Not a Word Peeve: Whither and Whence

 After having discussed who and whom, I have some locational (toponymic?) words to discuss briefly.

When's the right time to use here, hither, and hence? In the 21st Century, nobody even says hither and hence anymore. They are practically ancient history. 

Likewise with where, whither, and whence; and there, thither, and thence.

Here's the rule of thumb:

• The -ither ending conveys a sense of to.
• The -ence ending conveys a sense of from.

To beat this dead horse into a bloody pulp:

hither = to here

hence = from here

whither = to where

whence = from where

thither = to there

thence = from there

So when a woman bats her eyes and gives you "a come-hither look" she wants you over there next to her.

And when someone says "We're taking the train to Dorset, and thence to Southampton," they're saying that the second leg of the journey leaves from Dorset.

And this dialogue could have been lifted straight from The Lord of the Rings:

"Whence have you come hither, and whither are you going?"

"We spent the night in Rohan, and we departed thence at dawn's first light. We are in search of the road to Gondor. for we are journeying thither."

One interesting variation is the use of "hence" meaning "therefore". It signals that the you're using the last assertion or statement as the jumping-off point for the next one.

Another interesting variation is "henceforth" meaning "from now on, moving forward."

Not a Word Peeve, Just Fun: "Who" versus "Whom"

This one is just for fun. I am aware that this information is as useful as cursive writing in this century. Still, it's fun to know, and it may be marginally useful.

In modern English, the distinction between "who" and "whom" is disappearing, with "who" replacing "whom" in almost all usages. Want to learn how to use who/whom correctly? Read on.

James Thurber's rule of thumb

It was author and humorist James Thurber who said, in 1929, that the difference between "who" and "whom" is how high-class you want to sound. For example, if you're at a picnic with beer and hotdogs and shorts and Hawaiian shirts, and you meet someone new, you ask them, "Who are you, anyways?" However, if you're at a fancy black-tie reception with cocktails and caviar, and you meet someone new, you ask them "Whom are you, anyways?" 

And yes, he put the "s" on "anyways". Because he was James Thurber, and the year was 1929.

My rule of thumb

Anyway(s), the real distinction between "who" and "whom" is easy to manage. Since "who" and "whom" are usually (but not always) used in questions, the easiest thing to do is rearrange the question into an answer, and try plugging in "he" or "him" in place of "who/whom". If "he" fits, then use "who". If "him" fits, then use "whom."

To repeat: 

• "He" to "who".
• "Him" to "whom".

Two examples

"Who/whom are you going with?" Rearrange it to form the answer "You are going with ..." Obviously, the correct ending for this answer is "him". So use "Whom" in the question.

"Who/whom is going with you?" This one doesn't even need to be rearranged. The answer is obviously "He is going with you." So use "Who" in the question.

Another example, not a question

Since this example uses the plural "those", we will use "they" and "them" instead of "he" and "him". The rule of thumb works the same way.

"Plan on spending the holiday with those whom you love, and who love you." This is the correct usage.

"Whom you love" can be rearranged to "You love them".

"Who love you" can be rearranged to "They love you".

In conclusion, your Honor ...

As I said at the beginning, which one you use really doesn't matter, not in the 21st Century. It's just fun to know.

Welllllll, maybe.

It doesn't matter one whit in spoken English. But I think that in written English, it may move you one step closer to more precise speech.

Word peeve: Just really kind of

 I've noticed this in grown adults who should really know better.

I've seen it in print, and I've heard it in speech.

Best to illustrate by example: "When I saw it, I just really kind of shuddered."

That sentence contains three modifiers:

1. Just
2. Really
3. Kind of

Pick one. Leave the other two alone.

Word Peeve: Case in Point

 I'm not sure about its origin, but the phrase "case in point" sounds like a legal term, something that originated in a courtroom or a lawyer's brief.

Here's an example of its usage. Please don't debate me on the content of the example. I'm only using it to illustrate the usage of "case in point".

Too many students are getting away with violent behavior, and we've already started down the slippery slope that will end in real tragedy. Case in point: last week a teacher was knocked unconscious and savagely beaten by a 17-year-old student who had been arrested three times previously for assault.

"Case in point" can be interpreted as "Here's a case which illustrates the point I was trying to make." Note that the colon is important. A comma won't do. I'm serious here.

Why do so many people mistakenly say or write "case and point"? "Case and point" makes absolutely no sense. It sounds dumb.

Today I saw something even dumber. It appeared on Reddit, and it was used, ironically, by someone who is expected to know how English really works. What did they write? "Point and case, ..." 

