moron (more on) language

February 4, 2007

“either side”

please, writers and speakers, stop saying “either side” when it’s not what you really mean to say.

for example, i’ll read/see/hear something like this: “there was a statue of a lion on either side of the door at the entrance to the library.” what they are trying to tell you is that there is a statue of a lion on the left as well as on the right. but when you say “either side,” that means “one side or the other.” not both. this is an error made by the best writers, in the best publications, nobody (except me) is innocent. i have never seen this written correctly, unless it was something that i happened to write.

to correctly say there was a lion on both sides, you have two choices:

1. there were statues of lions on both sides of the library door.
2. there was a statue of a lion on each side of the library door.

if you want to use “either side,” then here’s how it would be used correctly. “jim, put the box down on either side of the door.” that would be telling jim that he can put it on either the right or the left side. obviously not both.

work with me, people.


Did you know you were lost?

January 29, 2007

More language pet peeves: finding yourself. One of the highest ranking overused phrases is when someone writes that a person “found himself/herself…” an example would be something like, “John was walking through his regular route in the city when he suddenly found himself in an unfamiliar place.” Another would be “John was just trying to keep a good pace with the other runners when he suddenly found himself in the lead.” It seems that the intention is to express the idea that someone was progressing towards something or someplace, followed by a period of inattentiveness and then a moment of revelation came upon him during which he was in a place that he did not expect to be at – or something like that. What bothers me is not the idea that we could lose track of attention and then be in an unexpected situation, but there have to be much better ways to write it.

“John was walking through his regular route in the city when he sensed that he had walked into an unfamiliar place.”

“John was just trying to keep a good pace with the other runners when a twinge of surprise ran through his spine as he took the lead.”

The point is that we can’t “find ourselves” unless there was a period of time in which we were lost or a moment of unconsciousness occurs. Of course there are allowances for figurative language, but that’s not the case here. It’s more of a tendency of people, specifically writers, to find an easy way to express something and then repeat, repeat, repeat until readers have been so bludgeoned with the phrase that they will easily accept it based on familiarity alone. Writers have to do better. We have to find a new way to say it, otherwise we may as well just write greeting cards.


It’s Time to fix the grammar

January 25, 2007

I didn’t know, although I’ve seen evidence of it for years, that newspapers and magazines have taken it upon themselves to change the rules of language and grammar. It must have been a long ago conspiracy that concluded with the universal dropping of the serial comma – the comma where you have a list of three or more things and there is supposed to be a comma after each item except the last one. For example: I went to New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. A comma follows each item up until the conjunction, no comma after it. There are very few exceptions, the only one coming to mind being when two items are linked together in such a way that they lose meaning when separate, such as peanut butter and jelly. For example: I had milk, peanut butter and jelly, and fruit for lunch.” There is no comma after peanut butter because it would break up the commonly known pair of peanut butter and jelly.

Another modification of the language at the hands of publications is in the form of a new spelling. Flip through the newspaper and look for the a word spelled cigaret. Although it looks familiar, that’s not the correct spelling. Publications seem to have forgotten there is another t and then an e at the end: cigarette. But the self-imposed change that has bothered me lately is with the words got and gotten. Got is the past tense of get. Today, I will get lost. Yesterday, I got lost. However, if I’m writing in the perfect tense, using the helping verbs has or have, then I have to use the past perfect form of got, which is gotten. For example: That boy used to be short, but he has gotten taller. In the past six years that I’ve been a subscriber to Time magazine, I have seen at least ten instances when they have written got when it should have been gotten. In the January 22, 2007, issue (cover story on China) there was a story about the character Jack Bauer with the following sub-headline: “As the war on terrorism has got complicated, so has 24’s Jack Bauer.” Because of the helping verb has, the correct form of the main verb should be gotten.

This brings the obvious question that governs most of the universe, or at least the part of the universe occupied by humans – Why? Why do publications change the rules of grammar and the spellings of words? It’s the same answer to another question – What motivates man most strongly? Yes, money. “Money?” you ask. “What does money have to do with commas and a shorter version of a word?” In publications, space equals money. Any time they can save space, they are saving money. If they drop a (cigaret)–te here and a (got)–ten there, then they’re saving some pennies that eventually add up into dollars on the way to a free lunch.

