Archive for June, 2009
June 30th, 2009
Just in case this hasn’t been covered already:
“Chrysler saved by Fiat” could have been a headline about the recent agreement to get the U.S. automaker out of bankruptcy.
It also might have been “Chrysler saved by fiat” (lowercase “f”).
The word “fiat” comes from a form of the Latin verb “fieri,” meaning “to become, come into existence.”
In English, it has three principal definitions: “an order by legal authority; a sanction, authorization; any arbitrary order.”
Which one of those you might apply to the Chrysler-Fiat deal depends on your view of whether it was necessary or of the government’s role in it.
By the way, the name of the car company is an acronym for Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino, which would be tough to fit in a logo.
June 29th, 2009
Beware of the temptation to make things sound more impressive or mysterious by tacking on useless adjectives.
Recently, for example, I encountered the phrase “linear feet” — and more than once.
A foot, by definition, is a unit of length, a linear measure. If other dimensions are involved, we use square foot or cubic foot.
There are also “foot-candles” to measure illumination and “foot-pounds” and “foot-tons” to measure energy or work.
But when figuring length, a foot is just a foot, and a sigh is just a sigh, as time goes by.
June 11th, 2009
A common problem in English is a verb hooked up with the wrong preposition. Less common but by no means rare is a verb carrying a preposition as excess baggage.
For example, “continue on,” “admit to” and “divide up.”
In “The negotiators decided to adjourn for the night and continue on in the morning,” delete “on.”
In “Spanky finally admitted to taking the cookies,” delete “to.”
In “Smith’s accomplices insisted they divide up the money first,” delete “up.”
However, these are not “search-and-replace” usages. For example, the prepositions should stay in the following:
“We’ll surely get lost if we continue on this road.”
“Spanky admitted to me that he took the cookies.”
“Let’s split the money before we divide up and split.”
And now my head is splitting.
June 10th, 2009
There are “blocks,” and then there are “blocs.”
Most of the time, we need the one with the “k”: starting block, cellblock, concrete block, building block, city block, block grant, block letters, writer’s block, block and tackle, block that kick, and blockhead, for example.
But for references to political alliances, use “bloc” (without the “k”): voting bloc, the old Soviet bloc, and so on.
Although powerful blocs are able to block legislation, “bloc” isn’t a verb — not yet, anyway. Perhaps if the “bloc” bloc were to pressure dictionary editors. …
June 9th, 2009
Last time, I explored the difference between “cabinets” as furniture and “Cabinets” as assemblages of people.
Interestingly, the people who are Cabinet members generally are called “secretaries.” And a “secretary” is also a type of writing desk, “especially one topped with a small bookcase.”
Additionally, because “chairman” is increasingly unacceptable in some circles because of its gender reference, the use of “chair” for the top dog of an organization is on the rise. Many word people are not ready to accept this one, insisting that “chair” means something sat on, not a sitter.
I think this is a losing battle, especially since “chair” seems to be generally accepted as a verb for “to preside over.” ”Chair” as the generic noun seems to be superior to “chairman” (but what if he’s a she?), “chairwoman” (but what if she’s a he?) and “chairperson” (oh, the humanity!).
I love to sit, but I can stand “chair” for a person.
June 8th, 2009
Rockford’s new school superintendent is working on who will be members of her Cabinet.
Associated Press style is to capitalize any Cabinet that’s made of people, from the presidential one on down.
This is to distinguish it from the kind of cabinet that is a piece of storage equipment. That one is lowercase. Even if you had a really large cabinet and people lived in it, it would be lowercase.
And when they left it, that wouldn’t be the same as coming out of the closet.
June 5th, 2009
“Pole” and “pull” aren’t exactly homonyms, but they sound similar enough to cause some confusion.
For example, the village of Cherry Valley has some old buildings it needs to do something with. They’re “pole barns,” not “pull barns.” If you conduct a Google search for “pull barn,” you will find some examples of this erroneous usage. But mostly you’ll get “pole barns.”
They are so named because traditionally their structure involves poles set in the ground.
I don’t have a clue what sort of “pull” would be needed to build a “pull barn.” It probably would have to be political.
June 4th, 2009
The Associated Press still prefers “garnishee” over “garnish” as a verb for “to attach a debtor’s property or wages to satisfy a debt.” The implication is this is to head off confusion with the other kind of “garnish,” “to adorn or decorate.”
But “garnishee” also is the noun for “the individual whose property was attached.” I’m OK with that, because the double “e” is typical for nouns (”employee,” “lessee,” etc.), but it’s unusual for verbs.
In American English, says Bryan A. Garner in “Garner’s Modern American Usage,” “garnish” is “the usual verb form.”
I prefer “garnish,” too, and I don’t know why the AP clings to “garnishee.” But I do find it amusing that it favors the one with the unnecessary ending — a garnish, if you will.
June 3rd, 2009
I’ve heard this one before: You can evacuate a building, but you can’t evacuate a person. Or maybe it’s the other way around.
Does anyone know where this thing came from?
I have checked all my usual printed sources on this, plus some online dictionaries, and no one makes any such distinctions.
The verb “evacuate” has several meanings, but the one we’re talking about here is “to remove (inhabitants, etc.) from (a place or area), as for protective purposes.”
My interpretation is, you could say, “The town’s inhabitants were evacuated as the river continued to rise.” Such people are “evacuees.”
However, you also could say, “The town was evacuated as the river continued to rise.” It is understood that the townsfolk are being moved, not the town.
According to “The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories,” the word comes from the Latin verb “evacuare,” for “empty (the bowels).” And “evacuate” still can mean that, too.
I’ll try to keep my next offering free of references to body wastes.
June 2nd, 2009
A person doesn’t have to be involved in magic or witchcraft to be a wizard. The noun also can be informal for “a person exceptionally gifted or clever at a specified activity.”
And that includes Earvin Johnson, a wizard at basketball who became known as “Magic.”
So is the correct short form for “wizard” “wiz” or “whiz”? Yes — Webster’s considers both acceptable.
The second one, which is also a verb related to certain sounds, brings its “special skills” aspect to the slang “whiz kid” and “whiz-bang.” The latter also was an old slang term for a type of “explosive shell of great speed whose sound of explosion occurs immediately after its sound of flight.” In other word, a whiz and then a bang.
“Whiz” is an echoic word — “formed in approximate imitation of some sound.”
Strangely, Webster’s example of an echoic word is “tinkle,” which has the same problem as “whiz” — they’re also informal terms for urination.
For that reason, I would go with “wiz” whenever possible.