For more information: If you're still reading this, here's an article about the origin and usage of "case in point". 

 - - -

Bonus peeve: earlier this week, I also read the phrase "for all intensive purposes," from someone else whom we expect to know English better than they do.

Word Peeve: Cue vs. Queue vs. Que

I've noticed a new fingernails-screeching-on-chalkboard trend in the written word, both on paper and in electronic media.

It doesn't happen with the spoken word, because all three of the words involved are pronounced the same.

Here's the situation.

Consider someone telling a story, and then writing a sentence like this:

"Queue the angry customer."

Here's the issue.

Cue is the word you're looking for. It's a stage direction. It's used in plays, movies, and newscasts. It's a signal for someone to take their place onstage or to speak their line, for example. It's also used to call for a sound effect, a spotlight, a brass band, and so on.

Queue means to stand in line, or to form a line -- a queue of people, waiting for something, like boarding passes at an airport.

Que is an alternative spelling of queue, useful in Scrabble.

Word Peeve: "Myself" and other reflexive pronouns

I'm here today to talk about the practice of using "myself" instead of "I" or "me".

I'm tempted to blame this one on the officious, pompous, pseudo-authoritarian, petty tyrants on the front lines of the Transportation Security Agency, because I've heard them commit this assault on the English language more than anybody else. But that may not be fair; they may have picked up the practice from other officious, pompous sources.

We need to start by reviewing first, second, and third person, because reflexive pronouns don't make sense unless you understand this simple concept.

Then we need to quickly review subject and object pronouns, followed by reflexive pronouns.

Don't worry; this is a quick and easy read. It will help you avoid sounding like a clod, a boor, a petty tyrant, or a TSA agent.

First, second, and third person

Remember learning about first, second, and third person? What?? You never learned about them?

Okay. Here's a quick review.

First person: "I" and "me"

Imagine you're marooned on a desert island -- not even a volleyball to keep you company. There's only one person on the island. And every time you talk about that person, you use the pronoun "I". 

• "I'm hungry."
• "I need to go to the bathroom."
• "I am all alone."
• "That snake bit me!"

Second person: "You" -- just "you"

Imagine somebody else washes up on the island. Now there are two people. You were there first, so you are the first person. The other castaway got there second, so they are the second person. Every time you talk about that person, you use the pronoun "you".

• "Where did you come from?"
• "Phew! You stink!"
• "Here, let me fix that for you."

Third person: "he/she" and "him/her"

Imagine that yet another castaway washes up on the island. Now there are three people. The newcomer is the third person. When you address the newcomer directly, you use the pronoun "you", just as before. But when you are talking about the newcomer to the second person that showed up, you use the pronoun "he", "she", "him", "her", or "it" as appropriate.

• "Is it even human?"
• "She looks like she's dying of thirst."
• "He has fish bites all over him!"
• "Quick, let's get her out of the sun."

What about when you have to combine them?

When you are talking about more than one person at a time, the order always goes third, then second, then first. This is not a rule of grammar as much as it is a rule of centuries of common courtesy.

• "You and I are gonna have fun together!"
• "He and you both have the same sneakers." (This one has evolved over time, and "You and he both have the same sneakers" sounds less awkward than it used to.)
• "Can he and I go out to play?"

We'll skip plural pronouns for now, like "they", "them", and "us".

Enough about persons. Now let's talk about types of pronouns.

Subject, object and reflexive pronouns

Subject pronouns

Pronouns can be subject pronouns, used as the subject of a sentence. The subject pronouns are: I, you, he, she, it, we, they.

Examples of subject pronouns.

• "Mom, can I go to the store?" 
• "John and I were best friends."
• "You are ugly."
• "He did it!"

Object pronouns

Pronouns can be object pronouns, used as anything except the subject of a sentence. The object pronouns are: me, you, him, her, it, us, them.

Examples of object pronouns:

• "Give the bowl of ramen to her."
• "Jeff punched him in the nose."
• "You don't like me? Sob"
• "The wave washed them out to sea."

Reflexive pronouns

This takes us to reflexive pronouns. Pronouns can be reflexive pronouns, when they reflect back on the person or thing that is the subject of the sentence. The reflexive pronouns are: myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves.

Examples of reflexive pronounces:

• "Ouch! I poked myself in the eye!"
• "It's my birthday, so I'm giving this gift to myself."
• "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Heeheehee"
• "Why is Matt saluting himself in the mirror?"
• "And so the wave falls in on itself."