Probably an even worse violation of language in print is the incomplete sentence. In Time’s “Man of the Year” issue, there was a story by Brian Williams of NBC news that was so riddled with one-word and incomplete sentences that I first thought he must have had someone write it for him. Never would I think that a national news anchor would have such a poor command of the language until I gave it a little more thought. Then I realized that he doesn’t write the nightly news, he just reads it. Someone else writes the news, and he does his best to be a talking head. However, for that Time story, he actually wrote it, but he wrote in the same way he speaks, and he (and most of the rest of us) does not always speak in complete sentences. We constantly give one-word or short-phrase answers because we’re speaking in reply to something for which the context has already preceded, so that allows shorter answers/sentences that seem to make perfect sense because of the context it is in at that moment.

In college I had a class called Linguistics and Grammar with a professor named Robert Kloss. It was the toughest English class I had ever taken, even tougher than the one I failed, but that’s because I got an A the second time. I never felt so inadequate during a class, nor did I ever feel as great an accomplishment at the end of a class. After a semester of ripping apart almost every word, both spoken and written, he said to us on the last day, “Please remember this about language: it doesn’t matter how well or poorly you say it or how well or badly you’ve written it. The most important thing about language is that the person or audience to whom you are speaking knows exactly what you mean.”

Note to Time magazine: instead of dumbing yourself down, how about you help out and raise the standards a little bit? Richard Nixon said, “When you lower standards, you lower expectations, results, and the future.” Set the bar a little higher if you want, but don’t lower it.


language pet peeves

June 14, 2006

there are a few phrases that people are constantly saying that are just plain wrong, and apparently the people themselves just refuse to listen when i try to explain the errors.

1. “it was all downhill (or uphill) from there.”

the reason people get this phrase wrong is because they are mixing up what it is referring to. people are under the false impression that this has to do with a growth chart or line graph, in which a line going “up” is a good thing, line going “down” is a bad thing. however, what it really refers to is riding a bicycle either “uphill” or “downhill.” on a growth chart, down is bad. but on a bicycle, down is good. so when we believe that things are progressing smoothly and easily, we are supposed to be saying that “it was all DOWNhill.” and when things are difficult, we should be saying that the conditions were “UPhill.” please get it right.

2. “i could care less.”

ouch. let’s examine the stupidity at work. when one uses this phrase, the intent is to express that one does NOT care at all. complete lack and/or void of caring is taking place. however, if one says that one “could care less,” then that means that while you do NOT care, there is still room for care beneath that level of not caring. in other words, “i don’t care, but it’s possible that i could care even less than i already do.” what one really should be saying is that one “could NOT care less.” that means that you have such absolute zero care that it’s not possible for you to care any less than your current non-caring level.

3. “irregardless”

this one i’ve only heard in south jersey. however, keep in mind that at one point south jersey almost became a separate state from north jersey. i can only speak for all of bergen county when i say we would have been very pleased.

“regardless” means that you are totally without regard, meaning you are going to progress without being influenced by certain things or conditions. for example, “regardless of the rain, i walked to the store.” it means that i ignored the rain and walked anyway. but when i say “IRregardless,” then i’m saying that i was lacking the condition of not regarding. it’s like a double negative. the prefix “ir” means not or without. so, “irregardless of the rain” means that i was without the condition of NOT being influenced by the rain, which means i was influenced by the rain.

4. “people that…

too many times i hear this from teachers, principals, radio announcers, and just about anyone with a voice. if i need a pronoun to refer to people, then it must be “who” or “whom.” the word “that” is used for things or animals. so i will constantly hear someone say, “i saw a lot of people that were tired.” no no no. it should be “people who were tired.” people are not things or animals, so they get the blessing of being a “who” or “whom.”

when i think of more, i’ll add them.


not "alright"

April 7, 2006

an issue came to me in a writer’s workshop last night. there is no such word as “alright,” although many learned people believe the contrary. i think the influence is because of the word “already.” see, the similarities are kicking sand in your face.

please don’t use the word “alright.” it’s “all right.” i didn’t do the underscore thing to show the space between the two words because i’m assuming that you can tell there’s a space there. otherwise, it would look like this: “allright.” again, sand in your face.

the english language is all ready being dumbed down by the minute, so please let’s not push it further into the drain.

i realize at this point the contradiction i’m working with because i’m not using capital letters. there’s a difference. really. see, i’m using perfectly good and acceptable words. but by not “capping,” (please, no gangsta retorts) i’m simply saving the time and energy of reaching for the shift key. (i was typing too quickly there and at first typed “sh*t key”) the point is, regardless of the size of the letters, they’re still the same letters making the same words.

thus, the lesson of the day, size doesn’t matter. all right?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,377 other followers

%d bloggers like this: