From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

from https://wordpolice.org/

The ARG abbrev. is American Record Guide

Word Police

Defending the Word Police

People have told us that professional linguists would not approve
of our Word Police (especially their name). Robert Lane Greene, a
professional linguist, recently published a book on the matter
titled You Are What You Speak, and some of his conclusions (p
264f) inspired this defense. He would support what I am about to
say, I am sure; but professional linguists are almost by
definition empiricists and descriptivists and do not take it upon
themselves to prescribe matters of grammar and usage. The experts
in that area are writers themselves, as in the Usage Panels of
the American Heritage Dictionary (the only dictionary that is
really helpful in this respect).

People can talk any way they want, but if they are going to write
and want it publishedrCoif they write for a living, especiallyrCothey
need to understand the rules of the language. (The same applies
to people who speak publicly.)

I am not an authoritarian personality, and I don't see much value
in forcing conformity, though as an editor I must assure the
reader a certain amount of consistency (there is a difference) or
the magazine would become a chore to read. I am not a
conservative personality. I do not want to live in the past. I
think there was sloppy writing in every period, but never was it
exposed as much as it is now. Never has there been less editing,
never more egalitarian assumptions. Our technologies invite
everyone to write, and most cannot. Our companies (including
orchestras and opera companies) hire people who cannot write and
don't know the language to produce publicity and program books.
"Official" writingrCowriting that is presented to the publicrCois
worse than ever, because of the egalitarian assumption that
anyone can write.

The rules are valuable: they are there to facilitate
communication and reduce ambiguity. In informal conversation
people who know each other well or share a common culture (say,
American Blacks) need not pay much attention to the rules (they
probably have their own rules and conventions). But there are two
factors to take account of. One is that ignoring grammatical
rules all day doesn't help prepare people to express themselves
well in the wider world. The other is that some people consider
everything they say a reflection on their dignity and a matter of
self-respect. That is, it boosts their self-respect to be able to
express themselves grammatically in informal conversation.

Still, we can afford to be relaxed about informal conversation.
To be that relaxed about printed matter (even as seen on a
computer screen) or formal speeches is not wiserConot only because
of possible failure to communicate clearly, but also because
people learn language from what they read (see), from what seems
"official" and seems to come from professionals. To be sloppy in
such a situation is to let people down.

So one need not be obsessive-compulsive to fuss a bit over
language. One needn't fuss over useless shibboleths. There's no
reason to object to a split infinitive or to ending a sentence
with a preposition. But preserving the meaning and connotations
of words is very important to our ability to communicate, both
now and in the future. That is what our Word Police blurbs have
mainly dealt with.

There is always some idiot who suggests that language changes
because people don't know the right meanings of words and correct
usage. But that is sheer nonsense. Language does not change
because some people are too sloppy or lazy to learn the rules or
find out what words mean. Not to discourage such sloppiness or
laziness is to indulge people who are unwilling to learn, to do
it right. Our culture does this all the time. People want us to
excuse and accept their laziness and sloppinessrConot only in
language but also in the way they do their jobs. If we accept
that, standards are ignored and everything degenerates. Yes, what
we are discussing is not how language changes, but how it
degenerates. As it degenerates it is becoming harder to
communicate well in American English. People no longer know what
words mean! How often intelligent people ask themselves about
others, "don't they understand plain English?" No: they don't.

I resist the trendy, the current, the transient in anything, but
especially in language.

After noticing the proliferation of really crazy words turning up
in the Oxford Dictionary (not the OED) a reporter was told by the
editors of that dictionary that they simply report usage, and
they want to include just about anything people are saying. In
other words, egalitarian flair has led them to dump prescription
and proscription in favor of description. What could be more
democratic? And what could be more fatal to the usefulness and
validity of a dictionary? Language is not democratic. In the
hands of the masses language degenerates. Dictionaries are there
to help prevent that.

In an age of mass communicationsrCowhen millions of people can be simultaneously exposed to a barbarous error in speechrCothe effect
can be almost immediate. One speaker's carelessness with the
language spreads as never before. And because writing follows
speechrCoas it mustrCothese confusions, over time, get embedded in
the language.

-- Bryan Garner: Modern American Usage

Abbreviation Mania

Americans seem to be joining the English and all the ESL people
in talking in abbreviations. Many of these abbreviations mean
nothing to older people. The police and the military have long
lists of them. The medical profession is almost as bad. They
become sort of an "in-group" thing. In many cases it takes longer
to say the abbreviation than the actual name. "Social media" and
"texting" have also added greatly to the list of abbreviations.

Some examples recently seen in books and magazines:

AC (first heard by me from a student from India)
AI (computereserCothere are many of them)
A&E (ER in USA)
AKA (and FKA)
A&R
ASAP
CAT
CBD
CBT
CEO
CPU
CRT
DEI
DQ
FA
ECG
EMT
ESG
ESL
GDP
HCP
HVAC
ICU
LA
LOL
LPR
MLB
MMT
NGO
NYC
R&D
RTO
SPAC
UDO
POTUS
SCOTUS
perp
rep
reverb
Red & Blue states
24/7

Absolutely

Most waiters and waitresses use this all the time instead of "OK"
or simply "yes". It is one of many examples of exaggerated speech
that we come across every day. Of course it devalues the word,
rendering it less useful when it is needed. Accents

Many Americans think they have no accent, but most do. Accents
are fading among younger people, it's true. But the Great Lakes
accent is often viewed (by people from there) as the purest
American English. It is not. When "cot" and "caught" are
pronounced the same, that's not good English. Nor is it
acceptable when Mary, marry, and merry are pronounced the same.
In the Milwaukee airport you will hear about planes that are
"leet" (late). My name in Michigan is Dan, and in some parts of
Pennsylvania it's Dawn. In Chicago they don't pronounce the T in
winter or international, and they have no idea what a short A is
(pat, hat, etc).

Some of this is just plain sloppiness and popular culture.
Linguists call it "vowel shifts". They are being kind. In the
American south vowels also shift up ("pen" becomes "pin", etc.).
But the Southern accent is also disappearing in the younger
generation. Regional accents make the country more interesting.

I always thought the educated New York accent was the best in the
country, but I wonder if that is now also lost to TV and popular
culture.

Access

The noun is OK, but it is being turned into a verb in
computerland, and people who are sensitive to language don't use
it.

Address

For many years this word has been used in speeches and articles.
Politicians love to "address issues:. What people usually mean by
it is talk about, discuss, deal with, investigate, or face up
torCoto come to grips with or pay attention to (it's often just
another word for "focus"rCosee that listing). We used to address
only letters and envelopes.

Aggravate

To aggravate is to make worse. It does not mean the same as
"annoy", though that's apparently what people think it means.

Ain't

My Scottish mother always said "amn't I" where we Americans would
say "aren't I". But the latter can't be right, because "are" is
second person plural. Probably "ain't" should be accepted for "am
I not", but it really isn't. Yet "am I not?" sounds a bit
pompous.

Alternative

It used to mean "another one" (of tworCoyou can only alternate
between two things). In my lifetime it has lost that specificity,
and you can read about "alternative concepts" or "alternative
routes". In other words, it is often a substitute for "other"rCoa
much better wordrCoor "different". And it is vastly overused. One
wonders what the difference is between "alternate" and
"alternative", since the latter is now used as an adjective all
the time. In fact, it would seem that people prefer bigger words
these days, so "alternate" is dying out in favor of
"alternative". The first means one after the other; the second
means one OR the other. Very often "other" or "choice" is
betterrCoclearer. "Alternate" and "alternative" are not the same
thingrCoas is true for "alternately" and "alternatively".

Although & Though

They are not entirely interchangeable. You should not begin a
sentence with "though"; use "although". And the easiest rule is
to use it only there. "Most listeners like that sound, though not
everyone." "Fond though I am of Beethoven, I don't much like his
9th Symphony." "Although I am fond of Beethoven..."

Amazing

In the age of verbal exaggerations this has become a popular word
of general approval, thus destroying itrCoas was done with a
previous fad word of approval, "awesome". The real meaning of
"amazing" is: extremely surprising or astonishingrCounexpected,
even bewildering. So to call a musician you like "amazing" is
almost an insult, as if to say "I never expected you to play so
well."

American novelists

From novels by NY Times best-selling authors:

a man "experiencing homelessness"

"loan him money"

"share" instead of tellrCoto the point of real ambiguity

"the invite"

"the ask"

"helped Flora and I"

and the use of "presently" as a fancy word for "now"

A writer often excuses this "because that's the way people talk",
but (a) not everyone does, thank goodness; and (b) an author need
not fall into jargon and in the past often "cleaned up" how his
characters expressed themselves.

Anticipated

Despite common usage, this word does not mean the same thing as
"expected". To anticipate is to plan on what you expect.

Anytime soon

You hear this often: "it's not going to happen anytime soon". The
last two words should be dropped. They are actually in conflict.

Apostrophe

"The Dallas Symphony kick's off Arts in Education Week."
Apostrophes are turning up in odd places, including the
possessive, as in its or hers. We've even seen "pork chop's".

Arguably

This is a cliche, and like most cliches, it takes over where many
far better terms used to serve. It has replaced perhaps,
possibly, probably, likely, may be, could be, "one could say",
"one might reason", "one could claim", and even "one could
argue". It has also become a villain in the nonsense of starting
a sentence with a word ending in -ly, followed by a comma (just
plain bad writing, but common in a time when people can no longer
write).

Author

is not a verb.

Autocorrect

At ARG we have this on none of our computers, but people who
aren't certain of their spelling use it (or fail to remove it). A
recent example of how foolish that can be is a biographical
sketch of a pianist that says "he has been a soloist with several
orchestras under the button of many renowned international
conductors". One of our writers tells of an instance where "Bach"
was changed to "f**k". Knowledgeable people are always superior
to machinesrCowherever you go, whatever you want done. As machines
do more and more, knowledgeable people become fewer and fewerrCoand
yet more needed and more valuable. So life becomes more
frustrating.

Bad sentences

Publicity for a recording:

A cornerstone of the Bible, this program features [sic] three
masterpieces based on the Dicit Dominus.

Why do so many people do this?rCowrite sentences upside down with
dangling phrases. "This program" is certainly NOT "a cornerstone
of the Bible"!

"Said to be Brazil's worst environmental disaster, lawyers say
the claims..." This (from The Economist) is a typical example of
the awkward and illogical way current writers try to combine
sentences. The first clause can only connect to "lawyers", but
it's not lawyers that are meantrConot at all. So why are they
connected?

From one of our own writers: "As a pianist, several of these
songs..." Makes no sense at all.

From 1970: "Being a young writer, the novel was filled with fresh
ideas." More than one generation of writers does this; we see it
all the time.