The Criminal Misuse of Reflexive Pronouns

The reflexive pronouns seem to be abused the most by people in positions of supposed authority, such as bureaucratic officials, low-level administrators, and TSA agents at the airport security line. Mostly, but not exclusively, petty tyrants. But they're not the only abusers.

Any use of a reflexive pronoun where the reflexive pronoun does not agree with the subject of the sentence is wrong. Wrong. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

It makes the user sound pompous and stupid.

Examples of abuse of reflexive pronouns, and what to say instead:

Wrong: "Please return all completed forms to myself."

Right: "Please return all completed forms to me."

Wrong: "Myself and my fiancé have known each other for three years."

Right: "My fiancé and I have known each other for three years."

Wrong: "By her actions, she was disrespecting myself and all other veterans."

Right: "By her actions, she was disrespecting me and all other veterans."

Wrong: "I was sick, so she did all the grocery shopping for myself."

Right: "I was sick, so she did all the grocery shopping for me."

Wrong: "Except for myself, nobody was injured."

Right: "Except for me, nobody was injured."

Better: "Nobody was injured, except for me."

Even better: "I was the only one injured."

Do it right. Don't make a fool of yourself.

Word Peeve: "stepping foot" versus "setting foot"

 Here's a recent one.

Sometime in the last 20 or 30 years, people started misusing the phrase "set foot" by subsituting "step foot" in its place.

"Step foot" seems to be a combination of "set foot" with the simple verb "step".

Usage examples of "set foot"

• "I'm never setting foot in that church again."
• "He was attacked before he could even set foot on French soil."

The phrase "set foot" implies a word like "my" or "his", or even just plain "a". It's the act of putting something, in this case a foot, in or on someplace.

• "I'm never setting (my) foot in that church again."
• "He was attacked before he could even set (a) (his) foot on French soil."
• "He was attacked before he could even set (his) foot on French soil."

Usage examples of "step"

• "I'm never stepping into that church again."
• "He was attacked before he could even step onto French soil."

"In" becomes "into" and "on" becomes "onto", but with those slight variations, "step" and "set foot" both work. "Set foot" sounds more sophisticated.

So what about "step foot"?

"Step foot" makes no logical sense. While, as I've shown, setting foot is about the same as putting a foot someplace, there is no similar construction for "step foot". Nobody says "Now, step your foot here and then step it there." People say "set your foot here", and they say "take a step here". But that's different. "Step your foot" sounds ignorant and hillbilly -- and so does the simpler "step foot".

Historical usage

As with other word peeves, I can't completely justify my position by referring to historical usage.

"Set foot" dates back to the 1600s.

"Step foot" dates back to the late 1800s. It was condemned by scholars back then then as a misuse of the original phrase, but it survived in popular usage. So even though it's still wrong, it has the weight of history behind it.

During the entire 20th Century, editors and English teachers were mostly successful in stamping out the incorrect usage, but as I pointed out, it has flourished again in the 21st Century. I think it's because the rising generation (or maybe two generations) did not receive the rigorous schooling in grammar and language that their parents and grandparents received.

Bottom line

The correct usage is "set foot" -- or, in the interest of simpler speech, "step". But don't use "step foot". It makes you sound uneducated.

Word Peeve: "It's Not Worth It"

 This isn't really a peeve, more an observation. Language is evolving right before our eyes.

"I went through all that pain, but it was worth the trophy."

"We got first-class seats! Sitting in the airport for hours was worth it."

Hmm. Normally, when you consider buying something, you ask yourself if the item you're buying is worth the money it will cost you.

That house, for example, is worth a million dollars.

For a non-monetary example, consider a triathlon. You get a medal just for completing it. The medal is your reward. What it costs you is hours of physical and mental exertion, plus some pain and discomfort. Is the participation medal worth the exertion and the pain? 

Or, in the modern usage, is the exertion and pain worth the medal?

Or, in an even more confusing modern usage, is the exertion and pain worth it, just to get the medal? Wait a minute, what's the "it" in that sentence?

If you, like me, are tilting at windmills in your quest for more precise speech, then you may recognize that the reward is always worth the cost, not the other way around.

This:

The trophy was worth the pain. The medal was worth the exertion. The first-class seats were worth the waiting. That house is worth $1 million.

Not this:

The pain was worth the trophy. The exertion was worth the medal. The wait was worth the first-class seats. $1 million is worth that house.

However, in the end, after the dust has cleared:

The pain was worthy of the trophy. The exertion was worthy of the medal. The wait was worthy of first-class seats. The $1 million price tag was worthy of that house.

