tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81741353053408911262024-03-12T20:25:08.873-05:00The Awkward AdverbA periodic look at substandard Standard EnglishUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-34348575048342160812011-10-06T08:37:00.001-05:002011-10-06T08:38:40.064-05:00We've Moved!This blog has a new home.<br /><br />Visit it <a href="http://www.action-copy.com/category/awkward-adverb/">here</a>.<br /><br />The new RSS link is <a href="http://action-copy.com/category/awkward-adverb/feed">http://action-copy.com/category/awkward-adverb/feed</a>.<br /><br />Thanks for reading!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-38467297819489955022011-07-20T08:00:00.000-05:002011-07-20T08:00:01.227-05:00Germs for Sale<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">A devoted reader of <em>The Awkward Adverb</em> informed us that her neighborhood Walgreens is infamous for its unintentionally funny signs on display throughout the store. She sent us a batch of photos that include:</span><br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Odd syntax and grammatical mistakes </span></li></ul><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tb2jJTLHAGM/TiSsrLZzhsI/AAAAAAAABl0/dIuGfBDVZg4/s1600/Grammar-WG.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tb2jJTLHAGM/TiSsrLZzhsI/AAAAAAAABl0/dIuGfBDVZg4/s320/Grammar-WG.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5630815291915339458" border="0" /></a><br /><ul><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Nonsensical or head-scratching messages</span></li></ul><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p_R2kGDgFoI/TiSsz8bDqlI/AAAAAAAABl8/5yM7yO6EkJM/s1600/Nonsense-WG.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p_R2kGDgFoI/TiSsz8bDqlI/AAAAAAAABl8/5yM7yO6EkJM/s320/Nonsense-WG.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5630815442512882258" border="0" /></a><ul><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Incorrect or confusing math</span></li></ul><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ytxXTjMvt-c/TiSs-QY61JI/AAAAAAAABmE/2szWZKlznFI/s1600/Math%2B2.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 120px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ytxXTjMvt-c/TiSs-QY61JI/AAAAAAAABmE/2szWZKlznFI/s320/Math%2B2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5630815619671315602" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Although <em>The Awkward Adverb </em>got a good laugh from these signs, we aren't here to make fun of them (or not <em>only</em> to make fun of them). As advocates of good communication, we must also honestly ask whether the signs' poor quality really matters.</span><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">These signs were put up to boost sales. Do they succeed despite their mistakes?<br /><br />We would argue that they actually harm sales. Most shoppers, when confronted with a sign saying "Yucky</span> <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Germs?", would choose not to buy that product. Even without the possibility of infection, these signs leave shoppers puzzled, and confusing marketing messages do not tend to encourage purchases.<br /><br />How do these signs impact the Walgreens brand? They generate concern from the top. When we wrote an e-mail asking for comment to customer service through the Walgreens website, we were surprised to get a personal call early the next morning from someone pressing for details. However, we declined to provide any and didn't pursue the matter further. In a world of airtight, top-down branding, we preferred to let this store's individual quirks fly under the radar.</span><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><br /><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="subTitle">Contribute Your Comments</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"> Do you think signs like these hurt a store's sales?<br /></span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-12446801094730820732011-05-10T08:30:00.001-05:002011-05-10T08:30:01.702-05:00Follow the Leader<span class="title tpl-content-highlight"></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><img alt="" src="https://us1.admin.mailchimp.com/_ssl/proxy.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.mailchimp.com%2F7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4%2Fimages%2F1425618_b84fffa8.jpg" _cke_saved_src="https://us1.admin.mailchimp.com/_ssl/proxy.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.mailchimp.com%2F7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4%2Fimages%2F1425618_b84fffa8.jpg" style="width: 489px; height: 271px;" border="0" /></span></div><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">When you read marketing materials, you find that many companies claim to be "leading providers" of something or other. This phrase spans all industries. Here's a quick sampling gathered from the Internet:<br /><br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">"MetLife is a <strong>leading provider</strong> of insurance and other financial services to millions of individual and institutional customers."</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">"Targus Group - <strong>Leading Provider</strong> of Laptop Cases, Bags and Accessories"</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">"DaVita, Inc., a Fortune 500 company, is a <strong>leading provider</strong> of kidney care in the United States."</span></span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Most often companies claim to be <em>a</em> leading provider, not <em>the</em> leading provider. After all, a company purporting to be the leading provider of a market would need to support the assertion with factual data, such as the highest sales numbers.<br /><br />Even true leaders seem to trot out this lazy claim without a second thought. There are 24 million Google results for "leading provider." With all those leaders, who's following?