The way to connect those clauses is sometimes with a comma and
"and" or a semicolon and a clear subject. But most simply have to
be rewritten: "As a young writer he filled the novel with fresh
ideas."

Badly

Economist magazine, about a place: "It smells badly in hot
weather." They write badly. Places cannot smell "badly" (only
your nose can) but can smell badrCoor even stink.

Being

Often "being" is used instead of "will be". Often the word is not
needed.

Better & Best

People don't seem to know these words. Apparently, comparitive
and superlative are too complex for simple minds. A major
magazine said, "It was the most good thing..." (meaning "best").
People say "more well-known" and "most well-known" when decent
English requires better and best (and no hyphen).

Between

We are told that a certain man was president of his country
"between 2002 to 2010". First of all, "between" must be followed
with "and", not "to". And what they should have written is "from
2002 to 2010". "Between" could mean at any point in that period
and for any amount of time. To cover the whole period you must
use "from" and "to". Most writers today don't seem to know that.

Bios

You would think that biographical information (about, say, a
pianist) would tell us where he was born, where he went to school
and whom he studied with, if he is married and has children, and
where he lives now. But the "bios" you read in concert programs
and record booklets don't tell you anything like that. There's
nothing personal in them. They are not even resumes. They are
simply publicityrCobrag sheets, written to impress us.

Change

If we need new words because of new technology or new phenomena
in any field, it enriches the language to coin or use those new
words. But it does not enrich a language when people simply don't
know the right word for something and vaguely apply an
approximate one or a trendy one. In other words, it's obvious to
anybody who thinks that language change is not neutral (any more
than technology is) but must be judged on the basis of need,
utility, and aptness.

Channel

This was always a rare verb. It has a new meaning in recent
dictionaries, unknown in the past: "to imitate; to take as a
model". It is certainly unnecessary, since we can say
"resembles", "sounds like", "reminds us of", or "takes after"rCoand
there are a dozen other ways to say it. At ARG we would never say
that a piece of music "channels Tchaikovsky", partly because we
just naturally avoid trendy words.

Cliched writing

A recent article said that something "didn't have a major
impact". In real English it would read "didn't make much of a
difference". It also referred to someone who was "experiencing
depression". In plain English, he was depressed. Why do people
write so badly? Why does it all sound the same?

Closure

This word means the end or conclusion of an argument or
disagreement. There is no such thing as "school closures" or
"road closures". Those are closings.

Commonality

This word was not in the dictionary in 1970. We said "things in
common" or that we shared certain attributes. It is now very
common, and one wonders if it is necessary or if it is just a
cliche. New ways of saying things do become "trendy" and
overused, so perhaps only time will tell.

Comparative & superlative

We read all the time "more well" and "most well" followed by an
adjective. These are always wrong (probably even if you are
cooking a steak). In normal English "more well" is "better", and
"most well" is "best". A whole generation (or two or three)
doesn't seem to be able to use "better" and "best" (never learned
comparative and superlative). "Trump is better known than Pence"
is correct; "more well" is simply wrong. "Obama is the most
well-known black politician in America" is wrong for the same
reason. Yet that is the way journalists write nowadays. Do they
have any idea how ignorant they sound?

Comprised of

Nothing can be comprised of; the whole always comprises the
parts. The United Nations comprises many member nations but is
not "comprised of" them.

Contemporary

The word means "belonging to the same period of time" (or about
the same age). Tchaikovsky and Brahms were contemporaries.
Contemporary instruments are instruments of the composer's time.
"Contemporary music" refers to music of our time, but word may
cause confusion if it is not explained.

Convince & Persuade

This is simple, but no one gets it right. Convince takes "of" or
"that"; persuade takes "to". Convince is about ideas; persuade is
about actions. You cannot convince someone to do something.

Credential

"Credential" is, of course, a noun, usually used in the plural.
But the New York Times recently used it as a verb: the government
will "credential" people. It's the usual problem: younger writers
never learned the difference between a noun and a verb; they
"nounize" verbs all the time, and they use nouns as verbs
("verbize" nouns). In 2012 we complained that "gift" was being
used as a verb. Among younger writers that is normal now: they
don't know the verb "to give".

Critique

Critique is not a verb; one dictionary calls it "pretentious
jargon". The noun is acceptable, but since it means the same
thing as "criticism", why use it? The American Heritage
Dictionary speculates that one reason it is used is that
"criticize" and "criticism" have taken on negative connotations
in popular usage. That's too bad, but popular usage
misunderstands many fine words (think of "argument"). We are a
magazine of criticism, so we will continue to criticize
recordings. But if some people don't like the word they can use
"evaluate" or "consider" or "analyze".

Curate

Suddenly we are seeing in publicity "curator" and the verb
"curate" applied to classical concerts. Season folders even say
things like "a program curated by". It makes no sense. A curator
manages or oversees a collection in a museum. The word is being
used for anyone who designs an exhibit or product linerCoand that
is not legitimate. You will even see "curated" menus in
restaurants. Can you believe it? Who decides what will be
performed at a concert is either the Music Director or the
musicians themselves. There is no "curator"! (Tour guides are
also called "curators" these days.)

Dangling participles & phrases

"As a reminder, your seatbelt should be fastened at all times".
Typical illiterate airline talk. How is a fastened seatbelt a
reminder? "As parents, children always seem to come up with a new
wrinkle." This tells us that children are parents. In this case
the writer was afraid to use the correct "like".

Dozens of these turn up every week. If we could start a sentence
with a subject, followed by a verb, we would avoid most of these.
If you start a sentence with a phrase, the subject must follow
immediately, so the phrase modifies it. People can't seem to
remember that. Popular signs and announcements are almost all
ungrammatical in this way. Examples are therefore legion.

Decimated

This word came from the Roman custom of killing every tenth
person when a band of soldiers had proved traitorous to Rome. It
has come to mean the killing of a large number of people. It
cannot mean most, and it cannot be used of anything but the
killing of peoplerCocrops cannot be decimated, for example. It is
used very carelessly nowadays to refer to destructionrCoand that is
not its meaning.

Diary

Every American dictionary agrees that a diary is a daily record
of one's thoughts and actions, written after they happen or
occur. But the British now use "diary" to mean appointment book
or calendar. They will "put you on my diary", for examplerComeaning
they will set aside a time for you. This is very strange, and I
think it is rather recentrCowhich reminds me that English English
is no better than American English (and sometimes worse). Even
their best writers use slang and expressions that no one but
another Englishman could possibly understand. They are parochial
and provincialrCobut one expects that of an island nation. The
Japanese are even more provincial. But English is a world
language, unlike Japanese; and a good writer in the language
should not load his book or article with obscure provincialisms
and utterly "native" abbreviations. I read lots of English
writers, but there are many moments when I have no idea what they
are talking about.

Differing

Democrats and Republicans have differing opinions, but a bus is
different from a train, and Maine is different from Florida. What
we see too often these days is "differing" where we should be
reading "different". "People of differing backgrounds" should be
"people of different backgrounds". "Different" means something
like "distinct", and "differing" means something like
"disagreeing".

Dictionaries

Great languages were formed and shaped by great writers and
literature, not by popular usage. Think of Dante (Italian),
Luther (German), and Shakespeare and the King James Bible
(English). It is therefore WRONG for dictionaries simply to
report on current popular usage and validate the sloppy and the illiteraterCowhich we face now everywhere we turn, from media and
even from books.

Dis

This word is pure slang from the late 1980s. It was apparently a
short form of "disrespect". In a recent Science News the editor
of that journal says that some scientists "dis" a hypothesis.
There the word must mean to "dismiss" or "dispute" or "discount".
Even "question" might work. Whatever it stands for, no editor
should allow "dis", let alone use it.

The Dis Problem

Everybody seems to use "disinterested" to mean "not interested",
but that is not what it means. A disinterested person is someone
who can be objective and see things clearly, because he is not
involved. He is impartial (M/A 2006, p 284).

"Discomforted" is also starting to turn up in this age of the
death of dictionaries. There is no such word. "Discomfort" is a
noun. There is a verb, "discomfitted", that means made uneasy or
puzzled. Disappear

This is not a transitive verb: you cannot disappear someone or
something. It can disappear. We are losing the distinction
between transitive and intransitive.

Disinterested

People regularly confuse this with "uninterested".
"Disinterested" means objective, unbiased, and impartial. It is
almost always a desirable thing. "Uninterested" means not
interested, apathetic, bored, unconcerned.

Drop

Headline in a commercial email: "An American Airlines ticket
offer just dropped." From a classical publicist: "(So-and-so's)
new recording drops today." A year or two ago no one used
"dropped" to mean released, occurred, came along; now publicity
people have adopted it to refer to new CD or video releases. We
used to assume that unless it were prices or taxes, it was too
bad when something dropped. The word hasn't changed, but the
trend-setters seem to think they can change language by using
words in new waysrCoor, more likely, they just don't know how to
say things correctly: what's wrong with "American Airlines has a
new ticket offer" or So-and-so has just released a recording"?

Due to

"Georg Smelter has had to cancel his upcoming concert due to
health reasons." One sees this all the time. Besides the dreadful
(and useless) "upcoming", "due to" is also wrong. "For health
reasons" might work. Probably "because of illness" is better.
Worse yet is any sentence that begins with "Due to". You must
first tell us what something is due to; it must follow a linking
verb. Even then. "owing to" or "because of" are better. "Due to
increased security regulations do not leave your baggage
unattended" is stupid but common at airports. Why not "Security
regulations require that you not leave your baggage unattended"?
That's a little better.

Dynamic

This is the intellectual equivalent of "cool". "What a dynamic
performance!" That is supposed to suggest something like exciting
or energized, but it has become a vague general term of approval.
That is no help to a reader, and editors should not let writers
away with it.

Edgy; Cutting-edge

In classical music criticism "edgy" is not a compliment. It
usually means jagged (clashing) as opposed to smooth and
well-integrated. In colloquial usage it seems derived from
"cutting-edge", and popular culture loves anything new and
radically different. So you will not read either in ARG.

Emigrant

It is common to see this: "Germans who emigrated to this country
in the 19th Century". The word should be "immigrated". They
emigrated out of Germany, but they immigrated to the USA. They
were immigrants to us, emigrants to the Germans at home. The word
"immigrant" has been disappearing as people no longer learn the
distinction and no longer use dictionaries.

Empathy

This word has become popular only since the 1960srCoit was rare
before then. One would have used "sympathy". But they are not the
same. Sympathy refers to an affinity between people or an
understanding of someone's feelings. It can mean seeing things
the same way, being in agreement, or even plain compassion.
Empathy is much narrower and more intimaterCointimate understanding
of another person, even pschological identification. It involves
a real effort, whereas sympathy is fairly spontaneous.

English Writers

One of the best of the current crop of English authors made the
following grammatical errors in one of his books.