The person who endured the pain was deserving of the trophy. The person who made the exertion was deserving of the medal. And the travelers who waited in the terminal all day were deserving of the first-class seats. I'm not sure that the buyer with $1 million is deserving of that house, but they certainly can afford it.

There's always a "yeah, but", isn't there? 

In conclusion, your honor ...

As languages evolve, we now feel comfortable using "it is (or is not) worth it" in both directions: the reward is worth the cost, and the cost is worth the reward.

Word Peeve: entitled boomer Karens

Can we talk a little about language? 

Not profanity. Those horses left the barn years ago. I blame it on the 2016 presidential election, the ensuing four years, and the press's newfound eagerness to quote everybody without censoring their language.

No, I want to talk about the words Karen, entitled, and boomer.

First, Karen. 

It's a label for a stereotype. But it doesn't fit any of the women that I know named Karen. (Or Karyn.) All of the Karens that I know are real sweethearts. But the name, as a label, gets bandied about more and more. 

Please stop using Karen. Find another label.

Second, entitled.

We used to say that a person was rude, presumptious, high-and-mighty, pushy, bossy, selfish, grabby, dishonest, a cheater, nosy, a know-it-all, snobbish, curmdgeonly, overbearing, lazy, creepy, a jerk, a bully, arrogant, judgmental, just plain mean, and so many other really useful adjectives. Now we just call them all entitled. The word "entitled" has become totally meaningless.

I can imagine an argument between two people, shouting "You're so entitled!" "No, you're entitled!" They're both using the same word, but they mean entirely different things.

I do hope this is just a fad, but "awesome" and "cool" started as fads, and they haven't died out yet. So ... next time you feel like saying "entitled", can you stop for a moment and substitute another, more precise word?

Finally, boomer.

We've finally reached the age where the Baby Boomers are marching into the grave. They have become the old people that they used to make fun of. It will take a few decades before they're all gone. Now that they're the old people, they're doing old-people things and, let's be honest, some of them range from pretty funny to damned annoying. When people tell stories about them, they label them boomers.

"Okay, boomer" has become a fun (to the younger crowd) way to blow them off, to marginalize them — especially if they're being Karens and acting entitled. (See what I did there?) 

Boomer is a derogatory term. It's always meant as an insult, or to make someone feel bad. I've never heard it used in a friendly or respectful way. How about we all stop saying it? 

Now, before you react ...

Somebody's going to read this and say, "How dare you tell me how I should talk!" and "It's a free country, I can say what I want!" and "Wow, you're so entitled, trying to tell me how to speak," and my own personal favorite, "Okay, boomer."

Relax. They're just suggestions. You can talk however you want to talk. Bear in mind, however, that every time I hear or read you using one of those words, it's the verbal equivalent of you speaking with a giant hunk of spinach stuck between your front teeth or a booger hanging out of your nose.

Maybe other people feel the same way. Is that a chance you want to take?

Common Core: the backlash against "Frustrated Parent"

Well, I'm not the only person who stood up in defense of Common Core, or who put "Frustrated Parent" in his place. The Huffington Post, which has admirably refused to jump on the anti-Common Core bandwagon,
published an article that I missed - way back around April 1 - quoting many of CC's defenders and calling out "Frustrated Father" for his lack of ... common sense? understanding? ability to follow directions? comprehension? The article also pointed out very clearly - yet again - the difference between Common Core and all the stuff being passed along by CC opponents and the popular media as "Common Core."

Actually, considering that my blog postings about "Frustrated Parent" and Common Core were published on March 26, and the HuffPo article was posted on March 28, it could be that they used my blog as uncredited source material. This is even more probable considering that the article says at the bottom, "This article has been updated."

I sort of jumped the gun (like, two months after the fact) and posted a comment to the article today without having read it completely. Shame on me. It's still a good article. I recommend it to you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/viral-common-core-homework_n_5049829.html

Common Core: It's Not Really as Hard as You're Making It

I'm afraid that, in this Common Core debate, the voices of reason (and the voices of the teachers, bless 'em) are getting drowned out by all the yelling and screaming. Adjectives like "shrill" and "irrational" to describe some of CC's vocal opponents come immediately to mind, followed closely by "stupid" and "morons," and then devolving into words not suitable for a G-rated blog.

Here's another attempt to inject some calm and rational input into the debate. A commenter to an article on Yahoo! Shine, an actual teacher, has this to say about Common Core:

Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum. I teach common core without a specific textbook or program. I look at the standard such as 7th grade geometry: 7/G.A.1 Solve problems involving scale drawings of geometric figures, including computing actual lengths and areas from a scale drawing and reproducing a scale drawing at a different scale. I find examples of the problem and worksheets to support practice. Then I assess as needed that the student has mastered the skill. The worksheets people refer to are from a private publishing company that has sold the school a new program. If you don't like the program your school purchased, let them know. Common Core hasn't changed the way I teach, it's just a different standard.

