Hitting the headlines

There is more!

Imagine that!

The panel of a new TV show called “The Marriage Ref” was “particularly tickled when Mr. Rios [one of the contestants] stuttered out the words ‘There is no reason why to have more use.’ ‘You have to be pretty angry to get to a place where you can construct that sentence,’ said Jeff Cesario, one of the show’s writers.” ( "A Show About Something" NYT 2/28)

Well, Mr Telegdy, executive vice president of NBC for alternative programming, must have been a little angry then when he uttered that he would respect Mr. Seinfeld’s wishes even if he wanted to make a show “in the North Pole.“ However, it might have been as good an idea as “The Marriage Ref” because everybody who watched the first episode of this “hybrid reality-comedy-variety-celebrity-panel show” may wonder if it doesn’t prove true the old Latin saying “nomen est omen” and Mr. Telegdy agreed to produce a tele-elegy, an elegy (a sad song for something that doesn’t exist anymore) for his television station.

Mr. Rios’s and Mr. Telegdy’s slips of the tongue are probably examples of those “moments you weren’t supposed to hear,” a phrase coined by Yahoo News that is less tickling than puzzling. How can one hear a moment? But maybe it is because journalists are notoriously underpaid that they are so often angry enough to construct such weird sentences. “Carnal, Gum-Crackin’ and Dangerous” (NYT 2/7), for instance, analyzes how in movies produced in the 1950s “the Bad Girl gradually lost her usefulness. It was no longer necessary to characterize women as hopelessly evil for expressing an interest in sex. By the time of ‘A Summer Place,’ even Sandra Dee was doing it. She lived on for a while in soft-core pornography, notably in the Times Square specials of Doris Wishman, but then faded back to where she had come from: the roiling American subconscious.” No, Sandra Dee neither lived on in soft-porn nor did she fade into the American subconscious. The Bad Girl did, but that is not what the writer is saying here.

The same article includes a shot of Evelyn Keyes in “The Killer That Stalked New York” and explains that Keyes played a “jewel smuggler who has brought a case of smallpox with her back from Cuba.” The “jewel smuggler who has brought back from Cuba a case of smallpox” would be much clearer, but “the case” is still a little bit discombobulating in the context of a smuggler’s junkets.
It prompts the reader to imagine Evelyn Keyes carrying a case full of diamonds in one hand and a case of smallpox in the other. How about “on her return from Cuba, she smuggles some diamonds through the port of New York City but is also bringing in a smallpox virus”?

Stately speech

Lord Chancellor, did I deliver the speech well? I am glad of that, for there was nothing in it. (George III.)

According to President Obama, who usually shines at sophisticated syntax, "a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense'." A statement like this makes any language nerd first glow with pleasure, then glower. Although Obama praises the beauty of a good sentence, he does it not quite correctly. Everybody is an indefinite pronoun that refers here to a nonspecific group of people and requires a singular verb. “Everybody can recognize it” is indeed correct since can remains unchanged whether used as a singular or a plural verb. However, because everybody requires the singular, it cannot be followed by they. In order to avoid the correct but awkward phrase “He or she says, 'Huh…,” the speaker should have combined both sentences, telling his listeners that “Everybody will recognize it and say…” Opinions on the use of they differ , yet if as easily avoidable as above, just don't combine an indefinite pronoun with a plural pronoun.
Far more disconcerting is Obama’s statement that "When it comes to Iraq, I opposed the war. It was a bad idea, but as we bring out our troops, I have responsibility; ... Just because I opposed it, doesn’t mean that I don’t have responsibility to make sure that we do things in responsible fashion." The question is what the bad idea was. Grammatically, it would refer to the previous clause “I opposed the war.” Is this what the speaker really meant? I doubt it.
Nevertheless, such mistakes are still a far cry from another president’s musings over whether "the highways on the Internet will become more few." However, Bush’s question whether "our children is learning?" has found its match last week. In an interview, Janet Napolitano reassured us that she keeps “focused, really trying to ascertain who needs to be our targets." Bush and Napolitano obviously have a problem with subject/verb agreements. Children are learning – or not. Targets need to be ascertained.
In her interview, Napolitano asserted that her focus on clear targets shall help to keep paranoia about terrorism attacks at bay. Several months earlier, the Vice-President tried to keep another paranoia at bay – not very successfully though. On the Today Show, he provided handy tips to protect against the swine flu and maintained that he "wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. … When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft. That's me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway. If you're out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it's a different thing." We understand that he wanted to say that, right now, he would avoid confined spaces such as airplanes. Less clear is already what it is that spreads throughout the aircraft. Considering the following sentence “That’s me,” one is tempted to assume that he himself is going all the way through the aircraft. Although Biden may be ubiquitous and influential, he certainly did not want to compare himself with an influenza virus. It gets utterly confusing when he continuous that he “would not be” – what? He would not go all the way through the aircraft if they had another way of transportation? Who the heck are they anyway? But back to the questions what he would not be. In fact, he would not be suggesting that anybody rides the subway. Confusion always results when related words are not kept together. In this case, the speaker even split the verb, inserting one phrase (at this point) and one clause (if they had another way of transportation) between auxiliary verb and main verb, which makes his statement barely comprehensible.
Joe Biden finally recommends not being in “a closed container,” which echoes Janet Napolitano’s observation that in order to keep the country safe, “you can’t put the United States in a big Tupperware container.” Picture in your mind the images you create! Figurative language can endow a text with fresh effects or insights, but when it slops over, it messes up the whole thing. Watch this
literally hilarious lesson.