"...left behind by whomever had the room before me"

"...telling (name) and I"

"...between my sister-in-law and I"

He uses "majority" when he means "most". He uses "one of the
only". He uses the word "insightful", which was not even in the
dictionaries until recentlyrCoand the action in that book takes
place in 1890. (There are other anachronisms, too, such as
"hopefully" and "on the planet".)

Another very good English writer has "neither...or" and "I'm a
shoe-in." He confuses "lie" and "lay" (somebody was "laying on
the floor"). Yet another: "She is better than him." And one
writer doesn't know the plural of "foot", as in "100 foot below
them".

Another important writer called a centenarian a "centurion".

All current English authors seem to use slang and obscure idioms, abbreviations, and regionalisms that are hard to understand.

There are no editors any more, and even good writers don't seem
to know grammar and usage. The written language is in serious
decline. Actually, so is reading! I would still rather read
English writers than American ones, but to avoid sloppy usage you
have to go back 40 or 50 years.

The classic English mystery is dead. What we have now is not as
well written and too people-oriented. Chapter after chapter is
wasted on "relationships"rCothe personal lives and sex lives of the
detectives. It's as if the writers are aimimg at an audience of
sentimental women. (Maybe they are!)

Enormous

Exaggeration abounds. To call something "enormous" is to describe
it as a monstrosityrCoso big as to be frightening. You cannot be
enormously pleased that your husband remembered your birthday or
that your concerto won a prize. This is a TV word, and TV is
notoriously bad about language. Enthused

The writer almost always means "enthusiastic".

Entree

The French word refers strictly to the appetizer, never the main
course. The same is true in formal English, according to the
dictionary: "the course before the main course". For some reason
the word has come to mean "main course" in many American
restaurants. It sounds rather pretentious. Why not just say "main
course"?

Event

Increasingly we see the superfluous "event". One magazine
described and pictured "an airbag replacement event". Did you
have a tire-changing event? A vaccination event? A weather event?

Why is this stupid circumlocution (language event) spreading?
It's probably because people talk about an "experience" in the
same context. My "dining experience" can easily become a "dining
event". Does that make my life seem more "eventful"?

Exclusive

This has become another "sales" word that has no meaning but is
supposed to make you want something. We got a notice about a
quartet at Carnegie Hall the other day that began, "Exclusive!"

What can that mean? (Shouldn't words mean something? Once upon a
time they did.) Is it the only quartet Carnegie Hall is
presenting this year? Is it the only place the quartet is playing
this year? I doubt it. It's just a poor abused word that they
think will get attention and sell tickets.

Existential

This has lately been used way beyond its normal meaning.
Starvation, poverty, disease, and war are not existential
threats. Nor is "global warming" (a fancy term for the warming of
the earth). Something existential is not a threat to your
existence but an unavoidable part of existence itself. For
example, as any existentialist will tell you, angst (anxiety) is
existential. It just goes with being alive as a human being and
is expected.

People who try to impress us by using big words usually impress
us with how little they know.

Experience

Aren't you sick and tired of "experiences"? I just saw an article
that began by referring to "a cutting-edge shopping experience".
Churches talk about a "worship experience". I guess restaurants
brag about the eating experience they offer you (or "culinary",
but that's rare, because they haven't the vocabulary), just as
orchestras brag about the concert experience. There is something
narcissistic about all that. Then there are weather reports that
"locations nearby are experiencing thunderstorms" and the
"farmland is experiencing flooding". How can land experience
anything? Young weather people fall back on the word "experience"
a great deal.

You don't experience music; you hear it or listen to it. It's not
a "listening experience"rCoas I often have to remind some of our
writers. If you can hear it or see it, why use the vague
"experience"?

All of this is pitiful, if trendy.

Later: Bravo Niagara brags in a press release at the end of 2019
about "a year of extraordinary concert experiences". What on
earth can that mean? Did the roof fall in? Did 10 people die? I
suspect they just had to use the trendy word "experiences".

Publicity for the library refers to the "reading experience". A
hotel asked us about our "reservation experience" after we booked
a room (in Scotland). A tobacconist brags on his website that it
(the website, apparently) is an exciting "smokeshop experience".
That only proves what I've said all alongrCothat there is nothing
real on the Internet; it's all make-believe, artificial,
"virtual". A message from our Toyota dealer asked about our
"service experience". Something we bought came with "If you
experienced any issues with this order". That's illiterate. The
Spanish translation was good: si tiene problemas. And the Ohio
River this winter "experienced" flooding. Egad! What is wrong
with these people?

Express

The word that means "explicit" is "express", not "expressed".
Better to stay with "explicit".

Fab

This word has come to mean "factory" (especially to the British).
How did this happen? We are told that Toyota plans to open two
new fabs in Ohio. Fabs?

Features

In place of the noun, try "aspects" or "elements".

The best usage books say that "feature" cannot be a verb. The
Atlanta Symphony tells us about a series that "features" 3
concertsrCobut the series only has 3 concerts! Some dictionaries
allow the verb but only in the meaning, "to call special
attention to". So it is usually wrong. You cannot "feature"
everything! A concert cannot feature every soloist. Publicity
people love the word, but it is used wrong almost every time.
This is part of the current inflation of language. They can't
seem to use simple words like "of" or "with" or "by"rCoor even
"including".

Feedback

This is a technical word that was used about sound (as in public
address systems) and scientific experiments. Now it is used by
many writers in place of better words such as "response" or
"evaluation". In this meaning it is new and only entered
dictionaries recently. But it has become a trendy cliche, so of
course it is getting vaguer and vaguer and replacing perfectly
good words. Often "response" is the correct word, though some
dictionaries accept "feedback" as "evaluative response" (never
just a response).

We avoid it, as we avoid all cliches.

Finalize

I got an e-mail saying "The schedule has been finalized". There
was no previous, less-than-final schedule, so what they meant
(and should have said) was "The schedule is ready" (or prepared,
or completed, or drawn up). No one would have accepted that usage
50 years ago, but it is now commonrCoand because it sounds trendy
(or maybe bureaucratic?) it is replacing traditional, better,
more economical ways to say it. It has even begun to show up in
recent dictionaries (mostly the ones that simply report on
usage).

We try to stick to classical English.

Focus

This word turns up everywhere, and was rare in the last century.
It has replaced to stress, to deal with, to look at, to discuss,
to emphasize, to concentrate on, to promote, or just to be
aboutrCoa slant, an angle, a theme; attention. It is a typical sad
case of one word replacing many others for no good reason. This
is how language becomes impoverished. Use "focus" only when you
are discussing lenses or cameras.

Fraught

The word is usually followed by "with" because its meaning is
essentially "accompanied by" or "full of", as in "fraught with
danger". The "with" was considered essential. Recently it has
been used without the "with"; we have seen references to "a final
fraught phase" or "a fraught cabinet meeting" (EconomistrCoone
wants to ask "fraught with what?") and even to fraught emotions
and "fraught issues". Its new meaning seems to be "distressing".
But we had a word for that! Newer dictionaries report the new
meaning, but it seems pompous to some of us. And something can be
fraught with comfort or joy as well as risk or fear or drama.

Garner says it is primarily a British usage that first turned up
in the mid 1960s. The original American Heritage Dictionary
(1970) doesn't have it. Stick with classical usage. Often (as in
this case) the new usage is unnecessary. There's nothing wrong
with "distressing" or "risky" or "questionable".

Frescoes

A New York Times reporter referred to a painted glass ceiling as
"frescos" in late December. He seems to think that any ceiling
art is a fresco! Frescoes are paintings on (in) fresh plaster
(plaster that has not dried).

Fulsome

This does not mean abundant but offensively excessive. "Fulsome
praise" is assumed to be insincere.

Functionality

Instead of saying something functions or has a function or is
functional, people nowadays refer to its "functionality". This
word was not in the dictionary in 1970. It should be labeled
"bureaucratic jargon" and abandoned. It was never needed. "Use"
or even "usefulness" covers the territory, if you cannot settle
for "function".

Gaslight

Another bit of unadulterated slang that is turning up as a verb
in "respectable" magazines and newspapers. Apparently these
sloppy writers are determined to avoid plain English and to
create vivid verbs at all costs. Its meaning as they use it is
"confuse"; but clear, plain English is not in vogue these days.
If they want to impress us they could use "obfuscate"!

Gender

This word refers to language, not to people. In French and many
other languages, nouns have gender. In English some pronouns do:
he, she, it. But the use of gender to refer to the sex of a human
being is rather recent and questionable. You do not have a
gender; your sex is either male or female.

General & Meaningless Words of Approval

Public relations peoplerCoand sometimes music critics, toorCotend to
pull words of general approval out of the current bag of cliches.
We end up with a great many words that have become meaningless
from overuse and lack of precision. Here are some examples that
we specifically forbid in ARG:

dynamic
exclusive
insightful
intriguing
impactful
inventive
innovative
involving
distinctive
prestigious
committed
diverse
focused
passionate
masterful
successful
hot
winner
rock star
viral
signature
iconic
epic
enormous

Gifted

"Somebody gifted me with a full set of Groves." The correct verb
is "gave". "Gift" is a noun. The verb is "give". "Tasked with" is
a similar instance. You give a gift; you don't "gift" it. So far
all dictionaries and usage books reject that. It's also
"trendy"rCoanother reason to avoid it.

Global

Here is a miserable cliche that has taken over entirely among
people who write. The word that died was "worldwide": when was
the last time you saw it? It must have been in an old book. Other
words it replaces all the time are "earth" (as in warming of the
earth) and planet and even "everywhere". How about "all over"? It
is sad when one word replaces all the others and other
expressions. It represents an impoverishment of language, but it
also represents extreme and pitiful conformity. If you express
yourself the way everyone else does, it is obvious that you have
nothing to offer.

Go to

This trendy slang has replaced at least the following words:

favorite, preferred, regular, normal, accustomed, customary,
usual, habitual, first choice, fallback

Gobbledygook

I have an art magazine open. It describes each work of art. On
two pages facing each other I can read:

(Name's) project focuses on the social, political, and
psychological implications of landscape and architecture on
conceptions of individual, collective, and national identity, in
relationship to African diasporic communities. Landscape is used
here to identify physical and historical impositions on our sense
of belonging. (The painting is essentially abstractrCoand weird.)

Next to the other work of art we read that it is based on a
psychiatric hospital in Italy that was "an unprecedented example
of empathic design for people with physical and cognitive
differences". This installation "examines the structure in
relation to architectural sites of Italian disability history, as
well as a forerunner of contemporary projects that engage
innovate-multisensory and empathic design."

This is just 2 pages out of 60. People who write like this should
stick to painting.

Grammar checker

We get writing that has been run through a "grammar checker" but
is obviously ungrammatical. The most common mistake is mismatched
singular and plural. "The musicians of the Blah Ensemble gives
fine performances." Or "All forms of representative art done by
traditional or digital media is welcome here." The stupid grammar
checker only checks the nearest words and has no idea what he
subject of the sentence is. I encourage our writers NOT to use
"grammar checkers".