Unfortunately, her words will not be heard. They make too much sense, they do not convey an extreme emotion, nor do they convey an extreme viewpoint. In the long run, the bullies and the reactionaries will take down Common Core, just like they're doing with the rest of society's useful institutions. In the end, the Common Core standards will be subscribed to by a small group of exceptional schools who quietly turn out exceptional scholars, while the rest of society wrings their hands about the decay in public education, never realizing that they have brought it upon themselves.

Note: This posting is a follow-on to my previous posting  on the topic. Click here to read it.

Common Core: Getting past the bullshit and the myths

(Please forgive me. I don't use profanity very much. But this time it was truly needed.)

I'm getting fed up with all the attacks on the Common Core State Standards Initiative (abbreviated herein as "Common Core," or "CC"). It seems like the anti-CC folks, and the anti-CC arguments, come from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Some people misunderstand one piece of CC, draw an erroneous conclusion, and trumpet their conclusion as proof that CC is bad. An example of this is the myth that "CC will let a student say that 3x4=11 and get away with it, if his reasoning is good enough." I dare any of you to find the text in official CC documents that supports that statement. There isn't any. It's a myth - or, to put it more baldly, IT'S A LIE. It gains credibility through retelling, but it's still false.

Some people hear an anecdote about a bad experience somebody had with CC, and they repeat the anecdote. They tweet it; they put it on Facebook; they put it on their blogs and again, through repetition, the anecdote acquires enough credibility to be a powerful (but bogus) argument against CC. These bad experiences are usually based on a misunderstanding. One example of this is the recent story of Jeff Severt, the "Frustrated Parent" who couldn't understand his child's CC math worksheet and got his 15 minutes of fame by crafting a snotty response to the question on the worksheet. As I have shown in a previous post, the guy proved that, even with an engineering degree, he couldn't grasp an elementary mathematical concept and couldn't read or follow directions.

MOREOVER (and I added this on April 7 and put it in italics), a lot of people's complaints are not about the CC standards, but about curricula (that's a fancy word for "lesson plans") developed by textbook companies and sold to school districts, curricula which claim to be compliant with CC. If you don't like the curriculum, then complain about the curriculum, not the standards. Despite what you may think, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Some of you may take the lazy way out and say, "But the curriculum is written to comply with the standards; therefore the standards must dictate the way the curriculum is laid out." That's some kind of logical fallacy. I don't know how to label it, but only intellectually lazy people would believe something like that.

My question to my readers is this: with all the resources available from the CC initiative itself, why are you relying on distorted opinions and anecdotes about stupid people, to form and to reinforce your negative opinions about Common Core? Why don't you bypass all the bullshit and go directly to the source?

And Now, A History Lesson:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative was started in 2009. It was a collaborative effort between state governors, school administrators, teachers and yes, those nasty old teachers' unions. The federal government was not a part of it back then - and the federal government is still not a part of it. Okay, I can hear you sputtering with exasperation back there. Hold onto your horses, okay? We'll talk about the feds in a minute.

Before CC came about, departments in individual schools tried to come up with a common set of goals or standards, to ensure that all the students in their school learned the same stuff. It was a collaborative effort, driven by teachers.

Then teachers at many different schools in the district realized they were all working on the same thing, so they collaborated to create district-wide standards. Their efforts were usually coordinated by a curriculum chair at the district level. This was not a bad thing. Don't get your shorts in a bunch.

With the advent of No Child Left Behind, state boards of education were responsible for coming up with a set of common statewide standards, against which all students could be evaluated. Whether you like NCLB or not (I don't), it doesn't matter. NCLB led to the creation of state standards, and the districts hustled to conform, because statewide standardized testing was next. The state BOEs (well, the smart ones) relied on the work that had already been done by the teachers in the school districts in their states.

In the field of mathematics, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) recognized the major effort that these teachers were making, and so NCTM surveyed the teachers and developed a uniform nationwide set of standards for mathematics in all grades. I imagine that similar movements were happening in other subjects.

So in 2009, a bunch of governors and school district administrators had the bright idea to codify these efforts, and define a core of knowledge, the bare minimum standards that American students should learn. This core would be the same in all participating states or districts; hence it would be known as the Common Core, and the standards as the Common Core State Standards.

