tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56821421205058729212023-11-15T10:33:31.610-05:00GrammarSnotThis blog is dedicated to exposing the foolishness in the media (all forms) and everyday life with regard to grammatical errors, usage errors, and word choices that annoy us. Whenever we see something offensive to grammarphiles, we will post it here and explain why it is offensive (to us).Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-13957911529322328252014-03-13T16:44:00.006-04:002014-03-13T16:50:43.100-04:00Unpalatable Art Fare?<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">ITEM: Wall Street Journal, Friday, March 7 (or thereabouts). "What to wear to an art fair." (Really? People need instruction on this?) In a sidebar to this urgent sartorial advice, a lady by the name of Christina Binkley suggested wearing a basic black backdrop (so to speak), against which one could use a broad palate. Twice. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">As you know, Livia is not one to judge, but--well, OK, she is one to judge. How did this woman earn the right to have her opinions published in a national and well-respected newspaper when she appears to be inviting people to march around art fairs with their mouths wide open? More to the point, why did the editors of the aforementioned journal not catch and correct this howler? Twice?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Livia despairs. People who write for publication owe it to the rest of us to apprehend that our language is filled with homophones. You in the back, there: stop snickering! Homophones are words that sound alike but are spelled differently and have different meanings, to wit: palate, palette, pallet. </span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Palate = roof of the mouth; <i>alt., </i>discerning taste. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Palette = color wheel.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Pallet = sleeping mat; <i>alt., </i>flat, wheeled tray for moving numerous or bulky items.</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">And editors owe it to writers to protect them from looking foolish or moronic in print. Livia is envisioning a number of potential causes for Ms. Binkley's lapse: She may actually think that "palate" is the right word, in which case there is no hope for her. Or she might have intended to use "palette," but is a less-than-accomplished typist. As for the editor, Livia has some words that cannot be quoted in a family newspaper. It is the editor's <i><b>job</b></i> to know the difference, to read a writer's work carefully, and to correct mistakes. Shame on the one who left Ms. Binkley open to ridicule. </span>Livia Drusahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12547339766498314860noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-54576491633571238662014-03-08T11:25:00.000-05:002014-03-08T11:25:18.642-05:00Amazing Is Not Amazing AnymoreThe Harcourt Brace and World Standard College Dictionary: Amaze: verb 1. To overwhelm, as by wonder or surprise; astonish greatly. 2. Obs. To bewilder. Amazing: Adjective. Causing amazement; astonishing, wonderful.<br />
<br />
Roget's II The New Thesaurus:<br />
Amaze (verb): surprise. Amazing (adjective): fabulous.<br />
<br />
How is it that all of the creatives are like lemmings when it comes to this adjective? Are they not artists? Are they not really that creative after all? What's so wrong with wonderful? Isn't fabulous still fabulous? <br />
<br />
The only justification for the overuse of amazing is if in fact everyone is incorrectly reading the facial expressions of those who may have overindulged in Botox. Although this is probably a contributing factor, Cicero is not persuaded that this is the reason celebrities have such a short list of adjectives.<br />
<br />
Economists like to "call the bottom" of an economic trend. Cicero is calling the bottom of amazing (thank you, Academy Awards).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-76592828208677460742012-06-11T12:48:00.001-04:002012-06-11T12:48:12.922-04:00Messaging the MessageMerriam Webster defines message as: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15px;">a communication in writing, in speech, or by signals. 2. : a messenger's mission</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15px;"><wbr></wbr></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15px;">. 3. : an underlying theme or idea.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;">David Asman writes in "Getting Republicans on Message" at Foxbusiness.com that Republicans "..can't get much </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15px;">traction. We think its the message." </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 15px;">Business leaders and politicians are concerned with remaining or staying "on message." This usage seems to be a new way to express the importance of maintaining a theme throughout a lengthy or complex communication.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;">We have text messages, email messages, mixed media messages, and of course, the almost quaint voice message (although most people now refer to these as voice "mail" which is a contradiction in terms).</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;">UPDATE: 6-11-2012: Expect the messaging to continue in earnest during the Presidential election campaign. Use of the term "message" in this way reminds Cicero of these words: theme, point, subject, focus, mission, and idea. This usage also has the added attribute of leaving out the article "the," which Livia has addressed with aplomb.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"><br />
