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.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Women I have to admire
The Question:
So, which do you think is the gutsier woman: an 18-year-old widow and mother who shoots and kills an armed intruder to protect herself and her baby; or a 22-year-old bungee jumper whose bungee cord breaks at the bottom of a 365-foot fall, who swims through the raging rapids to save herself, with a broken collarbone, stopping occasionally to dive underwater to untangle the cord that's still wrapped around her ankles from submerged rocks and stuff?
First, The Widow With a Gun:
On New Year's Eve, 2011, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley, of Blanchard, Oklahoma, was alone in her house with her three-month-old baby, trying to get on with her life after losing her husband to lung cancer just a week earlier, on Christmas Eve. Justin Martin, 24, had been stalking her, and that day he and an accomplice decided to break into her house. Some reports say that he was after her late husband's pain medication, and other reports say that he intended to harm Sarah and her baby. Sarah called 911 to ask for help, and the 911 operator stayed on the phone with her - but the intruder was moving faster than the sheriffs were.
Sarah asked the operator, "Is it okay if I shoot him if he comes in the door?" The operator replied, "You do what you have to do to protect your baby."
So when Martin finally got into the house (it took him 21 minutes, according to the 911 transcript), armed with a 12-inch hunting knife, Sarah pointed a 12-gauge shotgun at him, pulled the trigger once, and shot him dead. According to some reports, the accomplice ran away at the sound of the shotgun blast, later turned himself into police, and verified that he and Martin had gone to the house with the intention of breaking in and hurting Sarah and her baby.
The Grady County Sheriff's department has said that the shooting was justified and that Sarah had no criminal liability in the incident. On the other hand, Dustin Stewart, the accomplice, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. (It's a quirk in the law about deaths that occur during the commission of a crime.) Stewart was released on bail four days later, on January 5th. Sarah's home is at the end of a mile-long gravel driveway, and she is worried about Stewart coming out for a return visit. But she still has her two guns, and she says she is "ready, waiting and watching."
None of this is an exaggeration. The news reports and a recording of the 911 call are available on the web.
Now, the Bungee Diver:
Also on New Year's Eve, 22-year-old Erin Langworthy, of Australia, was bungee-jumping from the Victoria Falls Bridge, 111 meters over the Zambezi River on the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe. As the cord stretched to its limit, it snapped near the top, plunging Erin into the rapids below. The impact knocked her out briefly, and broke her collarbone. "It felt like I had been slapped all over," she said later.
(Bungee jumping may look crazy, but it's normally a safe sport, especially if it's conducted by professionals, as Erin's jump was. But even with professionals, accidents do happen. It's a statistical certainty.)
When she regained consciousness, Erin rescued herself, swimming through the rapids towards the Zimbabwean shore. The current pulled her downriver, repeatedly smashing her into the rocks and sucking her underwater. Several times, she had to stop and dive underwater to pull the bungee cord (which was still tied to her ankles) free of submerged rocks and debris. When onlookers finally pulled her out, they laid her on her back. She had to tell them to roll her onto her side - so that she could cough water and blood out of her lungs and breathe again.
In a bit of Africa-centric sensationalism, all of the news reports call the river "crocodile-infested." I say "eh." None of the witnesses reported seeing any crocs. But it does make Erin sound even gutsier.
Erin spent a week in a hospital in Zimbabwe before being released. Miraculously, she suffered nothing more than the broken collarbone and an awful lot of bruises. And none of this is an exaggeration. Safari Par Excellence recorded the whole thing, and Erin talks about the experience and shows her bruises on news reports. Both videos are available on the Web.
So, What Do You Think?
Personally, I think they're both pretty gutsy women. They both show a lot of courage. Their situations are different: one, a young mother at home, going up against armed and dangerous intruders; the other, a thrill-seeking tourist who suddenly finds everything going wrong. But their reactions are the same: in grave danger, they reach down inside themselves and find what it takes to save their own lives.
I could give Sarah McKinley the edge, because she also saved her baby's life - and even as an 18-year-old widow, she wasn't willing to sit there and be a passive victim. Something needed to be done, it was difficult, it was immediate, and she stood up and did it. But I could also give Erin the edge, because she was putting herself way out there (pardon the pun). She piled all her chips on the square marked "my life", spun the wheel, and walked away with the jackpot.