Grift & graft

"Grift" turns up quite often now but didn't in the past. Grift is
simply money made dishonestly. Graft occurs in politics and
refers to using one's position for personal profit. Usually when
a writer uses "grift" nowadays he should have used "graft"rCowhich
is now extremely common.

Grow

You can grow vegetables, and you can even grow a beard; but you
can only increase or add to your majority or your profits or your
library (or reduce it).

Hack

A section of the Staples website is called "Tape Hacks". The word
"hack" is suddenly popular; and as with all trendy words, it is
taking on more meanings and substituting for many other words.
Its newest legitimate meaning is "to gain unauthorized access to
someone's computer". What can that have to do with packing tape?

From other advertising it is clear that "hack" is now being used
in place of hint, tip, suggestion, or even idea. (I recently read
about "beauty hacks".) A few months ago we had never heard of
this meaning. It's almost as perverse as "viral"rCothe word "hack"
is now "viral". Can anyone remember how to express this in real
English?

Harken and Behold

The first is also spelled "hearken". It feels faintly archaic,
partly because it was used so often in the King James Bible. To
harken is simply to pay attention, to listen closely. It has
nothing to do with the past, but everyone seems to think it does;
and so if it is used at all these days, it is usually paired with
"back", which tells you that the author doesn't know its meaning.
He probably means "recalls" or "reminds us of"rConot harken.

"Behold" feels a bit archaic for the same reason, and it is just
as good a word. In the imperative it means "pay attention" (as
harken does) but with the eyes rather than the ears.

It is too bad that some modern English translations of the Bible
replace these two words with the rather limp "hear" and "see",
neither of which conveys the urgency of the need for attention.

"Have your back"

To "have your back" apparently means to support you. It seems to
be slangrCoor at least an idiomrCobased on sports or the military.
It's turning up in journalism (which is now full of slang and
"trendy" talk).

Another trendy word is "owns"rCowhich apparently means "has control
of" or at least "has a strong effect on". Plain English suffers
when trendy words are used. It's easy to add to the list. I just
caught one of our writers "experiencing" music! We used to
"listen" to it.

Hawk

In the same article, on the same page, Economist magazine called
one person a "China hawk" and another an "anti-China hawk". What
does that mean? The dictionary tells us that a hawk is a person
who preys on others or who advocates the use of force to reach
his goals. Is a "China hawk" pro-China? Or is a "China hawk" the
same thing as an "anti-China hawk"? That is not logical, but it
is the kind of sloppy writing we are seeing everywhere. 2 months
after this there was an article in another magazine I respect
that referred to "deficit hawks" in a discussion of a budget bill
in congress. What does that mean?

Highlighted

A recent piece of publicity told of a concert where "the program
will be highlighted by the world premiere...". "Highlight" as a
noun refers to something specially illuminated or significant. It
is used way too much. To highlight something (verb) is to
underline or emphasize it. Often it is wrongly used in place of
indicate, identify, or point out. In this case I think they may
have meant "enhanced", but they don't know that word.

These are cliches of publicity. But many such usages make no
sense at allrCoand that is what happens when words are overused.
Cliches become vague in meaning (as in the example above). Wilson
Follett already warned us against this one in Modern American
Usage in 1966. I have usually edited it out of anything we
publish.

Historic(al)

"Historical" may refer to anything that took place in history.
Outstanding events or people are "historic". Symphonies are
historical; but Bernstein conducting Beethoven's 9th at the
Berlin wall is historic. Caruso is historic. The distinction is
not absolute, but this is another case where a good language
allows fine distinctions to be made.

Home

Bad writing calls a house a "home". To build a home you must get
married, have children, or whatever. But builders and carpenters
can only build a house, not a home.

Homonyms

Since no one knows how to spell anymore, and everyone depends on
computer spell-checkers, the tendency is to eliminate homonyms,
such as bare and bear; red and read; 2, two, too; peak, peek, and
pique; pair and pear; site, cite, and sight; tier and tear, here
and hear, they're and their, your and you're, its and it's.
Already these are substituting for each other in online
publications. Young writers often don't know how to spell and
depend on the spell-checker, which of course can't know the
difference. Soon all words that sound alike will be spelled
alike, because that's easier and works on the computer, and
writers are lazy and ill-educated.

Hopefully

This has never been accepted by usage books or decent editors. It
is impersonal, timid, and passive, which "I hope" is not. People
don't want to commit themselves to much of anything. A more
recent distortion is "hopefulness"rCoapparently a back-formation
from "hopefully". Back formations are spreading like a disease.
In a major magazine we recently read of a person's "luckiness"
(luck). Who hires such "writers"? Where are the editors? We are
witnessing the triumph of a misguided egalitarianism.

Hyphen or Not

Almost everyone gets this wrong. Think of "well known". It does
not get hyphenated as a predicate adjective: "His name is well
known." But if it modifies the subject it does: "The well-known
cellist."

Iconic

We complained in 2010 that this word was becoming trendy. By now
it is completely out of hand. Publicity people can't use it
enough. One publicist used it 3 times on one page. The Eiffel
Tower is called iconic because it has come to symbolize Paris.
It's a very "trendy" word.

Here are words that have been displaced by "iconic": type,
typical, formulaic, symbolic, representative, exemplary,
standard, usual, popular, classic, traditional, celebrated,
renowned, familiar, characteristic, famed, well-known, respected.

It is always bad when one word replaces many others. It is a
cheapening and an impoverishment of language. In 2010 "iconic"
was only beginning to take hold, but it was clear to us that all
the trendy publicists were going to jump on the bandwagon. They
have.

Immersive

The Seattle Symphony keeps bragging about its "new immersive
venue", where the music will be "daring and imaginative, new and
innovative" (and they say so themselves!). It sounds like they
have a new swimming pool for the orchestra members so they can
find new things to do with their arms and legs.

Another publicist rants on about "...exclusive content
independently curated by a team of experts to give a fully
immersive listening experience."

"Immersive" is suddenly turning up everywhere in publicity,
usually coupled with "experience". It has become yet another
general word of approvalrCoa signal to millennials that they will
feel comfortable. In other words, it's hype.

To immerse is (obviously) to submerge in liquid. But now the word
has begun to turn up in dictionaries with the meaning of
engaging, absorbing, involving (that last is another publicity
cliche). Sometimes it just means "interesting". (That word is
almost never used anymore, and the miserable "intriguing" may
also be losing out to new words like "immersive".)

But all of those words are judgements one can only make after the
event. Publicists try to tell us what our reaction should be
before we even have the "experience". (They appeal to the
increasingly common FOMOrCofear of missing out.) "Immersive" is not
needed; but it represents "cool", and "engaging" sounds
old-fashioned. "Immersive" works for the pitiful people who
always have to be trendy.

LATEST NEWS: "Immersive" is now a noun as well as an
adjectiverCojust like "creative". In October, Lincoln Center
publicity invited us to an immersive. Of course,
"experience"rCoboth noun and verbrCois wildly overused and should
usually be dropped, but that sentence makes no sense.

As James Joyce predicted in Ulysses, English is starting to
degenerate into a mere pidgin. Anything goes, so no one can be
sure what anything means. They "get the general idea", and that's
the best the language can do in its current state. The great days
of our language and its writings are well in the past.

Impact

In 2004 we promised to eliminate this miserable cliche from ARG,
and I think we have. But we read it more and more elsewhere. An
impact is a collision, a compressionrCoa pressing together. There's
an impact in an auto crash. And teeth can become impacted.

But think of the words it is used instead of: impression,
influence, difference, change, improvement, power, force,
consequences, outcome, result, compress, alter, and affect and
effect. In fact, one suspects that "impact" is often used to
avoid affect and effect, because people are confused by those two
and don't know which to use. And there are more than the 15 or 16
just listedrCoand don't forget that the miserable "impact" is used
both as a verb and as a noun by everybody on television. And so
is "impactful". This is how language degenerates; this is how one
word replaces dozens of better ones.

One would hope the dictionary to have more effect on speech than televisionrCoand it might if people would read more. But television
can be blamed for sloppy written speech as well as spoken.
(That's the impact of televisionrCoer, we mean, influence.)

Initiative

This is vastly overused and misused. The word comes from
"initial" and refers to the first step, making a start. It cannot
be usedrCoas it is everywhere these daysrCoas the equivalent of
"plan" or "action". I read recently about an orchestra's
"initiatives". There is no legitimate plural; a first step is
singular. One publicist tells us that an initiative will debut.
We are often told that an orchestra or group will "implement an
initiative" (how's that for bureaucratese?). As usual, people use
words without knowing what they mean. "The following steps
(plans, actions, but NOT initiatives) are being taken to deal
with the problem."

Innovative

This is a favorite word of publicists, vastly overused. It is
supposed to mean that the composer or artist is doing something
NEW! Wow! But we have found that (1) very little that is created
is even slightly "new"; it's all old hatrCothe same old tricks, and
(2) there is no virtue in newness for its own sake. Who cares if
an "innovative" composer has an instrument make a sound seldom
heard before? (Almost never is it a sound never heard before.)

The word "inventive" is used in a similar way by publicists: we
are supposed to be impressed by something supposedly created out
of nothing. But it is never so; it is just an unfamiliar sound
that has been around a long time.

People who think they are inventive and innovative probably use
too many drugs.

Insightful

"Insight" is the ability to discern the true nature of a
situation, especially by intuition. The word has limited
applications and cannot be used as freely as it is these days.
Bureaucrats use it to describe findings or conclusions in a
report. A report cannot have insight, though people can. And the
plural is highly doubtful. "Insightful" was not in the dictionary
in 1970. It has become a trendy word for intelligent or
perceptive, even wise. "Insights" is used instead of thoughts or
ideas or just plain knowledge. That is stretching the word way
too far.

Intensive Purposes

People say "for all intensive purposes" and write it, but the
correct expression is "for all intents and purposes". Some say
that's how language changes, but accepting such idiocy is how
language degenerates.

Irony & Ironic

This noun and adjective are commonly used to describe something
odd, curious, sad, coincidental, improbable, even unluckyrCobut
they do not mean any of those things.

Irony is the use of words to describe something quite different
from and often opposite to their literal meaning (American
Heritage Dictionary). Synonyms to "ironic" are sarcastic,
caustic, sardonic, and satirical. An "ironic" observation or
statement involves ridicule. It is obvious from the context that
most of the time that is not what current users of the word mean.
People routinely use words without knowing what they mean. No one
seems to use the dictionary any morerCoand thus they end up
sounding ignorant.