</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-2136176183990571902012-01-03T15:23:00.003-05:002012-06-11T12:41:49.741-04:00Sufficient Unto the DayIn re: today's <span style="font-style: italic;">Boston Globe, </span>in an article on the reprehensible behavior of some members of the priesthood in Boston, wherein the Globe was congratulating itself on breaking the story "more than 10 years ago to the day." Now really. This silliness must stop at once. How obvious must Livia make her disapproval of such lazy writing (and lazier editing)? It is unthinkable that the editor, if not the reporter, does not know that the event occurred either exactly 10 years ago--to the day--or not. It can't be both.<br />
<br />
And while we're on the subject, loveys, how many times must Livia tell you about "anniversary"? In that same article, we find "ten-year anniversary" more than once! Anniversary <span style="font-style: italic;">includes</span> "year"! It's all-inclusive, like Club Med! No need to repeat "year"! Stop it!Livia Drusahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12547339766498314860noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-91297185346367254602011-12-05T11:23:00.005-05:002011-12-05T11:41:53.806-05:00Craftspeople Unite!Hello, loveys! Livia has missed you indeed. Today, high on Benadryl, she is addressing the deeply annoying irruption of the word <span style="font-style: italic;">artisanal </span> (quite often misspelled as "artisinal," which just goes to show you...). To her dismay, Livia has determined that <span style="font-style: italic;">artisanal</span> is, in fact, a word and that, in most instances, it is being used correctly, if pompously.<br /><br />But dear, dear! Must everything from artichokes to zucchini be <span style="font-style: italic;">artisanal</span>? Can nothing be just ordinary any longer? Really. How fancy must a beer be, for the gods' sake? Artisanal cheese, artisanal bread, artisanal <span style="font-style: italic;">vodka</span>, if you can stand it--where will it end? You don't hear the French touting their <span style="font-style: italic;">artisanal</span> Bordeaux, do you? Livia believes this phenomenon to be an outgrowth of the "you are special" claptrap so prevalent when today's young (ish) adults--the <span style="font-style: italic;">artisanal</span> offenders--were growing up. Unfortunately, if everyone is special, then no one is, and the same goes for beer and pretzels.<br /><br />So knock it off, loveys. Livia has some nice artisanal wolf's bane for those who heed her not.Livia Drusahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12547339766498314860noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-42330356300595986932011-09-30T11:16:00.000-04:002011-09-30T11:16:10.256-04:002011 Snotty Buzz on the Wall Street JournalInsiders say that the storied newspaper is on the short list for Most Consistent Personification of Inanimate Objects and Subjects. A senior GrammarSnot source points up the WSJ regular application of the ubiquitous "needs to" applied on September 30, 2011 by Ben Casselman. Mr Casselman wrote "Economists say the weekly reading needs to stay below 400,000 for the economy to grow." Insofar as Mr. Casselman did not quote an economist, and he did not quote The Weekly Reading, this GrammarSnot reporter can only conclude that Mr. Casselman was writing in a way he believes to be descriptive. GrammerSnot sought an independent quote from The Weekly Reading, but since we couldn't identify it, and because it is not, in fact, a person (capable of expressing needs), we were unable to confirm Mr. Casselman's account.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-58736126625029174582011-08-22T17:38:00.000-04:002011-08-22T17:38:34.133-04:00Computering While SmartphoningPerhaps Cicero has over-reacted to the imperial behavior of those who chose nouns as their bounty. The colonization of nouns into verbs continues unabated. The gusto with which this phenomenon is occurring leads Cicero to conclude that folks in the media now believe that the act of colonizing a noun is a mark of distinction. Which brings me to "decisioning." Recently Cicero had occasion to investigate the merits of opening an account with Experian, the credit agency. The fruit of information that Experian purports to include in its service offering are "decisioning tools." Cicero hopes that Experian can explain the difference between deciding and decisioning. Be that as it may, Cicero will test out the verbing-of-the-nouns for a while. Like, ya know, this one time when Cicero was smartphoning, while at the very same time, computering. And I was sitting.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-79714221369329516242011-03-23T16:46:00.003-04:002011-03-23T16:57:09.775-04:00The Beauty of TrumpMr. Trump has announced his intention to be a candidate for President of the United States. Trump has identified one of the factors that make him an appealing (qualified?) candidate in his statement "Part of the beauty of me is that I am very rich," explaining that he is willing to spend $600 million of his own money on a political campaign.