<br /><br />More importantly, do consumers ever respond do this stuffy wording? Does anyone consciously or unconsciously gravitate to the products or services of self-appointed leading providers? It's not likely.<br /><br />In the first example, if MetLife were looking for a quick solution for getting around the phrase, it could replace "is a leading provider of" with the word "provides" all by itself: </span></span><ul><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">"MetLife <strong>provides</strong> insurance and other financial services to millions of individual and institutional customers." </span></span></li></ul><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">By making the change, the company would:<br /><br /></span></span><ul><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Replace a weak linking verb ("is") with a strong active verb ("provides")</span></li><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Improve concision by eliminating four words</span></span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Avoid tired phrasing that doesn't resonate </span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Communicate more directly</span></span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">Now that sounds more like a leader.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-57117780687337256482011-03-17T08:30:00.001-05:002011-03-17T08:30:02.849-05:00Real Fakes<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Pioneered by Amazon, product reviews have become an essential part of e-commerce, and sites dedicated solely to reviews have sprung up, from Yelp to Epinions to TripAdvisor. Not surprisingly, efforts to game online reviews have also emerged.<br /><br />Ordinary consumers with no conflicts of interest supposedly author reviews, but sometimes companies plant glowing fake reviews among legitimate ones. It can be hard to spot the fakes, especially when casually browsing. But certain characteristics can help identify them, and writing styles offer a number of clues:<br /></span><ol><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><em>Too effusive</em> – "This coffee maker is the best thing ever invented! I would buy it again and again, and I recommend it to everyone alive!"</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><em>Too specific</em> – "Acme's aerodynamic coffee drip mechanism creates the ideal brewing environment for beans prepared with Acme's 345G coffee grinding system."</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><em>Horrible, irrelevant writing (so five stars can be given)</em> – "i luv coffee & this coffee maker makes the best coffeee in da wurld LOL!!!!"</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><em>Marketing-speak</em> – "This coffee maker is GENIUS! No more moving, disconnecting cables, and spilling out water and coffee. I love waking up in the morning and finding a perfectly hot cup of coffee thanks to the programmable timer. I RECOMMEND THIS LOVELY PRODUCT!"</span></li></ol><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Why so much about coffee? Well, the last example is actually a "real" fake review posted on Amazon by someone working for the company <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2009/07/09/delonghis-strange-brew-tracking-down-fake-amazon-raves/" _cke_saved_href="http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2009/07/09/delonghis-strange-brew-tracking-down-fake-amazon-raves/">DeLonghi</a>. Other well-known companies caught in the fake review game include <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10145399-92.html" _cke_saved_href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10145399-92.html">Belkin</a> and <a href="http://www.neowin.net/news/carbonite-caught-red-handed-posting-fake-product-reviews" _cke_saved_href="http://www.neowin.net/news/carbonite-caught-red-handed-posting-fake-product-reviews">Carbonite</a>, not to mention many smaller firms.<br /><br />With care, the writing could be finessed to avoid detection. On the other the hand, companies could redirect efforts into running marketing campaigns that don't involve deception.</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" src="https://us1.admin.mailchimp.com/_ssl/proxy.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.mailchimp.com%2F7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4%2Fimages%2Freviewstars.1.jpg" _cke_saved_src="https://us1.admin.mailchimp.com/_ssl/proxy.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.mailchimp.com%2F7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4%2Fimages%2Freviewstars.1.jpg" style="width: 218px; height: 218px;" border="0" /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-80293292496708335762011-01-19T08:30:00.000-06:002011-01-19T08:30:01.233-06:00Results-Oriented Problem Solvers<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >At the end of 2010, the business social networking site LinkedIn released the top "overused buzzwords" found in users' profiles that year. For the U.S., they are: </span><br /><ol><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Extensive experience </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Innovative </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Motivated </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Results-oriented </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Dynamic </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Proven track record </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Team player </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Fast-paced </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Problem solver </span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Entrepreneurial </span></li></ol><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Is there a problem with using these buzzwords? If everyone professes to be "innovative" and "motivated," the terms lose their impact. People combing through profiles will gloss over excessively used phrases while seeking traits that stand out from the pack.