NOW, ALL YOU ANTI-COMMON-CORE LOUDMOUTHS: Notice that the CC standards were driven by the teachers - the ones doing the teaching - and fostered by the governors of some of the states in the Union. Not all of them.

Like all good things, the federal government got wind of CC, and they messed with it. They screwed it up. They didn't change the content of CC, but they took what should have been a teaching tool, to be handled delicately by skilled practitioners, and turned it into a club, to be wielded by clumsy politicians and inept bureaucrats. They made threats like, "If you don't adopt CC in your school, or district, or state, we will withhold federal education funding." You can blame it on the Obama administration if you want to. You won't be very far off. I wouldn't say it was Obama's doing, but the few times I've heard him speak about Common Core, it was obvious that he didn't understand CC any better than the anti-CC forces did.

A Special Message for You Mormons

The Mormon church has had to endure a lot of bad press in its 180-plus years of existence. It seems like the same lies, half-truths, and innuendo keep getting repeated over and over, in spite of the church's (and its adherents') attempts at rebuttal. In addition, it seems like everybody knows a friend of a friend who has a scare story about a Mormon, illustrating just how evil, terrible and bad the Mormons are.

Now, all of you Mormons know that the lies are just lies. You know that the anecdotal Mormons are either extreme fabrications or aberrations. Don't you wish that people would find out the truth about the Mormons by talking to a Mormon? or by reading the official Mormon website or something? Doesn't it really frost your cookies when people try to find out about the Mormons from somebody other than a Mormon, and they end up getting it all wrong?

So why the hell are you doing the same thing with Common Core? If you want to know the truth about Common Core, then go to the Common Core website. Read everything the creators have to say. Don't rely on CC's opponents to tell you the truth. Read the actual standards themselves, not somebody's interpretation of them. Use your own brain; don't borrow somebody else's.

Finally, a Message for Everybody

The Common Core standards were developed by teachers, for teachers. It was, and remains, a grassroots effort, with the students' best interests in mind. Although CCSSI itself was launched only four years ago, the groundwork for it was laid years before - by teachers.

This isn't something that was thought up by politicians, bureaucrats, administrators or union bosses. It came from the teachers themselves, because they cared about their students.

Don't believe the negative stuff in the press. If it's not outright lies, then it's distortions and innuendo. Even the anecdotes are suspect, as I've shown in the case of Jeff Severt. If you look behind the stories, you will see that they're based on misunderstanding, and sometimes on stupidity.

Finally, and I can't stress this enough: read the standards yourself. Go to the Common Core website and read them. Understand them. Make up your own mind. Use your own brain; don't borrow somebody else's.

Final final note: My wife says I'm ranting. Yes, I certainly am.

Update, April 7: I found a great explanation of the difference between Common Core standards and Common Core curriculum. I quoted it in my latest posting. Click here to read it. 

MIscellaneous word peeves

I think I like this writer, Ben Yagoda. I don't have a very high opinion of the quality of writing over at www.yahoo.com (especially their Atlantic Wire articles - gag) but Ben cares about words and language. His most recent article, 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to, is definitely worth reading. And before you start pointing out all the mistakes in that title, consider for a moment that he probably put them there on purpose.

Towards the end of his article, he lists several word peeves which I'm going to quote directly. Here they are. Enjoy! - z.

• Don't use begs the question. Instead use raises the question.
• Don't use phenomena or criteria as singular. Instead use phenomenon or criterion.
• Don't use cliché as an adjective. Instead use clichéd.
• Don't use comprised of. Instead use composed of/made up of.
• Don't use less for count nouns such people or miles. Instead use fewer.
• Don't use penultimate (unless you mean second to last). Instead use ultimate.
• Don't use lead as past tense of to lead. Instead use led.

I hesitate to state what should be obvious, but sometimes the obvious must be stated. So here goes: Do not use it's, you're or who's when you mean its, your or whose. Or vice versa!

Word peeve: Could you care any less?

Are you one of the people who says, "I couldn't care less"? Or are you one of those who says, "I could care less"? (We'll talk about inside vs. outside punctuation another day.) Which is correct?

Well, let's consider the derivation of the phrase, as an extreme version of "I don't care."  It goes like this:

I don't care about it.

I really don't care about it. Not at all. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

In fact, I care so little about it that you can't even measure how little I care about it.

There is no way in this world I could possibly care any less about it, than I do right now. It's a mathematical impossibility. You can't care less than zero.

In other words, I couldn't care less.

That works for me. So what's the derivation of the other one? I dunno. All I can think of is this:

I don't care about it.