To begin a sentence "Ironically," is as bad as beginning a
sentence with most words ending in -ly and followed by a comma.
Yet that is so common that grammatically sensitive people can
hardly read anything any more without becoming irritated. (The
most common are "thankfully", "hopefully", "sadly",
"regretfully", "similarly", and "admittedly".)

Issues

I am often amused by the illiteracy of signs (or the people who
write them). On as magazine rack in a store was a sign that read
"We are currently experiencing distribution issues with regard to
this magazine." "Currently"is certainly better than "presently",
but the rest of it is garbage. How can one "experience issues"?
What used to be problems or difficulties are now called "issues".
But an issue is something you can have an opinion on and debate
or dispute. Someone who has cancer does not have "health issues".
When a young father told me his child had "potty issues" I almost
burst out laughing. Just as people are afraid to complain (we
should complain more!), so they don't want to appear "negative"
and admit (sometimes serious) problems. "Issues" is stupid.

Jell

In 1970 the dictionary treated any non-literal meaning of this as
"Informal". Ideas and plans did not "jell"; only fluids did.
Since then the word has become quite common in its figurative
meaning. After all, if we can say our thoughts on a subject took
shape or solidified, why not jelled? It still seems unnatural if
you are past a certain age. And only recent dictionaries allow
the spelling "gel" to mean the same thing.

Labor of Love

This is usually used wrong. It does not mean that someone loves
his work. It means that he was NOT PAID for it. If he was paid it
is not a "labor of love".

The Late

"The late" means until recently. It can also mean recently died.
"The late governor of Illinois" does not mean that he has died,
but that he is no longer governor. To avoid ambiguity one could
say "the former governor". But "the late" implies nothing at all
about whether he is still alive. Music writers refer to "the late
George Szell"rCothat is really stupid. If someone died more than a
year or two ago he is no longer "the late". Yet you read that
kind of thing everywhererCobad writing and no editing.

Legacy

In its meaning as a noun, a legacy is something handed down from
an ancestor or predecessor. Its use as an adjective is recent
(not in the 1970 dictionary); the meaning given in a new
dictionary is "retained under an obsolescent or discarded
system". It definitely carries the connotation of "obsolete",
even "worn out". But publicity people are using it routinely to
refer to almost anything from the past, including revered singers
and music. Its overuse is stretching its meaning as you read
this, so it will soon be as meaningless as other trendy words.

Less vs fewer

Almost no one seems to understand which word to use. "Jim has
less records in his library than Bill does" is simply stupid.
This was something my generation learned in "grammar school"
(yes, we learned grammar!). Now no one seems to know it in
college.

Liaise

"Liaise" is a back-formation from "liaison". It was unknown 40
years ago. Then we said "consult" or "work together". We don't
need "liaise".

Lie and Lay

For more than 50 years people have been getting this wrong. The
doctor tells me to "lay back". In a really good novel we read
that "a cello was laying on the sofa". Were there cello eggs
everywhere? Hens lay; cellos don't. "Lay" is transitive and takes
an object. You can lay a carpet or an egg, but you cannot just
lay. The table was laid. The laying of the tiles was Don's job.

"Lie" is intransitiverCotakes no object. Its past tense is "lay".
She lay down after I told her "Go lie down". She lay in the same
place she had lain before and was lying in bed when the phone
rang.

Live

If it's recorded, it cannot be "live". They are mutually
exclusive. The Metropolitan Opera recently bragged that a
performance was "being broadcast live", but it was a 1958
performance and most of the cast was dead. A recent release
arrived here that says on it "Live from the Elbphilharmonie".
They mean that it was recorded in concert, but even then I'd bet
that they recorded more than one performance and edited the
results. It is not "live" in any respect.

Located

People say dumb things like, "Where are you located at?" when
what they mean is simply "Where are you?" Airlines in the USA
(nowhere else) tell us that flotation devices are "located under
the seat"rCoagain the word is superfluous. We are told a store is
located on Main StreetrColeave out the word!

To locate something is the same as to find it. That meaning
should not be allowed to die.

Long Words

We are reading long words everywhere where short ones would do.
The list could be endless, but one thing that is happening is
backformation from adjectives to nouns: Hopeful becomes
hopefulness, tasteful becomes tastefulness, graceful
gracefulness, peaceful peacefulness, vigorous vigorousness, and
so on. The correct words are hope, taste, grace, peace, and
vigorrCobut they are not used much these days. When you read the
longer word you know that someone doesn't even have an adequate
basic vocabulary.

Lower case

People no longer seem to remember the rule that no letter in the
alphabet except A may appear alone in lower case (a). No musical
key may ever be lower-case in English: A minor, D minor, F minor
(NEVER d minor, etc). Almost everyone gets this wrong nowadays. I
read in a program that I was supposed to be listening to a
"Prelude and Fugue in a minor". What minor?

Majority

Heard on a plane: "If you need help deplaning [sic], please wait
until the majority of passengers have deplaned." Majority? If
there are 150 passengers one should expect help when 76 have got
off the plane? People are using "the majority of" when they mean
"most". It sounds ignorant. "Most" is more general and to the
point. "Most dogs are friendly" makes sense, but "the majority of
dogs are friendly" is not even grammatical, let alone applicable.
The airplane people really want you to wait until all the other
passengers have got off. Why can't people say what they mean?
Airline and airport language has always been terrible.

Majorly

A press release tells us that something will be "majorly
affected" by something else. I was glad to see "affected" instead
of the dreadful "impacted", but "majorly" was new to merCobut not,
of course, to the dictionary, which calls it "slang". A great
deal of current writing contains slang. It used to be the case,
in any language, that standards for written language were higher
than for spoken. That protected the language (think of Greek or
Arabic). But in our strange egalitarian world any idiot is
allowed to write, and they often write as badly as they talkrCoand
no one questions it or edits it.

Masterful

Most times when this word is used, the writer should have used
"masterly". A masterly performance is one that shows great
knowledge and skill. A masterful performance is ego-dominated,
imperious, a domineering self-assertion. "Masterful" is NOT a
compliment!

Me, Myself, & I

You seldom read or hear "me" anymore. Everyone seems afraid to
say it, as if it is crude. All of the following are often seen
but wrong: between you and I, call my wife or I, call Jim or
myself, she gave my husband and I ice cream. In every case, "me"
would have been correct, and I is NOT "elegant".

Meld

We used to merge things, blend them, combine them, conflate them,
mix them, integrate, unite, collate. Now, in a time of shrinking
vocabulary, all we do is "meld" them. It's the current pattern of
one word replacing many others and all fine distinctions being
lost. (Think of the asinine "multiple".)

Meme

We learned this word in anthropology. Its traditional meaning was
"an element of culture or system of behavior passed along non-genetically"rCothat is, by imitation: beliefs, habits,
fashions, phrases, stories. It was too technical to appear in the
dictionary in 1970.

A new slang meaning of the word seems to have taken over:
pictures or captions or just squiggles on social media. "A friend
of mine posted a meme" it said in Science News. That is not in
the dictionary and is most likely just social media jargon.

The New York Times said "Social media is minimizing the war in
Ukraine by turning it into a meme." (horrible sentence all
around). It seems to mean a cartoon-like image in that sentence.

A great book I recently read, Woke Racism by John McWhorter, uses
"meme" to mean "slogan". So does the NY Times. Apparently that's
pretty commonrCobut also quite new. And what on earth does
Economist mean by this leading sentence: "A stake in Twitter may
be a meme too far (for Elon Musk)"? What is a "meme stock"
(another magazine)? So the word is obviously overused (hackneyed)
and has, as a result, become vague and uncertain in meaning.

Message

Medical bulletin: "Use our website to message your team". No one
ever considered "message" a verb until very recently. It's
jargon; it's a briefer way of saying "send a message to" or "get
in touch with". "Cool" people like these new verbsrCoand like the
way nouns can become verbs and vice-versa. The idea of "parts of
speech" is becoming obsolete. In the process, language is getting
sloppier. No one wants to take the trouble to say things
correctly. The triumph of democracy and equality means anyone can
say anything any way he choosesrCono one can be more "correct" than
anyone else.

Methodology

Methodology for method: you read this all the time. It is simply
another case of "never use a small word when a bigger one seems
possible". People who can't write think it's more impressive.

Meteoric

We often read of a "meteoric rise" in, say, crime or prices. But
meteors do not rise; they fall.

10 Misused Words

To anticipate is not to expect; it is to plan for.
Anxious does not mean eager.
Continuous means it never stops; "continual" can be intermittent.
A dilemma involves two choices, neither very good.
Fortuitous does not mean fortunate, but by chance.
Oblivious means someone told you but you forgot or dismissed it.
The protagonist is the leading character in a drama.
To refute is to disproverConot merely to deny.
Transpire does not mean "happen".
People use viable (or even "doable") when they mean feasible.

Mom

This is slang. You can call your mother this to her face, but to
anyone else and in writing, it's "mother". Of course, today's
writing is full of slang.

Moot

A moot point is one of no significance or relevance. That's the
adjective. The verb is rare in American English. Something is
mooted when it is rendered of no practical significance.

But the British use the verb to mean "suggest" or "put forth".
which is almost the opposite of dismissing something. It's odd
that British and American English take opposite meanings hererCoas
in the case with "table" as a verb.

Morph

Nothing changes anymore; it "morphs". The usage was unknown
before 1991, but was popular by 1998, and has become even more
popular since. To "morph into" is to become.

Moving Forward

All bureaucrats seem to love "moving forward", and it is a common
slogan for politicians. Like most such hackneyed expressions. it
could mean anything and carries no specific meaning but sounds
good. Words are increasingly used for their "sounds good"
qualities.

Myriad

"Myriad" essentially means 10,000 but can be used to mean an
extremely large, uncountable number. Now, in this age of wild
exaggeration and word fads (people don't just like something;
they are passionate about it), people are using it where they
used to just say "many". And "many" (or "plenty") is much better.
See also "plethora", which is also often used to mean "a great
many" but actually means "too many".

Multiple

Another such word is "multiple"rCoalso substituted for "many",
apparently because "many" is too direct and simple. Science News
recently had an article titled, "Dinosaur Eggs Came in Multiple
Colors". Why not "several"? "That was the first of multiple
orders to remove the wolf from protection" said another magazine
in 2012. Again, "several" is correct; we also used to say "many",
"a few", "a number of", or even "numerous" or "more than one".
But now it's always "multiple", because it's a trendy word. It's
a shame to lose good words like "several". People are such
conformists! When a word catches on, everyone falls into line.
People think and talk in cliches.

A recent opera program book told us that Scene 8 was "where the
multiple issues of the opera come together". Egad! What could
that possibly mean? It sounds current, but does it mean anything?
Do operas have "issues"? Can they have "multiple" ones?

