words Archives - Page 12 of 16

Socialism

SOCIALISM: “…an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.” —Wikipedia entry for Socialism

Lexicide does not do politics. We prefer to annoy everyone, regardless of worldview. However, Lexicide is all about being current, and our drill-down of socialism is only about three years late.

The accusations of socialism — leveled against everyone from Bill Clinton to Richard Nixon — pre-date the 2008 United States election (obvious, yes, but we’re talking about a media-obsessed nation with the attention span of a puppy on meth). Since then, conservatives, especially the fiscal conservatives and libertarians of the Tea Party movement, have sounded the socialist klaxon with regularity. My favorite (from a September 4 Politico article):

Romney’s supporters couldn’t have been more out of place at an event festooned with characters such as former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle and the blunt symbols of the tea party movement — images of one stick figure shooting another under the heading “socialism” and of an automatic weapon with the legend, “Come and Get It.”

The trouble is, socialism does not necessarily involve a police state or high taxes. What decriers of socialism intend is to evoke the spectre of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, although not always. Sarah Palin’s PAC chief fretted that “someone must save our nation from this road to European socialism.” That statement is slightly more accurate. But let’s be clear. Socialism describes a political situation where the state controls factories, farms and other economic institutions. It does not require higher taxes (the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, while extreme socialist nations Norway and Sweden rank 14th and 15th, respectively). It does not demand the dissolution of gun ownership (Australia has accomplished that without socialism). Socialism apparently does not even muzzle the press, as three Scandanavian countries top the Reports Without Borders Press Freedom Index.

I think most opponents of “socialism” are really more wary of totalitarianism, which Wikipedia describes as “…a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.” By definition, a totalitarian state cannot be one in which free enterprise thrives. It is one in which the government controls the totality of your living — everything from what foods you can eat to what kinds of health care you get. I don’t imagine many of President Obama’s critics will make the switch, however. Considering totalitarianism’s record, the criticism would come off as unduly harsh. But if they’re truly concerned that America is the frog in the slowly boiling pot, maybe they should take the leap. It may be political suicide, but at least it would be more precise.

— Otto E. Mezzo

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

Politically Correct

POLITICALLY CORRECT: “Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and doing so to an excessive extent.” — from the Wikipedia entry for political correctness.

Political correctness is much like obscenity. You can’t define it, but you know it when you see, read or hear it. As with obscenity, the boundaries of political correctness differ for each person. For some people, referring to a person as “African-American” is preferable to “black.” For other more sensitive types, even “black” is verboten. (These are usually the same people who then go on trying to describe a person as “you know, tall, wearing a blue shirt, sits over by accounting — I think he plays tennis,” as if this will help you find him.)

What politically correct does not mean is “socially graceful,” as in “Did you just ask Janet if she was pregnant? That was so not politically correct.” While uttering a politically incorrect statement may be a faux pas, not all faux pas are politically incorrect. Oh sure, some will argue that opposing the boss’s proposal to outsource interoffice mail to flying monkeys is indeed politically incorrect. After all, office politics are involved here. But that is not what both the detractors and defenders of PC mean they use the term. Don’t ask them to define it. But we all know it when we see it.

— Otto E. Mezzo

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Exemplar

EXEMPLAR: “a person or thing serving as a typical example or excellent model.” — New Oxford American Dictionary

News flash: I am a “word nazi.” This from several of my dear friends, some professional wordsmiths. It would be gauche to defend myself in these pages, even less genteel to rudely cast them into the abyss of usage-scoffers (the marketing majors, the journalism interns, the TV news producers) while dancing a self-righteous minuet on their execrable memos. So I shall refrain. Now on to exemplar.

Exemplar is business-speak for example because they look similar and exemplar has more letters (see holistic, minimalist, simplistic, etc. etc. etc.). What? Hold on. Let me take this call.

Offended Writer-Type Friend: Hey, Otto. You’re going to tell everyone that exemplar is not the same as example, aren’t you?

Otto: Why yes, Offended Writer-Type Friend, I was. They are not the same.

OWTF: Oh yeah? Then why is the word “example” used in the definition? Explain that, Mr. High and Mighty.

Otto: Wha? Are you serious? If the word “example” is in the definition, then exemplar clearly means something different or more specific than example. In this case, an exemplar is a model to be held-up and emulated, or else one that is especially typical — an epitome.

OWTF: And how is that different from example? I’m an exemplar to writers everywhere. I’m an example to writers everywhere. See? Same thing.

Otto: But wait. What are you an example of? Maybe you’re an example of clumsy word choice or of how not to choose an agent. Example is quality-neutral. A criminal can be made an example of, but he is not an exemplar to other citizens.

OWTF: So by you, it’s incorrect to write: “One exemplar of a subcompact car is the Toyota Corolla.”