<br /><br />The worth of these words can be rescued often if they're followed by evidence that shows they're not empty placeholders. "Problem solvers" could point to problems they have solved, and the "results-oriented" could discuss</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" > </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >results achieved.<br /><br />So on behalf of all the </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >motivated</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" > and </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >results-oriented team players out there with extensive entrepreneurial experience and proven track records, let's be innovative problem solvers in this dynamic and fast-paced world.<br /><br />(Just seeing if I could fit them all into one sentence.)<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/LinkedInImage.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 543px; height: 363px;" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/LinkedInImage.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-43794463385760882352010-11-23T07:00:00.001-06:002010-11-23T07:00:00.874-06:00Misplaced Missiles<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Lockheed Martin no doubt means its slogan, "We never forget who we're working for," to be reassuring. But here at <em>The Awkward Adverb</em>, we find it cryptic and disconcerting.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /> <img alt="" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/Lockheed.jpg" border="0" height="75px" width="403px" /></div><br /><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >As a manufacturer of fighter jets and missiles, Lockheed has sizable contracts with the U.S. military. So does it consider the Pentagon to be the principal entity to please? Or perhaps Lockheed believes it's working for the American public in general? Company shareholders, maybe? The slogan raises a question it doesn't answer. Lockheed's management may know the company's priorities, but the rest of us are left in the dark.<br /><br />And the slogan raises a disturbing possibility. Does Lockheed have a habit of forgetting who ordered its products? We certainly hope not. We wouldn’t want the company to forget that it was the United States who commissioned that F-16, and not Iran or North Korea.<br /><br />Lastly, the slogan's grammar is incorrect. The ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition issue is <a href="http://theawkwardadverb.blogspot.com/2009/10/this-sentence-ends-with.html">no big deal</a>, but the slogan should be "We never forget <strong>whom </strong>we're working for." Granted, many consider the use of <em>whom </em>too stuffy for everyday English, but Lockheed isn't going after a happy-hour crowd. The company manufactures dangerous products that demand precision. Since the slogan doesn't reflect care in either meaning or mechanics, it should have been left on the drawing board.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="subTitle">Contribute Your Comments</span><br /><br />Are there any<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" > slogans you think are badly written? What are they?</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-82977138216830473982010-10-12T07:00:00.000-05:002010-10-12T07:00:04.361-05:00Gotcha Journalism<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >A September post on the <em>New York Times' </em>small business blog ran with this title:</span><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><br /><a href="http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/social-media-is-easier-than-you-think/%20" target="_blank"><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><img alt="" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/NYT_Headline_with_Circle.jpg" style="width: 457px; height: 155px;" border="0" /></span></a></p><br /><br /><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Eagle-eyed readers, however, noticed that the URL said, "Social Media <em>Is</em> Easier Than You Think."</span><br /><p style="text-align: center;"> <a href="http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/social-media-is-easier-than-you-think/" target="_blank"><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><img alt="" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/NYT_URL_with_circle.jpg" style="width: 469px; height: 21px;" border="0" /></span></a></p><br /><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Which is correct? "Social media are...," or Social media is...?"<br /><br />There are two linguistic schools of thought on such matters. One would say that the correct form would be "Social media are...," because <em>media</em> is the Latin-derived plural for <em>medium.</em> Plural words, of course, take "are."<br /><br />The other side prefers to accept language as it's actually used and believes native speakers are the ultimate authority on what's correct. Since "Social media is..." sounds more natural to many people's ears, it's fine, even preferable. People often speak of <em>media</em> as a singular entity (like <em>government</em>), Latin origins be damned.<br /><br />Here at <em>The Awkward Adverb</em>, we're not going to come firmly down on one side or the other. We will, however, fault <em>The New York Times</em> for inconsistency. Whatever version its editors deem correct, the publication should stick with it.<br /><br />This error may be minor in the grand scheme of things, but it's always fun to say "Gotcha" to an august institution like <em>The New York Times</em>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Contribute Your Comments</span><br /><br />Do you think "media" should be considered singular or plural? Can you think of other examples of English usage in which the "correct" version might seem awkward?