Holiday Blues

Good food and not fine words keep me alive. (Moliere)





What's wrong with those kids?


After all the servings of turkey, green bean casserole and ham went the way of all flesh, it is time to once more weigh the advantages of diets and healthy living. Here is a little entree I found recently on a discussion forum:

A study found out that kids that live closer to the store walk less then kids that live further away from the store. The study showed that even if kids lived by green open spaces they would rather walk to the convenience store for that junk food, instead of playing in a park that was in the same distance from their homes.

It is quite a stirring observation these researchers cooked up, yet one that could do with some grammatical refining.

A study found out that kids who…
When a relative pronoun (who, which, that) refers to a human antecedent such as kids, who is the correct pronoun. Similarly, we would not refer to a girl's new dress by saying that she (personal pronoun used to refer to a female being) wears its (a personal pronoun used to refer to inanimate objects) new dress.

A study found out that kids who live closer to the store walk less than…
Then and than sound alike, almost look alike but are anything but alike. While then refers to time, than is a conjunction between the first and the second item in a comparison.

A study found out that kids who live closer to the store walk less than kids who live farther…
Like than and then, farther and further sound pretty similar yet mean different things. Further refers to time or quantity, while farther refers to distance.

A study found out that kids who live closer to the store walk less than kids who live farther away from the store. The study showed that even if kids live near green open spaces they rather walk …
There is a difference between even if and if. If introduces a conditional sentence and requires a specific use of tenses: If the kids lived near green open spaces, they would spend more time playing. Even if indicates that a particular condition will not change the results. Since this represents a general statement of fact and timeless truth, the correct verb tense is present tense.

A study found out that kids who live closer to the store walk less than kids who live farther away from the store. The study showed that even if kids live near green open spaces they rather walk to the convenience store to buy junk food than to the park to play a round of soccer.
Rather is followed by than when comparing two objects or situations. The information about the same distance can be eliminated since the sentence states in the beginning that they live near green open space. To add the information about soccer helps to give this sentence a complete parallel structure: to buy junk food // to play a round of soccer

HOMONYMS are words that sound alike but have different meanings.
Homophones are a type of homonym that also sound alike and have different meanings, but have different spellings.
HOMOGRAPHS are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings. Heteronyms are a type of homograph that are also spelled the same and have different meanings, but sound different.

Whose blunder was it now?

On January 5, 2010, News 8 KFMB San Diego reported that a viewer “made a disrespectful discovery” when "he placed flowers at his parents' final resting place. 'What they should have done is they should have kept them aside neatly and at least dusted the dirt off of them,' he said. He sent News 8 pictures of three headstones, which were scattered in dirt just 30 feet away from where his parents and brother are buried."

What may be a “disrespectful discovery”? And what should the cemetery employees “have kept aside”? The flowers? The parents’ gravesite?