Otto: Correct, unless you are holding up the Corolla as everything a subcompact car represents, the epitome of subcompacts. It is also incorrect to modify exemplar with “best,” as the exemplar is by definition the best example.

OWTF: See? You just said an exemplar is the best example. It’s too confusing. You see why no one listens to you? I’m just going to keep using exemplar to mean “example.” It sounds more pretentious and helps me get chicks at parties. This is just another exemplar of your word-nazi-isticness.

[LINE DISCONNECTS. OTTO is left staring dumbly at the phone, wondering why he’s receiving a dial tone on his 4G cell phone ]

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”

Opinionated

OPINIONATED: “conceitedly assertive and dogmatic in one’s opinions: an arrogant and opinionated man.” —New Oxford American Dictionary

Sometimes lexicides say more than they mean to. People who insist on verbiage probably prefer excessive wordiness to succinct copy. People who brag about their simplistic solutions are most likely telling more truth than they intend. So it often is with opinionated.

Many people use opinionated to mean “having strong opinions,” with positive connotations. For example, I found a San Francisco Chronicle headline that promised “an opinionated look at the year’s top ten health stories.” More recently, a story in the Puget Sound Business Journal profiled a female CEO who was “sharp, opinionated, ambitious and deeply insightful about both leadership and business.” Perhaps the Chronicle believes that bashing Bush and drug companies is a virtue (hmmm…), but really, these uses of opinionated may reveal more about the authors than they intend. Is the Chronicle a dogmatic manifesto? Does the Puget Sound Business Journal writer think any powerful woman with strong opinions is arrogant and conceited? Again, hmmm…

Don’t make others wonder about your motives. Stay away from opinionated unless you mean what it means — overbearing and unmoving in offering opinions. If my advice makes me opinionated, then so be it.

— Otto E. Mezzo

References:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-01-04/living/17406815_1_health-insurance-health-care-dementia
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2011/05/how-tough-is-the-tech-sector-for-women.html

Fulsome

FULSOME: “1. Offensively flattering or insincere; 2. Offensive to the taste or sensibilities; 3. Usage Problem Copious or abundant.” —The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition

New York Times | March 5, 2011: Until Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s violent suppression of unrest in recent weeks, the United Nations Human Rights Council was kind in its judgment of Libya. In January, it produced a draft report on the country that reads like an international roll call of fulsome praise, when not delicately suggesting improvements.

Washington Post | March 6, 2011: President Obama needs to understand that we do not need the combination of fulsome praise and punitive policies that have been the trademark of Arne Duncan’s Department of Education. It may impress members of the media and politicians, but at the end of the day, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be all about honoring our profession and schools, and then support policies that are in danger of destroying them.

Now, you tell me which definition applies in the two passages above. Of course, they would’t be here in Lexicide if they were unambiguous. Context makes it clear that both writers intended fulsome to mean “copious, abundant.” Context is king.

But wait:

The Economist | March 3, 2011: Meanwhile UN Watch, a lobby group that counters UN criticism of Israel, has gleefully recalled the fulsome praise for Libya that many council members offered when that country was undergoing a review of its performance a few months ago. Iran had “noted with appreciation” the Libyan government’s new human-rights agency and its “enabling environment for NGOs”; Syria was impressed by Libya’s “democratic regime based on promoting the people’s authority”; and North Korea lauded Libya’s achievements “in the protection of human rights, especially…economic and social rights.”

Sounds like more of the same, except The Economist’s website makes sure to include a Javascript link on the word fulsome. Clicking on the link brings up a window with synonyms such as oily, smarmy and unctuous. Clearly the editors wanted to be sure you were channeling the correct definition.

I really didn’t want to tackle fulsome, as so many wordsmiths have done (in vain, of course). But it keeps coming up. Sure, the word’s classical definition is “full, abundant” (although why we need both full and fulsome as synonyms is beyond me). Somewhere in the 16^th or 17^th centuries, the word acquired its uglier meaning, mostly seen in the phrase fulsome praise, for which read “obnoxious brownnosing” or even “backhanded compliment.” Only in the 20^th century did the older, more boring definition begin to reassert itself.

So what’s a writer to do? William Safire offers this sage advice: “Never use a word sure to sow confusion.” And that’s what The Guardian realized was happening when its Wintour and Watt blog proffered the headline “Fulsome apology and fluffed Labour response saves Caroline Spelman.” When I refreshed the page, it had changed to “Full apology and fluffed Labour response saves Caroline Spelman.”

To The Guardian, I offer my fulsome appreciation!