<br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-47322157024968093032010-08-31T07:00:00.004-05:002010-09-01T10:32:12.464-05:00Banishing the Buzz<p style="text-align: center;"><br /><a href="http://unsuck-it.com/"><img alt="" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/Unsuck_Image.jpg" style="width: 291px; height: 110px;" border="0" /></a></p><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><a href="http://unsuck-it.com/">Unsuck It</a></span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >, a new buzzword dictionary making some buzz on the Internet, claims to "unsuck" pretentious business jargon into normal English. The online lexicon contains some apt entries of inflated buzzwords that indeed need to have hot air sucked out.<br /><br />For example, a <em>team player</em> is translated as "helpful employee," a <em>go-forward plan</em> is just a "plan," and the word <em>synergy</em> is unsucked to mean </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >simply </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" > "working together." Computer jockeys who self-importantly claim to be <em>ninjas</em>, <em>rockstars</em>, or <em>wizards</em> are demoted to "adequate programmers." The list contains some new-fangled terms that I hadn't known existed, including <em>timebox</em>, <em>upskill</em>, and <em>adverteasing</em>. Other terms that I had heard before, but perhaps wish I hadn't, are <em>mindshare</em>, <em>ping me</em>, and <em>ideation</em>.<br /><br />At the same time, Unsuck It doesn't always hit its target. <em>Skin a cat</em>, <em>drop the ball</em>, and <em>drink the Kool-Aid</em> are unsucked on the site, but they are perfectly ordinary English idioms. And I wouldn't consider <em>brainstorm</em> or <em>ubiquitous</em> to be buzzwords. They’re just words.<br /><br />Still, the greater cause of Unsuck It, to discourage the use of inflated jargon, should be supported. Ironically, if the website becomes popular, <em>unsuck </em>may end up becoming a buzzword that </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >itself </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >needs unsucking.</span><br /><br /><b>Contribute Your Comments</b><br /><br />What business jargon drives you crazy? What buzzwords should be banished?<br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><br /><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" border="0" height="16" width="125" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END --><br /><br /><!-- Start of StatCounter Code --><br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />var sc_project=4228110; <br />var sc_invisible=1; <br />var sc_partition=49; <br />var sc_click_stat=1; <br />var sc_security="43d190e2"; <br /></script><br /><br /><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js"></script><noscript><div class="statcounter"><a title="site stats" href="http://www.statcounter.com/free_web_stats.html" target="_blank"><img class="statcounter" src="http://c.statcounter.com/4228110/0/43d190e2/1/" alt="site stats" ></a></div></noscript><br /><!-- End of StatCounter Code -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-55420195732342321302009-11-10T10:16:00.002-06:002009-11-25T13:22:12.638-06:00Twitter TranslatedAlthough <i>The Awkward Adverb</i> doesn't have a Twitter account, we haven't missed the buzz about the social networking platform. We recently happened upon a blog posting that gives advice about how to use Twitter strategically. Among the writer's recommendations, she posts several sample Twitter messages. Here's one: <blockquote>RT @kellyecrane Great idea: PR consultants, let's use the #soloprpro hashtag to share information! <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">http://bit.ly/3wkIZu</span></blockquote> To the uninitiated, this looks like a bunch of gibberish. After doing a bit of research, we will attempt to translate:<br /><br /> <ul><li>The "RT" means it's a retweet, or reposting of someone else's Twitter message.</li> <li>The @kellyecrane gives credit to the person who first posted this tweet and sends her an alert about the retweet. She apparently is a public relations professional.</li> <li>The # character is called a hash mark, maybe because it kind of looks like a plate of hash browns?</li> <li>Words prefixed with the # create "hashtags," or keywords that help Twitter users find related tweets.</li> <li>The <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">http://bit.ly/3wkIZu</span> is a stand-in link that's shorter than the true web address, but it will take you to the same page. The author uses it to stay within Twitter's 140 character limit.</li><br /></ul>Twitter has been embraced by millions of users, but its growth is reported to be slowing. One barrier to greater adoption might be that this odd, new language intimidates and confuses potential users.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/twitter_bird.1.jpg" alt="" border="0" height="207" width="300" /></div><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" border="0" height="16" width="125" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-43621936399806610942009-10-07T06:30:00.002-05:002009-10-07T06:30:00.900-05:00This Sentence Ends With<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"> When an editor mangled Winston Churchill's text to adhere to the well-known rule, Never end a sentence with a preposition, Churchill supposedly scrawled on the proof, "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."<br /><br />Even if this anecdote isn't true (and several variations on Churchill's purported reply are floating around), the comment illustrates how the rule can be silly. English speakers end sentences with prepositions all the time, and it's often odd to do otherwise. You might ask someone, "Who did you give it to?" (or if you're a stickler, "Whom did you give it to?"), but you would never, ever say, "To whom did you give it?" unless you wanted someone to make fun of you.