<div><br /></div><div>We aren't interested in assessing Mr. Trump's fitness for the office, or whether being rich makes one a qualified Presidential candidate. We also do not intend to debate whether or not Mr. Trump's wealth does in fact make him beautiful (isn't everyone beautiful wealthy?), or whether or not he is beautiful (if he is wealthy, then he must be beautiful).</div><div><br /></div><div>Instead we would like to refer Mr. Trump to the grammatical idiom that a subject of a sentence cannot be part of a prepositional phrase. He might consider re-phrasing his statement in any of the following ways:</div><div>"I am very rich, and my wealth makes me beautiful." OR</div><div>"Part of me is beautiful, but all of me is rich." OR</div><div>"I am very rich and I am very beautiful." OR</div><div>"I consider it the highest form of patriotism to honor my duties as a citizen by serving my country in any capacity, and I proudly offer myself as a candidate for President of this great nation." OR</div><div>"Since I am so rich, I am entitled to declare myself to be beautiful."</div><div><br /></div><div>Good luck Mr. Trump, whichever part of you is beautiful.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-21416838352282484612010-12-06T20:14:00.005-05:002013-07-22T13:59:42.721-04:00Based on True EventsThis phrase keeps popping up. The most public example is the promotion of the new movie Unstoppable starring Denzel Washington. Thank God it is based on "true" events (is there such a thing as a "false" event). Any movie based on false events would have to be....well...every movie that isn't related to something that actually happened. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The (glaring) problem is use of the word <i>true</i> to modify the word <i>event</i>. My Standard College Dictionary (Harcourt & Brace) defines an event as follows: "event n. 1. Something that takes place; a happening or an incident: the events of that period; especially an occurrence of considerable importance: historical events." This first definition might lead one to conclude that a happening must have been real in order to be considered an "event," as opposed to a fictional (made up) occurrence. But wait! The definition continues: "2. An actual or possible set of circumstances; a real or contingent situation: in the event of failure." Does this mean that the word <i>event </i>may be used to describe fake occurrences???? No. It means that an <i>event</i> can be hypothetical, for, you know, educational purposes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Can't we go back to the halcyon days of "inspired by a true story?" Even "actual events" is better, because it at least suggests that events may be completely made up. In any event, Denzel can do whatever he likes, but Chris Pine has to stick to the (Grammarsnot) script.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-12530326776277944082010-11-10T09:47:00.004-05:002010-11-10T10:09:48.065-05:00Virulent VirusThe Wall Street Journal, Tuesday November 9, 2010: "When asked to remove the virus form the laptop, Mr. Bedi allegedly told Mr. Davidson that his computer had in fact been attacked with a <b>virus so virulent</b> that it also damaged Datalink's computers, according to prosecutors." This sentence appeared in an otherwise well written, entertaining, and inspiring article entitled "Virus Leads to $20 Million Scam," by Tamer El-Ghobashy. <div><br /></div><div>I propose that we refrain from using adjectives derived from nouns to describe the nouns from which those adjectives are derived. I think we can do better than melodious melodies, oozy ooze, muddy mud, liturgical liturgy, engaged engagement, or wet water. Anyone?</div><div><br /></div><div>I also have to point out that my 1988 Roget's II The New Thesaurus (Expanded Edition!) offers the following as synonyms for virulent: deadly, malignant, noxious, pernicious, pestilent, pestilential, and poisonous. </div><div><br /></div><div>In fairness to Mr. El-Ghobashy, it is possible that the statement above is actually a quote. However, this is problematic because it is not attributed to either the alleged criminals or the actual prosecutors (the statement was "..according to prosecutors"). If my supposition is correct, then I and the other WSJ daily subscribers are mere victims of lazy journalists and their educable editors.</div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile, I sincerely hope Mr. Davidson continues to compose, and recovers his losses--or at least that his (Halliburton) family will help support him.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-36693423470516427452010-09-13T13:58:00.004-04:002010-11-10T22:21:32.135-05:00Apostrohe's Alway's S'ignify S'ignificanceThe New York Times article written by John Leland on September 5 contained the following, describing low interest loans available to first time home buyers in the wake of the financial crisis: "The loans are the idea of state housing finance agencies, or <strong>H.F.A.'s,</strong> ...."<br /><br />There are some confusing aspects to this sentence. This post is an invitation to Mr. Leland to clarify his intentions. These items are confusing:<br />1. The loans, while an idea, can't be the idea of state housing finance agencies. This is because agencies are not sentient beings.