— Otto E. Mezzo

References:

“Libya’s Late, Great Rights Record,” The New York Times | March 5, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/weekinreview/06libya.html

“Obama’s odd embrace of Jeb Bush,” The Washington Post |March 6, 2011 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/obama-right-and-wrong.html

“An Unlikely Unifier,” The Economist | March 3, 2011 http://www.economist.com/node/18277151?story_id=18277151&fsrc=rss

“On Language,” The New York Times | March 16, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/magazine/22wwln-safire-t.html

Wintour and Watt blog, The Guardian | February 17, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/feb/17/caroline-spelman

aka, e.g., i.e., etc…

I really shouldn’t have to do this. I mean, it’s not my job. Hundreds of usage sources have policed the distinction between e.g. and i.e. But now the waters get muddier. Behold, I give you aka, which a colleague today used in lieu of i.e. Call it “aka aka i.e.”

Aka (or AKA or a.k.a.) stands for also known as, but not for words or concepts. As every law enforcement officer and criminal attorney knows, aka introduces a person’s alias — e.g., Lester Gills aka Baby Face Nelson. And since I just used it, e.g. stands for exempli gratia, Latin for “for the sake of an example.” On the other hand, i.e. stands for id est, Latin for “that is.” So use aka for aliases, e.g. for examples and i.e. for clarification. For the sake of examples:

This estimate includes all technical services (e.g., web development, server hosting).
In this case, web development and server hosting are examples of technical services. This implies there are other technical services not listed here.

This estimate also includes certain non-technical services (i.e., project management and billing).
In this case, the words “project management and billing” clarify “non-technical services.” They are not meant as mere examples, so the implication is they are the only non-technical services referred to in the estimate.

Your account manager will be Will Sakituya aka Slappy the Sales Guy.
I’m not sure an explanation is needed here.

One other sighting deserves mention. A common convention in my company is to end a list of examples with etc. This is incorrect as any list of examples is by definition incomplete. I also observe following etc with an ellipsis (…) — e.g.; Marketing will undertake a number of initiatives (e.g., inventing weasel words, obfuscating language, etc…). I really don’t get this. It’s as if the writer is paranoid readers will assume the list of examples is all-inclusive and wants to emphasize “NO! There’s more!” That’s not an unreasonable assumption, given that many in the business world (e.g., graduates of marketing programs) exhibit questionable reading skills (i.e., take everything too literally) and insist on stretching out closing sentences, incorporating the headline words, rambling on and on, etc…

— Otto E. Mezzo aka Robert Pen Warring

Pristine

PRISTINE: “having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied” —Random House Dictionary

I play a game with my eight-year-old. We’ll pass a sign that cautions “Bridge freezes before road.” I ask, “Why is that?” My kid, without fail, blurts out, “I don’t know.” I, without fail, then say, “Think.” Eyes roll and gears churn, but five minutes and a few questions later, he’s figured it out. Eight-year-old announces he wants to be a meteorologist.

So let’s play that game now. Why can you not restore an object to pristine condition? Why can you not insist a table setting, product sample or document be pristine? Why do people use pristine to mean “perfect” or “flawless” when the original condition of an object may indeed be flawed?

Ah. I thought you’d say that. Congratulations. You are no smarter than a third grader. But take comfort. One day you, too, will learn to ask questions and fulfill your dream of being a meteorologist. Then no one will care if you’re right only 30% of the time.

—Otto E. Mezzo

NOTE: Until the early 20th century, pristine meant “primitive,” so when one spoke of the pristine redwood forests, one referred to their age, not their virgin quality. Pristine still retains that definition — indeed, it was the one I learned in elementary school in the late 1970s — however, it has been overshadowed by the newer meaning of “unspoiled” and the incorrect one of “spotless.”

Apropos

APROPOS (or A PROPOS): [preposition] “with reference to; concerning: she remarked apropos the initative, ‘It’s not going to stop the abuse.’” —New Oxford American Dictionary

Apropos does not mean “appropriate.” That really should settle the issue, but the denseness of corporate culture and my own verbosity means I’ll go on for a few more paragraphs.

Despite their seeming similarity, apropos and appropriate do not share an etymology. Apropos derives from the French à propos (“to the purpose of”), whereas appropriate comes from the Latin for “to make one’s own” (hence the verb appropriate). Traditionally, apropos occupied the same niche as in re, as to, regarding or the pedestrian about — useful for pomping up your speech, as in “Feedback apropos the budget should be directed to the treasurer” or “These documents are not relevant apropos the project.” You would never say “These documents are not apropos to the project.”

There is an adjective form of apropos, but it means “relevant,” “opportune” or (according to the NOAD) “very appropriate to a particular situation.” For example, you would not suggest apropos attire, but you could urge only apropos comments at a shareholder’s meeting — that is, comments that address the topic at hand.

And since you may as well ask my four year-old to recite the quadratic equation, better just to not waste your breath, and reserve apropos for a more appropriate time.

— Otto E. Mezzo

Inappropriate uses of apropos