<br /><br />Still, <i>The Awkward Adverb</i> believes that following the rule, when possible, lends elegance and clarity to formal writing. And Churchill wasn't being entirely fair. The motivation behind the grammatical principle is to keep prepositional phrases intact, and Churchill's sentence doesn't even include a prepositional phrase. "Put up with" is a verbal unit that means the same as "tolerate."<br /><br />So he could have scrawled, "This is the sort of English that I will not tolerate." This response isn't as intentionally awkward, but it's also less funny.<br /><br /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><img alt="" style="width: 255px; height: 308px;" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/Churchill_HU_90973.jpg" border="0" /></span></div><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><br /><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END --><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-81662605016249878692009-09-08T13:31:00.003-05:002009-09-09T11:48:13.163-05:00Healthcare Hot Air<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" > As the United States battles over healthcare reform, all insured citizens can certainly agree on one point: They have no have idea what their policies say.<br /><br />Here is an excerpt from an actual policy:<br /><br /><i><span style="font-size:small;">"The plan covering the patient as a dependent child of a person whose date of birth occurs earlier in the calendar year shall be primary over the plan covering the patient as a dependent of a person whose date of birth occurs later in the calendar year provided." </span></i><br /><br />If the policy were written for a reader to understand, the passage might read:<br /><span style="font-size:small;"><br /></span><i><span style="font-size:small;">"What happens if my spouse and I both have health coverage for our child? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">"If your child is covered under more than one insurance policy, the policy of the adult whose birthday is earlier in the year pays the claim first. For example: Your birthday is in March; your spouse's birthday is in May. March comes earlier in the year than May, so your policy will pay for your child's claim first." </span></i><br /><br />Much better. The rewrite, taken from </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >a <i>New York Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20cogan.html">piece</a> by a lawyer who works in a state health insurance department in Rhode Island</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >, has shorter sentences, simpler vocabulary, and a clear example.<br /><br />This health insurance commissioner's office frequently receives calls from citizens who do not understand why coverage is denied. When the state office follows up with insurers, the companies </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >often </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >don't understand their own policies. Clear writing would benefit everyone involved.<br /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><img src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/smaller_blah_004.jpg" style="width: 396px; height: 263px;" alt="" border="0" /></span></div><br /><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><br /><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-67985459365387353102009-08-11T08:30:00.000-05:002009-10-06T16:04:45.081-05:00Mean Dregs and Spam<font style="" size="3" face="Georgia"> A nonessential but always present aspect of spam is its usage mistakes. Spammers do occasionally include intentional misspellings in order to skirt around e-mail filters that flag certain keywords, but most of the mistakes spammers make are not strategic, and this explanation cannot excuse the atrocious grammar. Mostly, spam is horribly written because it comes from lowlifes and swindlers operating in the dregs of capitalism.<br /><br />Here's an excerpt from a so-called Nigerian scammer:<br /><br /><i><font style="" size="2" face="Georgia">I am the personal attorney / sole executor to the WILL of my late client ? I have a message for you please return my mail for details.Your Respond should be sent to my Private e-mail. </font></i><br /><br /><font style="" size="3" face="Georgia">These few lines contain countless mistakes that aren't even worthwhile pointing out. When has clearly written, error-free spam message ever shown up in anyone's inbox? For all spam, the poor quality of the writing reflects the intent behind the senders' schemes and ethics.<br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/spam_wall.jpg" style="width: 327px; height: 245px;" alt="" border="0"> </div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/63056612@N00/"><font size="x-small">Photo credit</font></a><font size="x-small"> /</font><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" rel="license"><font size="x-small">CC BY-SA 2.0</font></a></div><br /></font><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" border="0" height="16" width="125"></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END --><br /></font>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-92034489482040542682009-07-08T10:00:00.002-05:002009-07-08T10:00:26.254-05:00A Whole Nother Nother"It's a whole nother thing." The sentence rolls off the tongue easily, and it's commonly heard in English along with variants such as "a whole nother level" or "a whole nother ball of wax."<br /><br />Despite the ubiquity of these expressions, "nother" isn't really a word. The speaker is splitting up "another" by dropping "whole" in the middle of it.