<br />2. The loans, while an idea, can't be the idea of several state housing agencies can they? Did several state housing agencies have the same idea, at different times, or the same time in their collective agency brain? Have state housing agencies taken the Vulcan mind meld and applied to the lending of money to first time <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">home buyers</span>? Thank you, Gene Roddenberry.<br />3. Is this simply sloppy editing, in which case it isn't Mr. Leland's fault? It is apparent to anyone who reads a newspaper that reporters are no longer expected to write correctly, so I blame the editors, not the writers. Mr. Leland may have been trying to say that H.F.A.s's ideas are low interest loans to first time buyers, in which case he merely left in the whole first clause of his sentence without editing.<br /><br />4. Is Mr. Leland advancing a new position on apostrophe usage? Should apostrophes be used at any time when referring generically to more than one (or all) State government agency, an incarnation of which exists in each of the 50 states?<br /><br />5. Is it possible that Mr. Leland is subliminally advancing a political preference for federal government at the expense of State government? Why, after all, should we have 50 State agencies who all have the same idea? Seems inefficient.<br /><br />At any rate, I'd like to hear from Mr. Leland to clarify his writing. Unless, of course, this is the fault of his editor.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-78357271796606609262010-04-05T20:44:00.005-04:002010-11-10T22:23:12.153-05:00Impactfully Impacting the Impact of the Transitive Verb HIDEOUS EXAMPLESIn the spirit of the first posting on the irretrievably vapid yet popular use of "impact" as a verb, and because the first posting has received <strong><u>800% more comments</u></strong> than any other post in Grammarsnot history, I am obligated to further mine the depths of this foolishness. Several FOGSnot (FriendsOfGrammarsnot) have made suggestions or observations of words used in the same obnoxious fashion. I was extremely horrified to discover that this practice has been given a name: to "verb the noun." How prescient that we observed this sheer idiocy in its infancy....<br /><br />Here are three of the most offensive examples dreamed up by noun pirates (in no order):<br />1. Parent. Now used as a verb, this is acually a perverse derivation of 'parenting' which has replaced parenthood--thank you Dictionary.com citation to American Heritage Dictionary. There's even a whole magazine--awesome.<br />2. Friend. I had no idea I could simply decide that someone is my friend. To"friend" someone started with that bastion of social isolation, Facebook. In another staggering example of one wrong exponentially exacerbated by another, the use of friend as a verb has perversely spawned the word and pastime of "friending." I guess it is too complicated in computer coding to work in the act of "making a friend."<br />3. Incent. Dictionary.com attributes to the American Heritage Dictionary the analysis that this word is a "back-formation" of the word, incentive. I cannot be so kind. Incent is the result of a person concluding that the suffix "ive" somehow modifies the (prefix?!?) incent. I'm going to credit the boss of the 'incent' dimwit for coming up with the bastard child of incent, incentivise. I guess this means that these are next: adject-, conjunct-, subjunct-, furt-, curs-, vot-, ICKcetera. Adjectivise? Cursivise? Hmmm.<br /><br />To be continued, I'm quite sure.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-85264287157551215252010-03-12T16:04:00.004-05:002010-11-10T22:24:22.654-05:00A Multiplicity of MultiplesDear dears, Livia has noticed a trend, which is always disturbing to her peace of mind, implying as it does both intellectual laziness and paucity of imagination. This particular trend is the use of "multiple" to mean "many," "several," or "numerous."<br /><ul><li>"The congressman's behavior included multiple instances of tickle fights." (Wash. Post, 3/11/10)<br /></li><li>Jimmy's homework consisted of multiple worksheets.</li><li>You have had multiple opportunities to clean up your act.</li></ul>These are but a few of the usages Livia decries. Strictly speaking, "multiple" means "many copies of the same thing." So, loveys, you can't use it unless you're talking about repetition of or enlargement upon a single entity. Surely, each of Jimmy's worksheets was different--what would be the point of doing the same sheet over and over? Never mind.<br /><br />As an appropriate usage, for example, "multiple birth" refers to the phenomenon of more than one child being born at the same time--presumably, several copies of the same kid, but applicable to non-identical womb-sharers as well.<br /><br />Livia has corrected multiple instances of the misuse of multiple, and she fears that it is multiplying exponentially. Stop already! Plenty of accurate, concise, and descriptive words exist to describe a profusion of <fill>(fill in the blank). Use them!</fill>Livia Drusahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12547339766498314860noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-45515084627921108872009-11-05T10:36:00.011-05:002010-11-10T22:26:22.549-05:00"Whomever Wrote This Has Serious Mental Problems"My goodness. Aside from the hostility reflected in that statement, please note the delicious use of "whomever." Practically nobody uses this word any more. However our psychological diagnostician has got it EXACTLY WRONG, you dolt! The word is <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">whoever.