This is still spreading like a disease. People use it in
conversation, write it in articlesrCoeven in scholarly books. It's
a raging fad, probably kept alive by news people. No one says
"several" or "many" or "a few" or "a number of", "2 or 3", or
even "more than one". The one vague wordrComultiplerCoreplaces all of themrCoand more. You even read "multiple times" instead of "often".
This is a pitiful degeneracy of language. Banish "multiple"!

Ness Disease

People are starting to write about "purposefulness",
"hopefulness", and "thankfulness" or "gratefulness" instead of
purpose, hope, and gratitude. I've even seen "rigorousness" for
"rigor". They are back-formations (by adding -ness) from
adjectivesrCoand the adjectives themselves came from nouns, so it
gets ridiculous. True, we get "happiness" from "happy", but the
others are invalid and awkward if you know the correct nouns.

New and Unnecessary Backformations

We have begun to see "incentivize", "incentivizing",
"incentivization". I read recently about "incentivizing ethical
business practices". (What's wrong with "encouraging"?) The word
is new to dictionaries (not in the original AHD).

Also new to dictionaries is "surveil". "Surveilance" has always
been with us, but now we have this back-formation to a new verb.
("Liaise" is another miserable back-formation.)

These words are turning up not just in publicity (always a
language cesspool) but also in newspapers and magazines. Well,
the people who write for most newspapers and magazines these days
are pretty close to illiteraterCobut why should their ignorance
deserve a place in a dictionary? In fact, they will never see it,
because they obviously don't use a dictionary.

New York City

New York is the name of the city (and of the state). "New York
City" seems to turn up often these days, but it is unnecessary.
"New York" refers to the city unless the context makes clear that
it does not. That has always been the case.

Normalcy

The correct word is "normality". "Normalcy" is a "needless
variant", not supported by language experts.

Notoriety

People confuse this word with fame. In a magazine article we
read, "They write because they enjoy it and because it gives them
notoriety within [sic] the industry, which certainly helps with
career advancement." Notoriety is a bad reputation, unfavorable
fame. How will that help?

Nouns become Verbs

These are nouns, not verbs: access, leverage, reference, task,
gift, target, source. They are all used a lot as verbs. Latest
example: farewell. Are we going to end with a language where
there are no separate verbs and nouns? Can that happen just
because some people do not know the difference?

Numbers

The New York Times recently reported that "19 students and seven
staff members" tested positive. This follows the general rule
that numbers under 10 get written out. But in a sentence like
that, "7" is preferable to "seven" because of the comparison and
the relation between the two. The same applies to a series and to
age. Our practice at ARG has lately been to favor numerals over
words, even to begin a sentence. That is not universally
approved, but we are a publication that deals a lot in numbers,
and writing them out comes to seem awkward.

One of the Only

We were eating at an expensive and sophisticated restaurant.
Within one minute we heard the waitress at the next table say "we
are one of the only restaurants that offers that" and a waiter
nearby ask people, "Is everything tasting well?"

This is in one minute on one day. Illiteracy is everywhere and
constant now. Will people understand each other at all in 20
years?

The Atlantic (magazine) uses it. You have to think "one of the
few", because "the only" can only be one.

Ongoing

This fad word is utterly unnecessary, so it can usually be
dropped without causing a problem. How many times have you read
about "the ongoing war in Ukraine?" Something that goes on may be
"continuing". Sometimes it's even progressing or evolving. Once
in a while one might need "going on"rCobut one never needs
"ongoing". The author of many fine books writes in one, "The
ongoing discussion continues"rCototal redundancy!

On route

We are seeing this often now, and it is a mistake. What is meant
is is "en route", but people don't read anymore, and they have
only heard it spokenrCoand spoken it sounds the same as "on route".
As usual, we have seen examples in EconomistrCoa magazine only read
by "upscale" people. Their writers are very sloppy about usage.
Journalists of all kinds arerCoand are infatuated by "cool" and
current usage.

Opinionated

The word is pejorative and cannot be a compliment. To be
opinionated means "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is
made up." That is never praiseworthy. If someone has read a lot
and thought a lot about something and has arrived at some strong
convictions, we should certainly not call him "opinionated".

Optics

This is a new usage, not in any printed dictionary. The word is
being used to mean "the way things look"rCoappearances. People love
to use these trendy words (meanings). It makes them feel that
they are leaders ("influencers"?).

In a dictionary, "optics" is a scientific termrCoa division of
physics.

Over

A usage book that was first published in 1980 and has been
reissued many times since says that "with countables, `more than'
is better usage than `over'". He weighs more than 250 pounds. He
earns more than $50,000 a year. More than 100 people attended his
birthday party. Next time you are about to say "over" think "more
than".

Overly

There is no such word, though people say it and write it. That's
because people think adverbs have to end in -ly. They say "drive
slowly" when "drive slow" is grammatically correct. (They don't
seem to say "Drive fastly" though.) "Overly" in plain English is
"too".

Own

A magazine tells us the Republicans are doing something to "own"
the liberals. What does that mean? No dictionary meaning of "own"
fits. It is certainly slang, probably from "sports". But new
meanings are coming forth all the time for old familiar words.
Apparently words mean what the writer decides he wants them to
mean. Never mind that intelligent English speakers have no idea
what the writer is saying.

Palate

Palate, palette, and pallet sound alike (like immanent and
imminent) but are quite distinct. A pallet is a bedrCousually
narrow and hard. The palate is the roof of the mouth, but often
refers to the sense of taste. A palette is a board where a
painter mixes colors. This last can be extended to musical
colors.

Partially

This word is turning up everywhere, used as if it means the same
thing as "partly". It does not, because it carries different
connotations. The original American Heritage Dictionary had a
good write-up on the subject. Garner's book on usage says to use
"partly" if in doubt.

Passion

Passion is deep and overwhelming, ardent and powerful. It implies
a potential lack of control, a getting carried away, a boundless
enthusiasm. Between people it implies a strong sexual attraction.
(Why did a Baptist church in Edinburgh have a sign that "Jesus
loves you passionately"?) It was also in Britain that there was a
"help wanted" sign in a store window that said you "must be
passsionate about retailing". I would lock up such a person!
Brits generally use the word "passionate" in place of
"emotional"rCoall emotions become "passions", just as all large
things become "enormous" (very British). I have seen
advertisements for a string quartet that mentioned the musicians'
"passion for different styles". Really! The word has become a
general word of approval for musicians. Their physical deportment
on stage is often calculated to make people think they are
"passionate". They groan, throw themselves around, gaze into the
sky. Dark hair and a scowl help. Of course, to do really well as
a musician you have to be almost fanatically dedicated, and some
people call that kind of obsession "passion". Actually a musician
has to keep his cool (so to speak) rather than burn with passion.
We should stop using the word about musicians.

Pause

In my 1970 dictionary this is strictly an intransitive verb, but
in the New York Times it is transitive these days: a country
paused the vaccine. It is used where "stopped", "halted",
"discontinued", orrCobetter yetrCo"suspended" or "interrupted" would
be correct. Maybe this new usage is natural to a generation that
had a "pause" button on a CD player. So "pause" has come to stand
for "put it on pause" or "press the pause button". Or maybe it is
yet another case of a noun becoming a (transitive) verb. It
sounds completely unnatural; it is not idiomatic to good writers.
You can't pause anything, but you can pause.

A number of sources referred to "a temporary pause" in
administering one of the vaccines. That's redundant. A pause is
by definition temporary.

Paused

Since we wrote this up in 2021 it has spread like crazy. Here are
some of the words it has replaced: postponed, delayed, suspended,
interrupted, stopped, deferred. To pause is often to hesitate. A
pause can be a freeze. It is unfortunate when one word replaces
many others, each with a slightly different shade of meaning.
(Our public library tells us the OhioLink website "has been
paused"!) The cause is simply a miserable vocabulary and rampant
conformity. Also, people don't read and simply use words they
hear a lot, so words like this are worn to death. Our language is
losing its richness as everyone's vocabulary shrinks into a
handful of cliches.

Plethora

This word does not mean "plenty" or "a lot"; it means too much or
too many. A plethora is not a good thing.

Plurals

The plural of person is people.

The plural of this is these.

The plural of that is those.

People often mistakenly use "this" when they mean "that". And
they often use "those" when they mean "people". Possessives &

Titles

It is idiotic to say "Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro" or
"Homer's the Iliad". It is a rule in English that the possessive
deletes the article. And you follow the English rule in any
English-language document: Verdi's Trovatore. You also must
follow English-language capitalization rules: Forza del Destino,
Cosi Fan Tutte.

We also follow the rule for possessives recommended in all the
handbooks. It is Chandos's, Francis's, James's. Both the Ss
should be pronounced, too.

Precarity

The NY Times recently used the word "precarity". It didn't exist
when I went to school. An online dictionary dates it to around
1960, but it is not in the American Heritage Dictionary of 2011.
It's obviously a back-formation from "precarious", but there are
many better waysrCotraditional waysrCoto say the same thing.
"Insecurity" is one example. And we can use the adjectiverCoor
"risky". We don't need most popular back-formations. They
represent a kind of laziness about language.

Preference

It was inevitable. The use of "reference" as a verb (which it is
not!) has started to spread to similar words and words that sound
like it. We have begun to see "preference" as a verb in place of
"prefer", just as we have recently had to put up with "reference"
in place of "refer". This is how language degenerates. First of
all it is used by people who can't write and don't know language;
then people who read what they have written assume it's OK and
start to use it themselves. A very large percentage of publicity
and "communications" people are illiterate, and we are all
reading what they write.

By the way, "prefer" is a good substitute for the wretched
"prioritize".

Premiere

Not a verb.

Prestigious

Usage books call this "a bad newspaper word", but it has spread
to publicity of all kinds.

The word is suddenly everywhere. Before 1960 or so it meant
deceitful, cheating, or illusory. "Prestige" is an illusion
created by tricksrCohistorically, magicrCothus "prestidigitate"rCobut
in the last century or so by advertising and publicity. Prestige
is a kind of glamor (itself a word that comes from magic) that
can blind you or dazzle you. It is certainly an American
innovation to use "prestigious" as a compliment, as a favorable
thing.

If prestige is really just a surface thing (like glamor), then
people are using it wrong everywhere you turn. That's natural in
a world infatuated with celebrityrCowhere pianists are called
superstars by their publicists and are compared to "rock stars".

Sometimes the publicists mean "reputable" or "outstanding in its
field": I have seen the Juilliard School and the Metropolitan
Opera called "prestigious". If they have a good reputation, no
one needs to tell us about it. Of course, prestige and reputation
are no guarantee of quality. It's like buying things by brand
name.

Preventative

is never correctrCojust a useless lengthening of the word
"preventive".