I can't decide. I'll honor them both.
Small correction: In the introduction, I had originally said "111-foot fall". It was actually a 365-foot fall - a little over 111 metres. I had the correct distance in the body of the article. But even a 111-foot fall would have made for a good story.
So, which do you think is the gutsier woman: an 18-year-old widow and mother who shoots and kills an armed intruder to protect herself and her baby; or a 22-year-old bungee jumper whose bungee cord breaks at the bottom of a 365-foot fall, who swims through the raging rapids to save herself, with a broken collarbone, stopping occasionally to dive underwater to untangle the cord that's still wrapped around her ankles from submerged rocks and stuff?
First, The Widow With a Gun:
On New Year's Eve, 2011, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley, of Blanchard, Oklahoma, was alone in her house with her three-month-old baby, trying to get on with her life after losing her husband to lung cancer just a week earlier, on Christmas Eve. Justin Martin, 24, had been stalking her, and that day he and an accomplice decided to break into her house. Some reports say that he was after her late husband's pain medication, and other reports say that he intended to harm Sarah and her baby. Sarah called 911 to ask for help, and the 911 operator stayed on the phone with her - but the intruder was moving faster than the sheriffs were.
Sarah asked the operator, "Is it okay if I shoot him if he comes in the door?" The operator replied, "You do what you have to do to protect your baby."
So when Martin finally got into the house (it took him 21 minutes, according to the 911 transcript), armed with a 12-inch hunting knife, Sarah pointed a 12-gauge shotgun at him, pulled the trigger once, and shot him dead. According to some reports, the accomplice ran away at the sound of the shotgun blast, later turned himself into police, and verified that he and Martin had gone to the house with the intention of breaking in and hurting Sarah and her baby.
The Grady County Sheriff's department has said that the shooting was justified and that Sarah had no criminal liability in the incident. On the other hand, Dustin Stewart, the accomplice, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. (It's a quirk in the law about deaths that occur during the commission of a crime.) Stewart was released on bail four days later, on January 5th. Sarah's home is at the end of a mile-long gravel driveway, and she is worried about Stewart coming out for a return visit. But she still has her two guns, and she says she is "ready, waiting and watching."
None of this is an exaggeration. The news reports and a recording of the 911 call are available on the web.
Now, the Bungee Diver:
Also on New Year's Eve, 22-year-old Erin Langworthy, of Australia, was bungee-jumping from the Victoria Falls Bridge, 111 meters over the Zambezi River on the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe. As the cord stretched to its limit, it snapped near the top, plunging Erin into the rapids below. The impact knocked her out briefly, and broke her collarbone. "It felt like I had been slapped all over," she said later.
(Bungee jumping may look crazy, but it's normally a safe sport, especially if it's conducted by professionals, as Erin's jump was. But even with professionals, accidents do happen. It's a statistical certainty.)
When she regained consciousness, Erin rescued herself, swimming through the rapids towards the Zimbabwean shore. The current pulled her downriver, repeatedly smashing her into the rocks and sucking her underwater. Several times, she had to stop and dive underwater to pull the bungee cord (which was still tied to her ankles) free of submerged rocks and debris. When onlookers finally pulled her out, they laid her on her back. She had to tell them to roll her onto her side - so that she could cough water and blood out of her lungs and breathe again.
In a bit of Africa-centric sensationalism, all of the news reports call the river "crocodile-infested." I say "eh." None of the witnesses reported seeing any crocs. But it does make Erin sound even gutsier.
Erin spent a week in a hospital in Zimbabwe before being released. Miraculously, she suffered nothing more than the broken collarbone and an awful lot of bruises. And none of this is an exaggeration. Safari Par Excellence recorded the whole thing, and Erin talks about the experience and shows her bruises on news reports. Both videos are available on the Web.
So, What Do You Think?
Personally, I think they're both pretty gutsy women. They both show a lot of courage. Their situations are different: one, a young mother at home, going up against armed and dangerous intruders; the other, a thrill-seeking tourist who suddenly finds everything going wrong. But their reactions are the same: in grave danger, they reach down inside themselves and find what it takes to save their own lives.