</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span><span><span>Livia despairs. </span></span><span><span>Ignorant teachers, writers, and talking heads have perpetrated countless assaults on innocent syntax, confusing their audiences and leading to the feelings of inadequacy that result in horrors such as the one quoted (see also "I'm OK, Me's OK, Myself's a Bitch" from <span style="font-style: italic;">last</span> November). Here's another:<br /><blockquote>Whom shall I say is calling?</blockquote>Pity the poor receptionist (housemaid, butler) who has been taught that this question is "polite" English. The error arises from the interjection of "shall I say": no one (Livia devoutly hopes) would seriously ask whom is calling. Would she? Gods help us. And in fact, a truly polite way to ask is, "May I say who is calling?" But that's a different rant.</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Who</span></span> intensifies to <span style="font-style: italic;">whoever</span> and is nominative: that is, it is the subject of a sentence or clause.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Whom</span> intensifies to <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">whomever</span></span> and is objective--the object of the sentence, clause, or preposition.</blockquote>So how can one know which is the correct form to use? Simple, loveys. Livia will help you. The key is to substitute "he" or "him" for the pronoun. If "he" is the correct word, then use <span style="font-style: italic;">who</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">whoever.</span> If it's <span style="font-style: italic;">him,</span> use <span style="font-style: italic;">whom</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">whomever.</span> See? Easy as slipping poison into wine. For example,<br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Give this package to <span style="font-style: italic;">whoever </span>answers the door. </blockquote>Now, tell Livia why <span style="font-style: italic;">whoever</span> is correct in that sentence. Anyone? Sigh.<br /><br />It's correct because <span style="font-style: italic;">whoever</span> is the subject of the clause, NOT the object of the preposition "to." Who answers the door? He answers the door. Therefore, the nominative <span style="font-style: italic;">whoever</span> is correct. ("Give the package to the person who answers the door.")<br /><br />Let's try another:<br /><blockquote>I can give the package to <span style="font-style: italic;">whomever </span>I want.</blockquote>Here, the subject of the subordinate clause is "I," and <span style="font-style: italic;">whomever</span> is in the objective position: I want to give the package to <span style="font-style: italic;">him. </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />Oh all right. Livia can see your eyes glazing over. She has done her best. Her last bit of advice is this: If your objective is to be bitingly sardonic, make sure it's in the right place.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-9503794200097853352009-06-18T11:34:00.002-04:002009-06-18T11:43:15.098-04:00BREAKING NEWS: Livia and Cicero DisagreeFollowers:<br />Cicero contends that it is inappropriate to attribute possessive qualities to inanimate objects, even if they are nouns, as in "Today's forecast calls for rain." I've never met Today, but he seems like an opportunist. <br /><br />Livia maintains that "...inanimate objects do have the property of possession. One of the beauties of English is its adaptability. To get around the clumsiness of using Latinate structure—the financial analyst of the Times, the suspension of the Acura—English allows us to apply the shorthand ‘s: the result is clarity of meaning and simplicity of expression—two highly prized (by me, at least) elements of style." Her examples include: The Times’s financial analyst...; The Acura’s suspension...; The book’s plot...; The building’s character...; The city’s traffic....; The piano’s tone... You get the idea.<br /><br />We are in the midst of an identity (power?) struggle. Cicero intends that Grammarsnot should (continue to) be our soapbox for inappropriate, wrong, and <em>annoying</em> usage choices. Cicero mainly objects to the freewheeling, obnoxious, egocentric, and ill-informed usage choices made by media types. Cicero's objection has always been that these usage choices are intended to provide the authors with a measure of control, deduced by readers as intelligence, thereby attributing erudition to those who do not possess it.<br /><br />Livia's contention is that the possessive quality of some of the poor usage choices is correct, and therefore is not fodder for this venue. Cicero may be slightly overstating (or understating, or mis-stating, or mis-remembering per Roger Clemens), Livia's position.<br /><br />WHAT SAY YE?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-14928734107565304362009-05-05T16:37:00.002-04:002012-06-11T12:51:24.385-04:00The Vanishing TOne of the beauties of the English language is its adaptability: its readiness to accommodate new coinages, accept foreign words as its own, change its orthography (look it up, loveys), and allow the correct meaning of a word to shine through a wide variety of pronunciations, both regional and dialect. Yet Livia finds herself yearning for the beautiful, crisp sound of the letter T defining the middles of words. Global communication and a tendency in America toward a non-accent accent, however, are gradually erasing that lovely letter.<br />