<br /><br />What would be more correct? Standard English offers some alternatives to "a whole nother thing"<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">—</span><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">"a whole other thing" or </span><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">perhaps </span><span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;">"an entirely different thing"—but these don't really cut it. The first comes off as stiff and awkward, and the second is, well, an entirely different thing. So although "nother" may not be suitable for business or academia, English speakers' natural feel for their language's texture gives "a whole nother thing" a certain degree of legitimacy.<br /><br />"Nother" has even made it into dictionaries as a misdivision of "another," and the expression has been around at least since the country's bell-bottomed days. It appears on 1970s funk albums. When young Luke Skywalker was stuck on a remote, desert farm in <i>Star Wars</i> and his uncle delayed his plans, he complained, "But that's a whole nother year!"<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /><br /><img src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/Fuzzy_and_Luke_combined.2.jpg" style="width: 496px; height: 178px;" alt="" border="0" /></div><br /></span><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-addthis-en.gif" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border: 0pt none ;" height="16" width="125" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js?pub=halpert3"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-27735966578973295342009-06-04T11:59:00.002-05:002009-06-04T12:13:02.129-05:00Get Back Inside the Box<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" > Whenever people claim to "think outside the box," they're obviously thinking inside the box. The phrase refers to original thinking, but it has become a cliché, and clichés by their very nature represent the opposite of original thinking.<br /><br />Most likely, the phrase came from this little brain teaser:<br /><br />Take a square grid of nine dots. Try to connect all dots using only four lines, and do not remove the (imaginary) pen as you draw your lines.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/Nine_Dots_crop_2.jpg" style="width: 161px; height: 167px;" alt="" border="0" /></div><br />One's natural instinct is to keep the four lines within the grid. But the puzzle can't be solved in this way. The only solution is to extend the lines outside the box.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/Nine_Dots_right_wrong_w_captions_combined.jpg" style="width: 353px; height: 181px;" alt="" border="0" /></div><br />Cool trick, right? The puzzle shows how the mind imposes artificial limitations on solutions to problems. This lesson resonated in the business world, and "thinking outside box" caught on as a corporate catchphrase. It eventually careened out of control to where it became irritating, simplistic, and unexamined. In fact, it has been <a href="http://bigthink.com/topics/inspiration/ideas/countrywide-mortgage-another-company-dies-from-exposure-outside-the-box" style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0); text-decoration: underline; font-weight: normal;">argued</a> that companies like AIG and Countrywide abandoned their tried-and-true business processes and collapsed from too much outside-of-the-box thinking.<br /></span><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-addthis-en.gif" width="125" height="16" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0"/></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js?pub=halpert3"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-22248494182359324322009-05-05T13:29:00.005-05:002009-05-06T14:49:48.527-05:00Exclamation Explanation<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/7585c8e4eb29aed653ca9e7f4/images/Exclamation_Sign.jpg" style="width: 223px; height: 258px;" border="0" /></div><br /><br />OK, we'll watch our step on this wet floor, but please, lay off the exclamation points.<br /><br />The overuse of exclamation points is nothing new. This punctuation mark certainly has its place in written English, but it proves most effective when used sparingly. Add too much excitement or emphasis with exclamation points, and eventually nothing is exciting or emphasized. Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, "An exclamation point is like laughing at your own joke."<br /><br />Now that computers with a repeat-key function are commonplace, exclamation-point overuse is running rampant. This problem shows up particularly on blogs, sloppy websites, and comments sections (and wet floor signs). People must say to themselves, Why use one exclamation point when I can use three? Why use three when I can have nine? Why not send a battalion of exclamation points marching across the screen to proclaim the importance of my thoughts?<br /><br />Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Too many exclamation points dizzies the eye and weakens the words.<br /></span><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-12390393378472801832009-04-07T09:30:00.002-05:002009-04-07T17:41:47.437-05:00Got People?<font face="Georgia" size="3">As confusing tax forms flutter about <i>The Awkward Adverb</i>'s office, our eyes glaze over and our minds wander over to H&R Block's cloying slogan, "You got people."<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" alt="" style="width: 288px; height: 124px;" src="http://img.mailchimp.com/2009/04/02/dae2d99b9f/block_4.jpg" /></div><br />I got people? Who talks that way? Tom Hanks' and Meg Ryan's computers told them "You've got mail," not "You got mail." We suppose the tagline is meant to sound casual, but it comes off as odd and forced, like a dorky dad mangling his teenage daughter's slang. It also raises unanswerable questions such as, Where did I get all these people? And when will they stop sleeping on my couch? Most importantly, it makes consumers wonder why they should trust their taxes to a company that, in its defining statement, shows a disregard for professionalism and accepted standards.