Pre Disease

"Pre" has gotten out of hand. You can buy a "pre-washed" salad.
You can be "pre-selected" to get a credit card. We are even told
we can "pre-board" a planerCoobviously that's impossible. You can
be "pre-authorized", a car can be "pre-owned", your loan can be
"pre-approved". Your funeral can be "pre-planned"! (This is a
miserable redundance, because all planning is done in advance.)
You can "pre-order a book or recording"rComeaning, I think, order
it before it is published. We are even seeing "prequel", an
ersatz word formed from "sequel".

Most of these are not in the dictionary and are dreadful and
unnecessary, but they are trendy, and commercial interests
promote them.

Prior to

This pompous phrase is often substituted for "before". Every
usage book condemns it. It is lawyers' language and carries the
idea of necessary precedence. Therefore it should be rare, but
it's everywhere.

Prioritize

Until this century dictionaries disapproved of this word. Like
many words that end in -ize it is of questionable origin. You can
-ize almost anything, and it's common in advertising. Also,
"prior to" has come to replace "before" (unfortunately), so
"prioritize" was almost inevitable. "Prioritize" is just a fancy
word for "prefer" or "rank", and people tend to prefer fancier
words, apparently thinking they sound more impressiverCoand perhaps
they do to average dopes, but not to people who know language.
Garner's usage book calls "prioritize" "bureaucratic bafflegab".

Probe

Whether noun or verb, usage books call it "ugly headlinese", but
it has long spread beyond headlines. A better noun would be
investigation, inquiry, even hearing. And the verb is very
common, too, in place of investigate, look into, study, even
sift. But "probe" has replaced these and many other wordsrCoa
typical sign of linguistic degeneracy. A major magazine told us
recently that "Russian forces are now probing west"! What could
that mean? Journalism loves to stretch words, to overuse favorite
words and expressions. There is massive conformity in journalism,
and trendy words and expressions just get trendier. The best
argument against this word is that everyone falls back on it, so
it has replaced words with more subtle shades of meaningrCoa common
problem in today's usage.

Pronouns

It has become common to read anything from university culture and
find it signed "James Jones, he, him, his". People assume that
you can choose your pronouns. But pronouns are not your choice;
they follow the rules of language.

People want to control everything, but that is self-deception.
Your sex was given, and the pronouns are givenrCoyou have NO
CHOICE. We have to make the best of the cards dealt to us.
"Freedom" is not autonomy.

Proofreading

A publicist recently described "the world's largest record
company in the world". Bragging is pretty normal in the field of
music; I have even read glowing descriptions of compositions by
their composers. But the problem there is proofreading.

In an issue of ARG I complained about "pigeon" English. No one
proofed that, though I like someone to proofread what I write,
because a writer seldom sees mistakes that are obvious to someone
else. I meant "pidgin", of courserCoa homonym. The first reader to
catch it was someone who used to write for us and understands
editing.

How to Spot Propaganda

1. Simplification: reducing everything to black & white, friend &
foe.
2. Misrepresentation & name-calling: reducing the opposition to
caricature.
3. Manipulating the values of the audience to one's own ends.
4. Contagion: claiming or implying that one's views are shared by
all right-thinking people. Social pressure.
5. Repetition: if you repeat something often enough people are
more inclined to accept it as given.

Punctuation

On an album cover: "Leading choruses, soloists and conductors,
have collaborated with the orchestra. The lack of a comma after
"soloists" implies that soloists and conductors are forms of
choruses; and the comma after "conductors" is simply wrongrCoand no
one did it 5 years ago.

The "comma splice error" is much older than that and common in
England. It joins 2 sentences by a comma. You can join 2
sentences by a semi-colon or by a comma plus "and" or "but", but
never by a mere comma.

Purposefully

This word seems to have replaced "deliberately", "intentionally",
and "purposely" in current writing. It is the most specific term,
referring to a specific, defined purpose or goal. Therefore its
use should be limitedrCobut it is now promiscuous.

Quality

"Quality" is a nounrConot an adjective. You can't say, "he's a
quality person" (anymore than you can say "he's a fun person").
Good quality, high quality, poor qualityrCobut not "quality" by
itself. It needs a modifier.

Quiescent

This word is not a fancy way of saying "quiet", though that's the
way it is often misused. It is related to "dormant" and "latent".
A volcano can be quiescent: it is capable of great noise and
disruption. Quiescent people are presumably hot-tempered, not
quiet by nature.

Quote

In 1970 the American Heritage Dictionary was strongly against use
of this word in writing to mean "quotation". In the years since,
a more liberal usage panel has come to accept it. ("The first
lines of his aria include a quote from Shakespeare.") It is
always hard to decide whether looser rules weaken a language;
maybe sometimes they are quite neutral or even beneficial. In
this case we sometimes let it go thru and sometimes replace it,
depending on the rest of the sentence.

Reach out

"Reach out to" is wrongly used to mean "get in touch" (call or
write) or even "inquire" or "respond" (get back to). A publicity
letter began, "I am reaching out to share information about
upcoming opportunities..." Illiterate. Another letter replied to
us, "Thank you for reaching out to us and sharing your concerns."
(They were complaints, but no one uses that "negative" word these
days.) I think this is televangelist language, but it has
infected "millennials", who apparently never learned real
English. None of them would say or write, "Thank you for your
complaint"!

"Reach out" implies that the other person is in need and you are
helping him. You cannot "reach out" to your congressman to tell
him how to vote. Publicists cannot "reach out" to editors, though
they think they can, because they don't understand the
connotations.

Receive

This vastly overused word has replaced dozens of others, as
trendy words are wont to do. I read that someone has received
weapons from the local armory. (The right word is procured.)
Often "obtained" is correct. People are afraid of simple and
direct words like "got", but that is better than always using
"received". Our readers sometimes call and tell us they haven't
received the latest issue. Why not? We sent it, and when it
arrives, they can receive it or refuse it. Again, the wrong use
of "receive". To receive is an act of the will: you accept what
is offered. Only volitional beings can do it. A piece of music
cannot receive a performance or a recording. Dead people cannot.
either. (Publicist: "Mendelssohn receives special birthday
tribute." That's impossible.) In order of volition: We grab,
take, win, procure. We receive or accept. We are given or
rewarded. A piece of music can be performed, but it cannot
"receive a performance". It can draw or attract praise or
criticism; it cannot receive it. A musician can receive an award,
but the point is not that he received it but that he was given
it. To say a musician "received criticism" implies that he
welcomed it. Maybe his performance drew criticismrCopeople
criticized itrCobut to say he received it is to say he took it
seriously, and we don't usually know that.

A piece of music cannot receive a prize, but its composer canrCobut
it must first be offeredrCoand that is the point, not whether he
received it. He won it, and most people will receive a price they
have won. The point is that they won it, not that they "received"
it.

Redacted

Something redacted has been edited or revised. To redact is not
necessarily to delete or remove, but that is the way we see it
used lately. In a major newspaper we read about a writer
objecting to deletions in his book, but they were called
"redactions".

Redundancy Dept

reserve in advance
preplan
preorder
"This could be a potentially great thing for your business."
"There could be a possible chance of showers."
"I'm still not sure of my schedule yet."
advance warning
close proximity
upcoming appointment
last of all
end result
ultimate goal
ultimate outcome
is located at
ongoing maintenence
still remains
redo it again
On a plane, from a crew member, in February: "You may now use
your mobile phones at this time."

Reference

This is a noun, not a verb. The verb is "refer to", but
"reference" is also replacing "allude to" and "quote". Making
nouns out of verbs is now a major industry.

Regretfully

Sign in a shop: "Regretfully, we do not accept credit cards".
That is simply wrong. "He regretfully moaned, `I shouldn't have
beaten my wife'." That's OK. It's not just that starting a
sentence with an adverb (ending in -ly) is a bad idea. Adverbs
must modify verbs ("moaned" in the second sentence). Also, is the
shop owner really regretting the fact that he doesn't accept
credit cards? (The grammatical meaning of the first sentencerCoif
it had anyrComight be that.) It was his decision. If he regrets it,
he can change itrCoand he doesn't. It may be regrettable to the
customer. But the word used is not "regrettably"rCoand even that
would be a bad sentence. "We regret that we do not accept credit
cards" again raises the point that if you regret it, you can
change it. I think "We do not accept credit cards" is probably
the only way to say it, but the owner evidently feels he has to
apologize for his policy. That means he should change it.

At any rate, "regretfully" is a good word to avoidrCoespecially to
start a sentence.

As a Reminder

I heard this many times on a recent triprCoairports and planes. I
called a doctor's office and heard it again on the long recorded
message and menu that greets you and prevents you from talking
with anyone unless you have almost infinite patience.

What they are all trying to say is "We remind you". "As a
reminder" is utterly stupid and wrongrCoand yet another way people
don't take responsibility for what they say. If they are trying
to sound gentler and more "courteous" (which is very silly), what
is wrong with "We would like to remind you that..."?

Resonate

There is a new meaning to this verb: to share an opinion, to
agree. Older dictionaries don't have it. Do we need it, or is it
just another sloppy usage that has become popular? Dictionaries
should tell us that, but they evade their responsibility and
claim to "just report on usage". In the name of conserving the
language and not letting words lose their specificity, one could
suggest that this new meaning is unnecessary and should be
avoided.

Respectively

"The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which feeds
sectarianism between Sunnis and Shias respectively." (The
Economist) The word is not only unnecessary but inappropriate and
simply wrong in that sentence. Since almost no one knows how to
use it, and since we who know what it means realize it is almost
always unnecessary, we recommend that you avoid the word.

Reveal

I subscribe to only the best magazines (some much more liberal
than I am and some much more conservative), but even they are
increasingly sloppy and trendy about usage. A July issue of The
Week has on the cover in big letters, "The Big Reveal". "Reveal"
is strictly a verb; it is not a noun. True, it has turned up in
the latest dictionaries (which have no standards and accept
anything in common usage). By the way, the latest AHD still
rejects "invite" as a nounrCobut I hear it all the time (it has
been common for almost a century in slang), so we will soon be
reading it everywhere. "Invitation" and "revelation" are
apparently dying.

I guess I have to get used to the fact that nobody currently
"editing" anything (if anyone is) cares one hoot about classic
usage. Apparently words can mean anything, and as that attitude
spreads they come to mean so many things that they no longer mean
much of anything (at least not anything specific) and thus end up
communicating nothing much.

My argument has never been that language cannot change. It's just
that if we accept any and all changes it loses its power and
precision. Also, people have such pitiful vocabularies these days
that they don't know the words that would serve better. Should
language change be posited (or accepted) based on plain old
ignorance?

Robotic Speech

Among the many words that robotic voices cannot pronounce
reliably are object, present, invalid, moderate, estimate, and
elaborate: the verb and the noun or adjective look alike but are
not pronounced alike. Even the favorite slang, "impact", is
pronounced differently when a verb than when a noun. Pretty soon
humans will do no better, because they have been listening to
robots too long.

