¹⁶Then two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. ¹⁷The 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. ¹⁸Then 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. ¹⁹And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. ²⁰And 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. ²¹When 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.” ²²But 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.

²³Then 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.’” ²⁴And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. ²⁵And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.” ²⁶Then 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.” ²⁷Then 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.” ²⁸And 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/