<br />
Think about it for a moment, loveys: when was the last time you heard the name of the dreary season pronounced with its central T? "Winner" seems to describe both the season and the person picking up the lottery check. Shopping malls (and hospitals) have become "cenners"; horses now "canner"; and fugitives are "wan-ed."<br />
<br />
And the words with doubled-up letters are faring no better: the two in this sentence (sennence) are pronounced "leder" and "beder."<br />
<br />
Livia is certainly not suggesting that we all begin to sound like snooty butlers in bad drawing-room comedies. She does suggest that the trend toward extreme casualness in American life leads to a variety of unappetizing results: enter (enner?) any office building on a Friday in the summertime, and you'll get the idea. On her good days, Livia attributes sloppy pronunciation to an overabundance of informality.<br />
<br />
On her bad days, she believes that a rising tide of anti-intellectualism is destroying American culture and that sloppiness in pronunciation is simply a manifestation of a truly frightening dumbing-down of our populace. She can only hope that, now that we have actual grown-ups running the country, attention to thought and expression will regain a central place in public discourse.<br />
<br />
But don't hold your breath.<br />
<br />
LIVIA DRUSAUnknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-29387902905396830482009-01-20T17:35:00.005-05:002012-06-11T12:52:57.288-04:00You Put the Bop in the Bop-Shoobop-de-Bop...but who put the ICK in ick cetera? Seriously. Livia has heard the pronunciation "ick cetera" at least 5 times in the past week.<br />
<br />
ET cetera, loveys. ET cetera. The phrase is Latin for "and so forth," not a description of a disgusting appendage. ET = AND. ICK = well, ick. Now you know, so knock it off. Unless you enjoy sounding like a fool.<br />
<br />
LIVIA DRUSAUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-20809048805702172592009-01-08T21:43:00.007-05:002012-06-11T12:54:46.294-04:00BizBuz: It's the New EnglishLivia's robustness is top-of-mind this evening, having successfully achieved good success going forward by leveraging her robust wordsmithing skills end-to-end across multiple volumes of a business proposal offering enterprise-wide IT services to the Federal Government.<br />
<br />
If you don't understand what's wrong with that sentence, you deserve to spend the rest of your life with the Self-Important A*h**s (SIA, pron. see-ya) whose intellectual gifts are so limited that they actually think they are making sense when they write and speak such drivel. If you can top it, Livia will bow her head in shame, and Livia and Cicero will post your BizBuz contribution and award you a Snotty Star.<br />
<br />
LIVIA DRUSAUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-84714918658245711362008-12-14T23:16:00.002-05:002012-06-11T12:57:00.158-04:00Breaking News: CNN continues to bring inanimate objects to lifeFrom CNN.com: "New GPS podcast looks at foreign affairs and global policies."<br />
<br />
Now, I love Fareed Zakaria as much as the next left leaning news junkie grammar snob--er, I mean Snot. I liked him better in the early days for his gift of explanation to the American public as to why "they" hate us. I guess it was inevitable that the paragon of newsentertainment would get ahold of him.<br />
<br />
There is sooooo much to work with on this example. The combination of assumed-to-be widely-understood terms (CNN is trying wayyyy too hard); use of the term "new" applied to a program which is also new. Global policies? I can't. As a bit of introspection has revealed, Cicero can be a bit too literal, and perhaps too Snot-ty. So I'll merely focus on CNN's staggering, stubborn, and stupid ability to attribute human behavior to--not just inanimate, but written and/or recorded--objects. A "podcast looks..."<br />
<br />
Personification is cute and charming when used by children who address their stuffed animals. It can be an interesting technique to describe societal shifts or events (e.g. "economic diarrhea"). Message to CNN: your credibility as a serious news outlet **may** be in jeopardy if you can't master basic English. The old Cicero might acuse CNN of contributing to the decline of civilization. Now, that's a little over the top, isn't it? The "new" Cicero will stick to basic judgmental superiority.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-33090727254156579102008-12-10T16:09:00.005-05:002008-12-10T16:40:19.630-05:00But WHEN, for gods' sake?`Livia has just returned from a pleasant holiday lunch with her two best friends. No, really. Livia does <span style="font-style: italic;">have</span> friends after all. But she digresses. Charming as the interlude was, Livia must report a somewhat unsettling exchange with the waiter:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Livia:</span> Please, where is the ladies' room?<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Waiter:</span> See that mirror over there? It's gonna be right to the left of it.