But if you argue with me, and insist that I do care, even a smidgen, then I could probably force myself to care even less, just to prove to you that I don't care. But it's not worth the effort.

Nope. It sounds too contrived to me. I'm sure they're both listed in the dictionary, just because the "could" one has been in use for over 50 years.

But I'll insist that it's still wrong, and I will kick until my feet are bloody against this cursed evolution of the English language. I know that none of you care. In fact, you probably couldn't care any less.

My feet are all bloody, and nobody cares. *sob*

Word peeve: "Fraught"

"Fraught" is another perfectly good word that's being horribly abused.

Classical literature is full of "fraught." You may recall reading phrases which described a situation, person, or thing as:
- fraught with danger
- fraught with portent
- fraught with misgivings
- fraught with significance

Notice that, in classical literature, the object is always "fraught with something." It's never just "fraught."  Twentieth-century journalists who dared to use this word followed the rule, and made sure that something that was fraught, was fraught with something else.

Now, in the 21st century, we find bloggers and amateur journalists (and pseudo-experts getting their fifteen minutes of fame on Headline News) using "fraught" all by itself, with no modifiers.  That's wrong, and here's why.

"Fraught" is another way of saying "freighted." Think of loading a cargo ship or a train. Suitable synonyms for "fraught" or "freighted" are:
- "packed"
- "weighed down"
- "loaded"
- "laden"
- "full of" (for "fraught with")

That next-to-last one, "laden," is a good one. It's a snooty version of "loaded," just like "fraught" is a snooty version of "freighted."

If you want to use "fraught" in a sentence, then write it down, and then mentally substitute the word "loaded" and reread the sentence. If it sounds okay, then I guess you can use "fraught." On the other hand, if it sounds okay, why not just erase "fraught" and use "loaded?"  Or "laden," if you want to sound snooty.

UPDATE: No, don't use "loaded." "Loaded" has a secondary meaning which could accidentally legitimize "fraught." Instead, substitute "full" for "fraught." "Full" does a better job of exposing misuse of "fraught."

And do you think I should rewrite that second paragraph to say that "classical literature is fraught with 'fraught'"?

UPDATE THE SECOND: I am aware that the dictionary gives a definition for standalone fraught as "marked by or causing distress," to which I say "pah." You can find a better word to use than "fraught." Leave "fraught" for the same lawyers that say "egregious."

Word peeve: an egregious overuse of a perfectly good word

Remember studying comparative and superlative in school?  Good, better, best. Bad, worse, worst. Fast, faster, fastest. Many, more, most.

For years, a beautiful word lurked in the huge English dictionaries at high schools and universities. It meant "bad". Really bad. Bad-beyond-superlative-bad. The kind of bad that only exists in a few rare places in space and time. The word was "egregious".

Then O.J. Simpson went on trial for the murder of a couple of people. One of the teams of lawyers discovered the word "egregious" (thanks for nothing, Mr. Roget) and started using it in court. Over and over. Then the other team of lawyers latched onto it and started overusing it. Then the reporters covering the trial started using it on TV. (But not in original print, astonishingly. I guess it's too hard for reporters to spell.)

Suddenly everybody in the English-speaking world was using "egregious" when any one of a number of other synonyms for "very bad" would have sufficed. It lost its sense of "really, really, bad". The poor word got overused to the point of meaninglessness.

At least it relieved some of the pressure on "heinous".

Word peeve: The proof is emphatically NOT in the pudding.

A long time ago (relatively speaking), the English language included a useful proverb about pudding. Let's take this proverb into the 21st Century, and go into any gelateria. You go in and look at all the gelato behind the glass panel, and you see one called "mascarpone". The description sounds pretty good, so you ask the clerk "Is it any good?" The clerk pulls out a tiny plastic spoon, scoops up a sample and lets you try it.

Why?

Because if she just tells you it's good, you'll have to take her word for it. The proof of whether mascarpone-flavored gelato is any good comes from actually tasting a sample.

In other words, "the proof of the gelato is in the tasting."

Now go back in time a century or more, into Jolly Olde England, and try the same experiment with a pudding vendor in the streets of London. You don't know whether the pudding is any good until you try it yourself. Hence, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

It's another way of saying "try before you buy". We use the concept when buying automobiles, home entertainment systems, tuxedos and fancy dresses.

But sometime in the end of the 20th Century, some ignorant mangler of the English language got it wrong, and said "The proof is in the pudding." And it stuck.

The proof OF WHAT is in the pudding? Did you stick raisins in it? Do you want me to go digging around in it with a spoon, looking for hidden treasure?