<br /><br />Although H&R Block hasn't entirely abandoned the tagline, which was introduced in 2007, it seems to have become embarrassed by it. Surf through the company's <a href="http://www.hrblock.com/index.html">website</a>, and the sentence is hard to find. When announcers do slip the phrase into broadcast <a href="http://www.hrblock.com/company/index.html">commercials</a>, they say, as any native English speaker naturally would, "You've got people."<br /><br /><br /></font><br /><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-38719001390428412882009-03-09T09:45:00.002-05:002009-03-09T20:00:35.611-05:00Literally Literal<font size="3" face="Georgia">The common misuse of the word "literally</font><font size="3" face="Georgia">" is a pet peeve of <i>The Awkward Adverb</i> (shared by <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/">many</a> <a href="http://memehuffer.typepad.com/meme_huffer/2007/08/on-misuse-of-th.html%20">other</a> <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515372">people</a>). The word is a useful tool to clarify that a potentially metaphorical phrase is indeed not metaphorical. Consider for example, "I was riding my bicycle through the park when I was yelled at by some clown, literally." Here,"literally" stresses that the yeller was not some generic loudmouth but a person adorned with white greasepaint, a pink wig, polka dots, and comically oversized shoes. Or if someone announces he is "starving to death, literally," that person should be provided medical attention, not a slice of pizza. <br /><br />All too often, however, people use "literally" as an intensifier, which leads to some disarming imagery. During a February stimulus debate, one Republican representative proclaimed, "We're literally flying blind." We assume he then rushed to the Congressional microphone and made an urgent call for a sighted pilot. And Vice President Biden recently announced, "This is a monumental project, but it's doable. It's about getting the money out in 18 months, to literally dropkick us out of this recession." In actuality, a project involving the dropkicking of 300 million Americans would be beyond monumental, not to mention quite painful.<br /><br /><br /></font><div style="text-align: center;"><font size="3" face="Georgia"><img style="width: 348px; height: 282px;" src="http://img.mailchimp.com/2009/03/04/f7f66fc04b/Clowns_Cropped.jpg" alt="" border="0"></font></div><font size="3" face="Georgia"><br /><br /></font><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-27807162637238043612009-02-04T06:30:00.003-06:002009-02-04T10:53:52.300-06:00Presidentially Speaking<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Awkward adverbs became a hot topic on Inauguration Day when Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama stumbled over the presidential oath. Not that we're pointing fingers at either party (<i>The Awkward Adverb</i> is nonpartisan), but</span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" > according to the Constitution, </span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >what the president should have said was:<br /><b><br /></b></span> <span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;" ><i>I do solemnly swear that I <b>will faithfully execute </b>the office of President of the United States...</i></span><br /><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br />What he was told to say was:</span><br /><br /><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;" ><i>I do solemnly swear that I <b>will execute</b> the office of President of the United States <b>faithfully</b>...</i></span><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br /><br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><img alt="" style="width: 235px; height: 236px;" src="http://img.mailchimp.com/2009/01/30/1f0b9f595e/seal-presidential-color.jpg" border="0" /></span></div><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br />From a grammatical standpoint, does it matter where the adverb falls in the sentence? Both versions are acceptable, but good style calls for placing an adverb close to the verb it modifies. Therefore, the Founding Fathers did well by sticking "faithfully" next to "execute" instead of far away at the end of the phrase.<br /><br />Some sticklers, however, believe that verbs should never be split. They disapprove of how "faithfully" elbows its way between "will" and "execute," just as they shudder when Captain Kirk proclaims his intention <i>to boldly go </i>where no man has gone before. (He should prefer <i>to go boldly</i> into deep space.) Even though there’s no compelling reason to always insist on united verbs, schoolmarms used to slap wrists for perceived transgressions like split infinitives. At least <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22pinker.html">one linguist believes</a> that internalized habits stemming from this misguided rule were what caused the flub at the swearing-in ceremony.<br /></span><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-85895435931402437292009-01-09T06:30:00.002-06:002009-01-09T08:45:04.522-06:00Trumped-Up Titles<span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" >Some consumers avoid national chains because they feel that locally owned, independent stores are more authentic and sincere. But how are national chains insincere? As one example, consider the inflated job titles of their employees.<br /><br />The clerks at Wal-Mart are "associates." Verizon Wireless has knighted its workers as "retail customer support representatives." Meanwhile, does the ubiquitous term "team member" actually foster unity among fast-food workers or big-box cashiers? No, it never seems to.<br /><br />At <i>The Awkward Adverb</i>, we roll our eyes at the so-called "geniuses" who work at Apple Stores and at Subway's "sandwich artists." Although familiarity with Macs requires some smarts, it does not elevate anyone to Einstein's level. And the spreading of shredded lettuce over paper-thin tomato slices does not a Van Gogh make.