</blockquote>Pardon? You mean it's not there now? Does it just drop in from time to time? Is there any predictability as to its presence or absence? And "right to the left"? Which is it, for heaven's sake? Inasmuch as her query was not prompted by idle curiosity, dear hearts, imagine Livia's consternation. Exactly <span style="font-style: italic;">when</span> is it "gonna be" there, please?<br /><br />Please note that rooms within buildings generally have fixed positions, particularly rooms set aside for ladies who wish to retire for a few moments. They stay put, in other words. This sort of intellectual and elocutionary laziness will not be tolerated, loveys. You have been warned.<br /><br />LIVIA DRUSAUnknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-53325759334090581272008-11-25T17:29:00.005-05:002008-12-03T20:26:43.532-05:00How Bad Was It, David?In the course of a conversation with Cicero this afternoon, Livia mentioned the alarming trend among <span style="font-style: italic;">soi-disant</span> journalists (and others, following their example) to use words that sound like the ones they want, but aren't. Challenged to produce an example, Livia lost no time in trotting out "enormity." Good gods, it's everywhere.<br /><ul><li>"Well, Wolf, how prepared do you think President-elect Obama is?" "You know, David, I hope he's prepared for the enormity of the task before him."</li><li>"Let me tell you, Sylvia, the enormity of that slide was almost more than little Flavius could handle."</li><li>"The enormity of the Pacific struck awe into Alexandra's soul.</li></ul>Webster's II: "Enormity: 1. Outrageous or heinous character; atrociousness, as <span style="font-style: italic;">the enormity of war crimes. </span>2. Something outrageous or heinous, as an offense."<br /><br />Please, <span style="font-style: italic;">please, <span style="font-weight: bold;">please</span></span>, people! Unless that slide is about to devour little Flavius, it does not possess the attribute of "enormity." It's BIG. Huge, maybe. Even enormous. But heinous? Livia doubts it.<br /><br />The task before Mr. Obama may well be another story, however.<br /><br />LIVIA DRUSAUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-19944516017391731682008-11-18T22:05:00.015-05:002008-12-03T20:27:40.319-05:00I'm OK, Me's OK, Myself's A BitchLivia was rudely shocked recently by having had the occasion to read this sentence:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">"What came out of John and I's conversation was the decision to have the meeting anyway."<br /></div><br />Wait a minute: "John and I's conversation"? WHAT?! Oh gods, where to start.<br /><br />Unknown to most native speakers, English has declensions. We have three cases: nominative, objective, and dative. No, dear, dat<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">ive.</span></span> And, believe it or not, pronouns have to agree with the case! OMG, we are sooo put upon.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Nominative</span></span></span> case refers to the named subject of the sentence; for example, <span style="font-weight: bold;">I.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Objective</span></span></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span>case refers to the object of the verb. That would be <span style="font-weight: bold;">me.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Dative</span></span></span> case refers to the object of a preposition, such as "to" or "for"; that would also be <span style="font-weight: bold;">me.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span>And again, a class of pronouns called <span style="font-style: italic;">possessive:</span> that is, <span style="font-weight: bold;">my</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">mine.</span><br /><br />Take a break, dear hearts. Livia knows that this sort of thing is taxing. Now. What is wrong with the phrase, "John and I's conversation"? Speak up, dear. Livia can't hear you. "I's conversation" is a grammatical impossibility, yes?<br /><br />But what pronoun goes in I's place? Not "me," certainly. RIGHT! "John's and <span style="font-weight: bold;">my </span>conversation"! And that's leaving aside the obvious edit: "In the conversation I had with John, we decided..." or the stilted (but instructive): "The conversation between John and <span style="font-weight: bold;">me</span> resulted in the decision... ."<br /><br />Just to keep things interesting, we also have a class of pronouns called <span style="font-style: italic;">reflexive:</span> in the first person, that would be <span style="font-weight: bold;">myself.</span> (If it helps, take out the <span style="font-style: italic;">x</span> and substitute <span style="font-style: italic;">ct</span>. The pronoun <span style="font-style: italic;">reflects back</span> to the subject of the sentence.) <span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>NEVER, NEVER, EVER say or write <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><br />"John and myself had a conversation." (nominative)<br />"The speakers were John and myself." (objective)<br />"There was a conversation between John and myself." (dative)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Myself</span> may be used only in a supporting role: I did it myself. It may be the object of a verb or a preposition if -- and ONLY if -- the subject of the sentence is <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">I</span>: </span>I embarrassed myself; I sent it to myself.