I could give Sarah McKinley the edge, because she also saved her baby's life - and even as an 18-year-old widow, she wasn't willing to sit there and be a passive victim. Something needed to be done, it was difficult, it was immediate, and she stood up and did it. But I could also give Erin the edge, because she was putting herself way out there (pardon the pun). She piled all her chips on the square marked "my life", spun the wheel, and walked away with the jackpot.
I can't decide. I'll honor them both.
Small correction: In the introduction, I had originally said "111-foot fall". It was actually a 365-foot fall - a little over 111 metres. I had the correct distance in the body of the article. But even a 111-foot fall would have made for a good story.
The world will end in May - again
Remember Harold Camping? He was the preacher who announced, about 12 months ago, that the world would end on May 21, 2011.
Are you still here? Okay, so he was wrong. Well, make room for the next guy.
Another preacher, Ronald Weinland, now claims that the world will end on May 27, 2012, exactly one year and six days after Camping's predicted date.
Weinland is a self-proclaimed prophet, and a leader of a group that split off from the Worldwide Church of God. For those of you keeping score, the Worldwide Church of God was founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, who claimed that the world would end (more accurately, he predicted that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ would occur) in 1975. Obviously, he miscalculated. Armstrong met his Maker anyway in 1989, and the WWCoG fractured after that, with Weinland leading one of those f(r)actions.
It might be a good idea for you to believe him. If you don't, then he prophesies that you will die of cancer. Heck, even if you do believe him, you still stand pretty good odds (1 in 7) of dying of cancer, so that's not much of a prophecy. I just got back from a city where people lay down good money for odds that are a lot worse than 1 in 7.
Are you still here? Okay, so he was wrong. Well, make room for the next guy.
Another preacher, Ronald Weinland, now claims that the world will end on May 27, 2012, exactly one year and six days after Camping's predicted date.
Weinland is a self-proclaimed prophet, and a leader of a group that split off from the Worldwide Church of God. For those of you keeping score, the Worldwide Church of God was founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, who claimed that the world would end (more accurately, he predicted that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ would occur) in 1975. Obviously, he miscalculated. Armstrong met his Maker anyway in 1989, and the WWCoG fractured after that, with Weinland leading one of those f(r)actions.
It might be a good idea for you to believe him. If you don't, then he prophesies that you will die of cancer. Heck, even if you do believe him, you still stand pretty good odds (1 in 7) of dying of cancer, so that's not much of a prophecy. I just got back from a city where people lay down good money for odds that are a lot worse than 1 in 7.
How to get a good picture in a wax museum
1. First, pose with the wax figure so that the photographer can get the distances and focus correct.
2. Now the photographer must move to the position where the wax figure appears to be looking directly into the camera.
3. Still posing with that wax figure? Okay, now you look directly at the camera, pretend you're posing with a real person, and relax a bit.
4. Take the picture.
Sometimes you can skip step 2.
2. Now the photographer must move to the position where the wax figure appears to be looking directly into the camera.
3. Still posing with that wax figure? Okay, now you look directly at the camera, pretend you're posing with a real person, and relax a bit.
4. Take the picture.
Sometimes you can skip step 2.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Cell-Phone Funny
Today I'm going to post a link to another blog. I like reading this blog because the entries are always thoughtful, sometimes deep, and a combination of angst-ridden, pragmatic and humorous that works for me. The author writes about her life, past and present, good and bad, with a candor and a style that are rare among writers today. I wish I knew this author in person. We'd probably be good friends.
Today's blog entry is about a trip to the T-mobile store with a bored six-year-old in tow, in order to replace a 20-year-old cellphone. When she finally got around to leaving, she collected her son, who had been playing with all of the demo phones in an effort to relieve his boredom - and on her way out the door, she noticed his face looking back at her from every one of those demo phones.
Go read it, and enjoy the rest of the story.
Today's blog entry is about a trip to the T-mobile store with a bored six-year-old in tow, in order to replace a 20-year-old cellphone. When she finally got around to leaving, she collected her son, who had been playing with all of the demo phones in an effort to relieve his boredom - and on her way out the door, she noticed his face looking back at her from every one of those demo phones.
Go read it, and enjoy the rest of the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