The proof of the quality of the pudding lies in the eating of it, not in its ingredients or in its mere existence.

Word peeve: nuclear

In my previous two peeves, I pointed out a couple of metaphors that get regularly mangled. Somebody is sure to tell me that the English language is constantly evolving, and I might as well accept the fact that these mangled metaphors are part of that evolution. To this, I reply "Oh, I hope not."

However, I think may as well wave the white flag on this next one.

Nuclear power entered civilization's collective consciousness with a bang - two bangs, in fact, in Japan, in 1945. Fortunately, those were the only two times that the nuclear demon has been unleashed in anger. After the war, the demon was harnessed and put to work to create steam and electrical power.

Along the way, English-speaking people began increasingly to mispronounce the word "nuclear". It's like the missing "r" in "library" and "February": some do, some don't, and the ones that do, sound stupid. I'm sorry, but it's true.

The correct pronunciation is "NOO-clear". Or maybe "NOOK-lear". They sound the same to me.

The wrong pronunciation is "NOOK-you-ler." It sounds like "jugular", but with "nuke" replacing "jug". If that were the right way to say it, wouldn't we spell it "nucular"? But we don't, do we?

Go ahead and call me intolerant. I'm also intolerant of the sound of fingernails scratching on a chalkboard, and "nucular" sounds about the same to me as those fingernails.

But like I said, I'm fighting a losing battle. U.S. President Jimmy Carter always pronounced it "NOOK-you-ler". Before he was president, he was a millionaire peanut farmer. And before that, he was an officer in the U.S. Navy.

In the submarine corps.

As a nuclear engineer.

And he has a lot more credibility than I do.

Word peeve: "home in" versus "hone in"

This one's a little more insidious. It can't be blamed solely upon the Internet, and we can only blame TV for its spread, not its origin. I don't even know where it originated, but I've heard some respected and intelligent people making this mistake.

You've heard of homing pigeons, right? You can take them hundreds of miles from their home, release them, and after enough time, you can find them back at their home.

In the 20th century, air forces invented a type of missile called a "homing missile" - you know, like a "homing pigeon." Just as a homing pigeon could find its way to its destination without guidance, so a homing missile could find its way to a target without any guidance from the pilot who fired the missile. The Sidewinder heat-seeking missile is the most well-known example of a homing missile.

A homing missile finds its target, and then "locks on" to the target, getting progressively closer to it until it hits it. This is called "homing in." A related metaphor is "zeroing in."

Somewhere along the line, someone substituted an "n" for the "m", and "honing in" was born. The reverse etymology for this term referred to honing as the act of putting a sharper edge on a knife or an axe, so that it could penetrate difficult material better.

But "homing in" with an "m" is the act of focusing on something and steering ever closer to it, ignoring any distractions or obstacles, and the metaphor of the homing missile makes sense. Trying to use "honing in" with an "n" in the same way makes no sense at all. In fact, it sounds stupid.

I'll bet people that say "honing in" also say "NOOK-you-ler" instead of "NOO-clear."

And with those last two sentences, I'm sure I've offended somebody. I'm sorry. And now I'm done.

Word peeve: "rein" versus "reign"

Part of the fallout from (a) the culture's increasing dependence on television and visual media, and (b) the stream-of-consciousness writing that infests the Web, is that we're seeing a lot more poor writing.  Excessive amounts, maybe.  Take the confusion between "rein" and "reign" in two common figures of speech.

Oh. You didn't know there was a difference?

"Reign" is what a king does. It's synonymous with "rule".  "Reins" are the leather straps attached to a horse's bridle, which a rider uses to control a horse. Got it? Now let's look at the confusion between the two.

If you are riding across the prairie and you want to let the horse decide where to go, you hold the reins very loosely, with a lot of slack in them, even to the extreme of letting go and leaving them dangling around his neck. That's called giving the horse "free rein."

When you let your kids run around the house like crazy, you may think you're giving them "free reign," because you're letting them be their own bosses. But the original term had to do with horses and reins, not with kings or their subjects.

Back to the horse. If you're galloping across the prairie and the horse is going too fast for your safety or comfort, you slow the horse down by pulling on the reins. The harder you pull, the more abruptly the horse comes to a stop. Because you are pulling the reins tight, we say that you are "reining in" the horse - reestablishing your control over the steed. Other related metaphors, all of which address the assertion of control over an out-of-control agent, are "keeping someone on a short leash" and "putting on the brakes."

There is no "reigning in" somebody. You can't even invent an etymology that goes with that. "Reigning in" makes as much sense as "a short leech" or "putting on the breaks." Don't do it.