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><img src="http://img.mailchimp.com/2009/01/06/eef7af1a80/Sandwich_and_Van_Gogh.jpg" alt="" style="width: 380px; height: 158px;" border="0" /></span></div><span style=";font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;" ><br />Why do big retailers wrap up employees in euphemisms? Perhaps company officials are trying to make workers feel better about humdrum jobs. Perhaps it's to please themselves, considering that these convoluted titles are always imposed from above. But if fancy titles are meant to impress the public, do not color us impressed. <i>The Awkward Adverb</i> prefers language that doesn't dress up the ordinary in pretension.<br /></span><br /><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-91591356870689116972008-12-10T06:30:00.003-06:002008-12-11T11:07:55.958-06:00The Truth About SeussIn the world of classic children's literature, Dr. Seuss holds an elevated position, but <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjNiMGQ2ODdmOTdhMDMxMDQ4NGE0M2E3NWIxYjQyZDU=">some parents disapprove</a> of his habit of making up words—<i>wumbus</i>, <i>yuzz </i>and <i>diffendoofer</i>, for starters. These critics argue that children's books should teach English, not nonsense, and they worry that their children will have difficulty distinguishing invented words from real vocabulary.<br /><br />But the made-up words are much of the point. Even if it doesn't build SAT vocabulary, Dr. Seuss's nonsense verse helps teach children to focus on English sentence structures, pronunciation and rhythms. Ultimately, kids will figure out that oak trees exist and truffula trees don't. Some words, like <i>nerd </i>and <i>grinch</i>, have even leaped from Dr. Seuss's imagination into common usage and dictionaries. Not all non-standard English is substandard.<br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 377px; height: 170px;" src="http://img.mailchimp.com/2008/12/05/80d000f8b2/Combined_photos.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></div><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-18848166582480949542008-11-06T06:30:00.001-06:002008-12-11T11:08:40.529-06:00Numbered DaysEarlier this year, the clothing retailer Gap issued a limited collection of T-shirts designed by contemporary artists. The contribution of one Rirkrit Tiravanija (pictured in the middle) contains only the bleak, boldly printed sentiment: "The Days of This Society Is Numbered."<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DJB2vWRWrVY/SR0MUN40jVI/AAAAAAAAA8s/eLZff0WuES0/s1600-h/Numbered-Combined.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 334px; height: 154px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DJB2vWRWrVY/SR0MUN40jVI/AAAAAAAAA8s/eLZff0WuES0/s320/Numbered-Combined.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268380680558251346" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The sentence should be: "The Days of This Society Are Numbered." <i>Days</i> is the grammatical subject of the sentence. Since it's plural, it should take the verb <i>are</i>.<br /><br />Was this error intentional? One message-board commenter insisted the shirt is meant as a joke, huffily adding, "We have reached a stage where irony no longer is possible. We have become that illiterate. The shirt is a last gasp of literacy."<br /><br /><i>The Awkward Adverb</i> doesn't agree with this nonsense. Although we believe sloppy language degrades communication and hence society, not many others seem to share this conviction. (Just look at examples from our <a href="http://action-copy.com/newsletter.html" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); text-decoration: underline; font-weight: normal;">past issues</a> for proof.) As Tiravanija is Thai, the error is most likely an understandable mistake by a non-native speaker and not an ironic critique of culture. For society's days that remain, Gap should employ a T-shirt proofreader.<br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="" width="125" border="0" height="16" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8174135305340891126.post-10265749831993641142008-10-05T06:30:00.001-05:002008-12-11T11:09:55.706-06:00New or Improved"New and Improved!"—one of the most overused advertising claims, is so commonplace that it's easy to overlook the phrase's internal contradictions. By definition, only something that is already in existence can be made better. In other words, if a product is truly new, it can't be improved. Choose one or the other. You can't have both.<br /><br />Sure, a product can have new improvements (the improvements of this year compared to the old improvements of last year, for example), but that's splitting hairs. Aside from to the logical contradiction it creates, the phrase's ubiquity has made it meaningless. Basically, no one believes it anymore. Let all companies banish it from their packaging. "New and Improved" is old and obsolete.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DJB2vWRWrVY/SR2hrgn-xAI/AAAAAAAAA9w/w22THK69Rxw/s1600-h/improved+5+-+Cropped.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 114px; height: 183px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DJB2vWRWrVY/SR2hrgn-xAI/AAAAAAAAA9w/w22THK69Rxw/s320/improved+5+-+Cropped.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268544907957421058" border="0" /></a><br /><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><br /><script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = "halpert3";</script><br /><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', '[URL]', '[TITLE]')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"><img src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" width="125" height="16" border="0" alt="" /></a><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script><br /><!-- AddThis Button END -->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0