Misplaced Missiles

Lockheed Martin no doubt means its slogan, "We never forget who we're working for," to be reassuring. But here at The Awkward Adverb, we find it cryptic and disconcerting.

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.

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.

Lastly, the slogan's grammar is incorrect. The ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition issue is no big deal, but the slogan should be "We never forget whom we're working for." Granted, many consider the use of whom 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.

Contribute Your Comments

Are there any slogans you think are badly written? What are they?

Gotcha Journalism

A September post on the New York Times' small business blog ran with this title:

Eagle-eyed readers, however, noticed that the URL said, "Social Media Is Easier Than You Think."

Which is correct? "Social media are...," or Social media is...?"

There are two linguistic schools of thought on such matters. One would say that the correct form would be "Social media are...," because media is the Latin-derived plural for medium. Plural words, of course, take "are."

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 media as a singular entity (like government), Latin origins be damned.

Here at The Awkward Adverb, we're not going to come firmly down on one side or the other. We will, however, fault The New York Times for inconsistency. Whatever version its editors deem correct, the publication should stick with it.

This error may be minor in the grand scheme of things, but it's always fun to say "Gotcha" to an august institution like The New York Times.

Contribute Your Comments

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?

Banishing the Buzz

Unsuck It, 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.

For example, a team player is translated as "helpful employee," a go-forward plan is just a "plan," and the word synergy is unsucked to mean simply "working together." Computer jockeys who self-importantly claim to be ninjas, rockstars, or wizards are demoted to "adequate programmers." The list contains some new-fangled terms that I hadn't known existed, including timebox, upskill, and adverteasing. Other terms that I had heard before, but perhaps wish I hadn't, are mindshare, ping me, and ideation.

At the same time, Unsuck It doesn't always hit its target. Skin a cat, drop the ball, and drink the Kool-Aid are unsucked on the site, but they are perfectly ordinary English idioms. And I wouldn't consider brainstorm or ubiquitous to be buzzwords. They’re just words.

Still, the greater cause of Unsuck It, to discourage the use of inflated jargon, should be supported. Ironically, if the website becomes popular, unsuck may end up becoming a buzzword that itself needs unsucking.

Contribute Your Comments

What business jargon drives you crazy? What buzzwords should be banished?

Twitter Translated

Although The Awkward Adverb 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:

RT @kellyecrane Great idea: PR consultants, let's use the #soloprpro hashtag to share information! http://bit.ly/3wkIZu

To the uninitiated, this looks like a bunch of gibberish. After doing a bit of research, we will attempt to translate:

• The "RT" means it's a retweet, or reposting of someone else's Twitter message.
• 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.
• The # character is called a hash mark, maybe because it kind of looks like a plate of hash browns?
• Words prefixed with the # create "hashtags," or keywords that help Twitter users find related tweets.
• The http://bit.ly/3wkIZu 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.

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.

This Sentence Ends With

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."

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.

Still, The Awkward Adverb 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."

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.

Healthcare Hot Air

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.

Here is an excerpt from an actual policy:

"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."

If the policy were written for a reader to understand, the passage might read:

"What happens if my spouse and I both have health coverage for our child?

"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."

Much better. The rewrite, taken from a New York Times piece by a lawyer who works in a state health insurance department in Rhode Island, has shorter sentences, simpler vocabulary, and a clear example.

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 often don't understand their own policies. Clear writing would benefit everyone involved.

Mean Dregs and Spam

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.

Here's an excerpt from a so-called Nigerian scammer:

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.

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.

Photo credit /CC BY-SA 2.0