Grunts from the Wordgrump (7)

A dopy doc, the dog-dazed, and a dozen dim-witted questions

•For the second time the young medic said, “that means. . . . .”  I stopped her. “I know what exacerbate and eructation mean.  Let’s make an agreement here.  Don’t explain words to me and I won’t point out when you mispronounce them.”  

•I understand that it is unusual to see a St. Bernard in a public setting.  I understand that you and your little one may get excited about “the big doggie.”  But do not rush up to pet my dog without invitation or permission.  I don’t walk O’Malley for your entertainment or enjoyment.   In almost all cases, he’s too big and your toddler is too small.  While he is not aggressive in any way, he could knock your child down with his tail and make you stumble simply by leaning.  If anything untoward occurs, my dog will be blamed.  Admire from a respectful distance.   If that sounds haughty, good.  That’s how it was intended.  Close contact has to be earned and merited.

•The classic distinction between ignorance and apathy—I don’t know and I don’t care—is the answer to the following questions.

          Does Wal-Mart exploit its employees?

          Who will the Republicans nominate for President?

          What are celebrities doing and saying?

          Must everyone recycle?

          What’s the most popular mobile device?

          What are your visions and dreams for the future?

          Were you affected by Harry Potter nostalgia?

          Do you envy other people’s money or sex lives?

          Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

          What’s your sign?

          Are you wearing the right size bra?

          Will I die fat?

         

         

         

         

         

Grunts from the Wordgrump (6)

Dead-On-Arrival Diction is the condition of words that have become cliched through misuse and overuse. Not to mention being annoying as hell.   Here are three examples running rampant.  Iconic is a word that has a dignified and noble function originating in art history.  Now it is used to describe perfectly ordinary rock songs and and sports figures who have managed to overstay their time.  If everything is "iconic" then  nothing is.

     I swear I will scream if I hear surreal  spoken by one more person describing an unexpected experience.  The use of the word "surreal" is never unexpected.  It is completely predictable.  You know it will be uttered when you hear the words, "I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  It was ______ ."   Well, no it wasn't "surreal."  Few things are.  Unless you want to make an intelligible connection between what has disturbed or frightened you and the intentionally fantastic images of surrealism in art, theater, or literature, then leave this word alone.

     Contemporary observations about political discourse find much to be negative about.  Understandably.  You will hear this said: "It's all just rhetoric ."  Political expression may bloviate and pontificate, be repetitious and ranting, or simplify and distort.  But what such  language almost never achieves is "rhetoric."  Rhetoric is an art and a craft.  It is language contructed with care in order to effectively communicate.  The body politic suffers from its absence not its presence. 

     The words you choose to use say something about your mind and your ability to discern.  Cliches and wear-worn phrases almost guarantee you will make no useful impression on your audience or your reader.

     And finally, get off my lawn!

     

Grunts from the Wordgrump (5)---! Marks and The Sentence

>The maladies of cliched expression in online writing are manifold.  This article in the N.Y. Times is unfortunately balanced and calm, when what is called for is a cauldron of boiling oil for those who use multiple exclamation marks.  The conclusion, with its "analogy" to conversation in an Irish pub is an inexcusable profanation. 

>Stanley Fish is well enough along in years to be in his dotage but his recent work demonstrates more dexterity than doddering.  Check out How To Write A Sentence And How To Read One.

Grunts from the Wordgrump (4)

>If you hold the position of a computer writer on the staff of the Washington Post, and you are on camera explaining the "cloud" to an interviewer, you should not need to be apprised that the verb to use when explaining the efficiency advantages of storing information in the cloud is expedite not expediate.  The latter is gibberish and makes you sound like a dope.

>Don’t respond to questions that have not been asked, especially in situations of intimacy or interrogation.

>"Despite the assurances of his letter, my brother returned was a different man."  You will be shocked that E.L. Doctorow could publish this "clumsy" sentence in Homer and Langley if you misidentify the main verb (as I did).  Then, when you see the cleverness of his syntax, you grin with delight. 

Grunts from the Wordgrump (3)

   A good true story deserves many tellings, and in class whenever I had a group of new students I related my experience with “the one letter difference.”  When I worked for the Great Books Foundation, I traveled extensively conducting training courses.  The invoice presented at the end of one’s hotel stay listed the name of your employer or organization.  At one memorable check out, I took note of a “one letter difference” in the recorded name of my firm. I discovered that I was part of a group that devoted its energies to either dumb people or attractive breasts.  The k in “Books” had been typed as a b.

   “Typos,” the scapegoat for careless writing, are not simply matters of form; they are frequently matters of meaning.  For example, if you write “prostrate” for “prostate” you are addressing a spiritual posture rather than a troublesome male gland.  If you use the term “interment” you’re referencing burial which will confuse your meaning if your intent is to speak of being held in custody without trial, i.e., “internment.”  “Decadent” and “decedent,” “dear” and “drear,” “navy” and “navvy,” “sear” and “seer” are some other examples of choices that qualify for the one letter difference botch-er-roo.  Strictly speaking, they are not all homophones or homonyms although they partake of elements of both.  Choosing the wrong word cannot be blamed on the computer or the word processing program.  The error is caused by the writer.  And it’s not merely a “typo.”  It’s a matter of meaning and meaning matters.  

Grunts from the Wordgrump (2)

Some grunts are grudging admission of error by the Wordgrump himself.  Or, in tune with contemporary apologia, “I regret that mistakes were made.”

Because I am rapidly approaching the age when one must make arrangements to have oneself looked after, my keeper, uh…spouse of forty-four years, has agreed to keep an eye on this blog for errata and miscues grammatical or stylistic.  So I have recently had to correct a reference in a post to my grandfather as my “great-uncle”; and more gallingly, to change “affect” back to “effect” despite my innovative defense of “affect” intentionally used as a noun to serve context.  I know many who would have been cowed or convinced by my rationale.  Anita, however, is consistently unimpressed by verbal fandangos and immovable and imperturbable on the principles and practices of grammar.

            In point of fact, a hallmark of our union has been a perdurable mutual interest in the usage norms of Standard English.  We continue to have spirited discussions about the polysyllabic, the pluperfect, the present indicative, the possessive, the periodic; also, whether a particular paragraph is peregrine; or— when alliteration has achieved annoyance.

            I will never be bored or lonely so long as I have my soul mate to debate the right words writ in the right order.

Grunts from the Wordgrump

>Is pleonasm a cure for a literary ailment or a cool way to deliver charientisms?  Answer: it depends on whether you think the delivery of sly insults is enabled or hindered by verbosity.

>David Crystal writing in the introduction of Fowler's classic first edition of . . . Modern English Usage:  "I have encountered people who inveigh against the split infinitive, prepositions at the end of sentences, and opening a sentence with but--to take just three topics--and who cite Modern English Usage in their support, evidently unaware of Fowler's strong condemnation of their pedantry.

>If I ever use lol, multiple !!!!!!!!!!! marks, omg or similar abominations in this blog, I will forfeit my Wordgrump appellation.