<br /><br />Are we clear? <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">I</span> nominative; <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">me</span> objective or dative; <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">my/mine</span> possessive; <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">myself </span>reflexive.<br /><br />That wasn't so hard, was it? <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Now mind! </span></span><span><span>Or you'll be thrown from the Tarpeian Rock!<br /></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span>LIVIA DRUSA<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-65253308046419620152008-09-17T20:58:00.002-04:002008-09-17T21:07:54.037-04:00Talking paper"After the close, a New York Times report said that Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500) was considering a merger with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Wachovia</span> (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">WB</span>, Fortune 500) or another bank." Posted to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">cnn</span>.com 9/17/2008 by "Senior Writer" Alexandra Twin.<br /><br />In my world, only human beings can actually "say" things. To me, it follows logically, therefore, that someone capable of, you know, "saying" things would be described in the past tense as having, you know, "said" something. I'm delighted at the progress modern science has made now that reports can actually speak. And kudos to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">cnn</span>.com for harnessing the technology to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">disseminate</span> the news of the day.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-44246173971916462842008-06-09T13:29:00.005-04:002008-06-11T10:59:06.407-04:00Final-FinalUnlike Cicero, who still must toil for his bread, Livia spends relatively little time on airplanes. Thus, when forced to endure air travel, she is hypersensitive to sources of potential irritation. Who would have imagined that the pilot's announcement of the torment's imminent end should prove to be such?<br /><br />"We are beginning our final descent into [fill in the blank]."<br /><br />Now think about that statement for a moment. Our final descent: What, the next time we board the aircraft bound for this particular destination, we will <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>descend? Like the Flying Dutchman, we'll carom around the clouds forever? No descents for you!<br /><br />Was there an interim descent of which Livia was unaware? Surely, she would have noticed if the oxygen mask had dropped, yes? Felt the bump?<br /><br />Maybe all other descents were just practice runs, and this one is the one that counts on the pilot's permanent record. Perhaps he or she wishes to reassure us that after the plane touches the ground and taxis to the terminal, it will not sink beneath the tarmac, pretzels, mini-booze, and all.<br /><br />Or is it "goodbye, cruel world"? Livia can certainly understand that sentiment--she has helped many a confused soul arrive at that conclusion, though certainly not while that person was operating a conveyance in which she was a passenger.<br /><br />Livia remembers a time when pilots used the phrase "final approach." While clumsy, it does at least have the virtue of possibility: rush-hour traffic might have required a 50-mile roundabout--more than once, even--thus necessitating more than one approach.<br /><br />But "final descent?" Scares the shit out of Livia, frankly.<br /><br />LIVIA DRUSAUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5682142120505872921.post-68893875198980251252008-05-06T10:18:00.010-04:002008-12-03T20:28:21.643-05:00It Was A Very Good YearMay 6, 2008, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Washington Post,</span> A Section: "This week, to mark the one-year anniversary of the bag ban, Modbury is planning a big beach cleanup."<br /><br />Some days, Livia just wants to put her head down and cry. Other days, she wants to get out her little vial of poison... Take out your dictionaries, please.<br /><br />Anniversary: from the Latin words <span style="font-style: italic;">annum</span> (year) and <span style="font-style: italic;">verso</span> (turn). Commemoration of an event that comes around every time the year turns. Same day every year. "Anniversary" <span style="font-style: italic;">includes </span>"year." See? Come on, come on: make the connection; you can do it.<br /><br />Bravo! <span style="font-style: italic;">X-year</span> anniversary is redundant! You win the fur-lined bathtub! Amazing what you can find out when you think. What the <span style="font-style: italic;">Post</span> writer should have written was "... to mark the <span style="font-style: italic;">FIRST</span> anniversary..."; that is, the first time that the year has turned since the event happened.<br /><br />Appearance in printed periodicals, on broadcast media, or in the largely illiterate world of Internet communication does not make this usage correct. Nor does it absolve you for perpetuating it.<br /><br />Yes, yes, I know--everyone <span style="font-weight: bold;">else</span> does it. Well I'm not everybody else's mother-- oh wait, wrong crowd. Anyway, <span style="font-weight: bold;">stop it! </span>Don't make me stop this car!<br /><br />LIVIA DRUSA<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1