Rock star

Why would any classical music lover be impressed when a favorite
cellist or pianist is described as "rock-star famous" or having
"rock star charisma"? What charisma? We hate rock stars and
consider them louts and idiots. They don't have anything that we
would admire or call "charisma". They are not gifted. Nor do
great things "rock".

But publicists seem to be gullible women (mostly) who think
there's nothing greater in our culture than rock stars. They earn
obscene amounts of money, they can have any woman they want, and
they don't need to deny themselves anything. That seems to appeal
to spoiled Americans: total self-indulgence. But of course it's
utterly savage and destructive of civilization.

Sanction

This is a thoroughly confusing word, because it has two opposite
meanings: to approve and to disapprove. The noun can mean
approval or penalty. One clue which is meant might be that to
give sanction is to approve, but to issue sanction is to
penalize. But even that clue is usually missing, and we often
have to guess which of the opposite meanings the writer had in
mind.

Shall and Will

Past generations were taught that the simple future must be
"shall" in the first person and "will" in second or third: I (we)
shall, you will, he (they) will, etc. We were also taught to
reverse that in assuring someone or committing oneself or giving
a command. Follett's usage book (1966) illustrates the principle:
"I shall be in my office from 3 to 5" (simple future: the
speaker's regular procedure, requiring no special decision or
thought), or "I will stay in the office until 5:30" (willingness:
his concession to someone else's convenience). "I shall become a
millionaire" is just a prediction. "I will become a millionaire"
is determination.

But already by 1949 HL Mencken could write in The American
Language that "the distinction may almost be said to have ceased
to exist". Garner's usage book from 2003 says that with minor
exceptions, "will" has taken over completely. One such exception
is interrogatives like "Shall we dance?"

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989) uses "shall"
too much. God, speaking thru a prophet (Jeremiah 31, for
example), says "you shall rejoice" after "I will restore you"rCoa
reversal of what we expect. Is he commanding them to rejoice (as
is often said of the last movement of the Shostakovich 5th)? Not
according to the context.

In that same chapter of the NRSV is an example of its
substitution of "see" for "behold"rCoterribly weak and neutral.
"Behold" means, "pay attention" and "consider this"; it's even
stronger than "look", but much stronger than "see". Fine
distinctions are what make a language useful. Our language
continues to weaken and degenerate, even in the Bible!

Another flaw in that Bible translation is the refusal to use
"men" for human beings. "Man" and "men" and "mankind" are often
inclusive in English (and in GreekrCoanthropos). Now children will
grow up wondering what it means when someone sings in Handel's
Messiah "he was despised and rejected of men" (from Isaiah).

Servicing

Answering machine in a local business: "We are presently
servicing other people." (Of course, the "presently" is wrong,
too.) Maybe it sounds fancier to say "servicing" instead of
"serving", but simplicity is preferable to ersatz elegance. You
don't service people; you can service an automobile. "Servicing"
people has been used to refer to sex.

Share

"More than 30 percent of workers ages 18 to 36 have shared their
salary with a colleague." So says a websiterCoand a magazinerCobased
on a new survey. It's amazing! I didn't realize Americans were
such sharing people.

But of course the problem is the word "shared", which is simply
wrong. The survey reveals that these people discuss their
salaries with each otherrCothey do NOT "share" them.

The newest dictionaries do allow the meaning of "to relate, as in
a secret". In 1970 that meaning was unknown. It remains an
intimate word, not just a synonym for "tell". It is certainly
inappropriate most of the time. Reading a novel set in the 1950s,
I knew that it was written in the next century because the
characters were always "sharing" things instead of telling or
talking about them.

Publicity people like to "share" publicity with us; they also
love to "reach out" to us. I guess they just have something they
want me to hear or read. Why sharing and reaching out? Those are
group therapy words.

Silent

In all the following words the L is silentrConot pronounced:

psalm palm balm calm qualm alms calf half salve talk walk balk
chalk stalk folk yolk almond salmon could should would. People
also tend to forget the silent T in often and listen and the TH
in clothes (pronounced "close"). These words are often
mispronounced (over-pronounced).

The Singular "they"

People are using "they" to refer to one person, which it cannot.
Apparently it is used to avoid having to choose between "he" and
"she". (Why should that be a problem? You can always alternate.)
In English, "he" is the default and need not be taken to mean the
person is malerCojust as "man" in most languages just means "human"
nad includes women. The conventions of language are not spiteful
sexism. Pronouns are gendered, but that does not necessarily
identify the sex of the person referred to. "If someone wants to
run for president he will have to be popular" is a perfectly good
sentence and does not rule out a female candidate. "If somone
wants to be president they will have to be popular" is simply
barbaric.

Sloppy, shallow English

If it were only a matter of "street talk" it would not be
important that the language used was careless and limited. But
the problem is our "egalitarian" society and the notion that the
way anyone at all expresses himself is acceptable. So we publish
writing that is as stupid as street talk. Why? If people don't
know basic grammar and vocabulary and usage, their writings
should not be published. But there are no standards anymore, and
to try to defend the language is to make yourself an "elitist".

Soon

Everybody avoids the simple word "soon". "We will answer your
call as quickly as possible"rCocommon on phone answering
devicesrCodoesn't mean as soon as possible and implies "we will get
rid of you as fast as we can; we haven't time for you". "Someone
will be with you momentarily" implies the same thing: we haven't
got much time for you. "Soon" would be ideal in both cases, but
no one seems to know the word.

The St Louis Opera always says at the end of intermission "Act 2
will begin momentarily". Nonsense. They mean "Act 2 is about to
begin" or "will soon begin".

The airlines still sometimes say, "we will be on the ground
momentarily"rCoand again, that is not a fancy word for soon; it
carries entirely different connotationsrCoyou'd better dash off the
plane ("deplane"!) before it takes off again!

In an airport recently I repeatedly heard one announcement that
made no sense at allrCoand couldn't possibly to anyone (I think).
The end of it had nothing to do with its beginning. So much of
our public speech is written by people who can't write and don't
know what words mean. (Americans seem to assume that anyone can
writerCohow touchingly egalitarian!) And even educated people just
use words the way they hear them used and never bother to find
out if it's correct or whether there's a better way to say what
they are trying to say. Public English makes us seem a very
ignorant society.

Source

This is yet another case of nouns being used as verbs. Even
respectable magazines are saying things like "he sourced the
money from..." In the 1970 dictionary I own, "source" was
strictly a noun. Recent dictionaries yielded to the use of
"source" as a verb, but only in a limited sense. For example, it
may be used (we are told) in the sense of "acknowledging the
source of" (as in research papers). But as language degenerates
it has begun to mean almost anything related to "find" or "get".

Other new instances of nouns used as verbs: guilt, adult. It gets
worse every day.

Specialize

A dentist had a sign on his door: "specializing in children and
adults". That is not specializing at all, though perhaps he means
to exclude dogs. Another dentist "specializes in all aspects of
cosmetic and general dentistry". Obviously he didn't take many
courses in English. You can't specialize in everything.

Speech

The spoken language is not doing well, partly because of sloppy
usage, because no one uses a dictionary, and partly because
people don't know how to speak meaningfully. Perhaps we are
getting used to robots, who are incapable of emphasis or nuance.
People who speak or read in public are almost robotic
themselvesrCoand that has been true for a long time. Their vocal
rise and fall often have nothing to do with the meaning of what
they are saying. Speech should convey meaning, not just words.

Just because someone can talk, that doesn't mean he or she can
speak (in public) or write. We live in a time when speakers can
hardly speak and writers can hardly write, but we have to put up
with itrCoprobably because Americans are such religious
egalitarians and wouldn't want anyone to think his opinion
doesn't matter.

Subject-verb

It has become quite common that writers cannot makes subjects and
verbs agree in a sentence. "A group of singers are". "A
collection of arias are". Lazy, sloppy writers match the verb to
the nearest noun rather than to the subject (or is it done by
software?).

Writers no longer seem to understand this. One major British
magazine said "The simple architecture of Mormon churches mean
they resemble each other." The subject of the sentence is
"architecture", not "churches". We also see quite often the "one
of the trees are green" kind of sentence. We are not teaching
grammar, so the young writers just assume the verb should agree
with the nearest noun! (Obviously, these sentences are illogical
as well as ungrammaticalrCobut no one is being taught logic
either.)

Subjunctive

From a recent issue of The Economist:

A father who passionately wants a son is more likely to insist
that the child is a boy.

Even if it isn't?

From Peter Lovesy: "She insisted that Diamond was present."
Correct English would be "that Diamond be present". The English
should never have given up the subjunctive. Read any English
writer or magazine and you will run into meaningless sentences
like that. The subjunctive is always missing nowadaysrCoespecially
"be". The result is ambiguity.

Substantial & Substantive

They are often confused, but they are pronounced differently
(substantive has the accent on the first syllable), and
"substantial" is usually the right word and has much broader
application. "Substantive" is becoming a bureaucratic word.

Successfully

This asinine word turns up all the time in computerland. "You
have successfully been removed from our list"rCothat type of thing.
You either have or you haven't, and the word is almost always
unnecessary. The word is also used as a term of approvalrCobut it's
a rather vague one. What does it mean to call a performance
"successful"?

Surprise & disappoint

These are transitive verbs: you must surprise someone or someone
must be surprised (or disappointed). Nowadays both are used
intransitively: a musician, say, "surprises" or "disappoints". No
good.

Surveil

This word was not in the 1970 American Heritage Dictionary. It
didn't exist before the 1960s. It is a back-formation from
"surveillance". Back-formations are often a sign of laziness and
a limited vocabulary. Sometimes they are useful and catch on, but
often they are entirely unnecessary. In 150 years of mystery
writing no one used the wordrCoyet, of course, people were watched
or followed.

Synch

One dictionary labels it "colloquial" (slang). A usage book
comments that the verb is better than the noun, and "sync" is
better than "synch". These have been used for a long time, but
they have never really been accepted.

Table

To table something means to postpone it; something tabled is
something not dealt with. That's the verb. But to put something
"on the table" is to consider it. In Britain the verb and noun
both mean "to consider", but American English has always
preserved the distinction. At the moment we are losing it,
because Americans are making verbs out of nouns everywhere, and
everyone assumes (since no one uses a dictionary) that the verb
means the same as the noun.

This and That

It is very common now to see writers use "this" when they mean
"that". For example, if you are writing a review for ARG, "this"
refers to what you are reviewing, and "that" refers to older
recordings or reviews. "This" should not be used to refer to
something not at hand.

Those

The superfluous "those" is everywhere. "This trip is planned for
those people who like river cruises." "In those countries where
El Nino exerts its effects..." "Those children who were exposed
to mercury". Simply remove "those": that usually works.

"Those" is the plural of "that". It can be an adjective or a
demonstrative pronoun. It is often used to mean "people", but
that seems curiously impersonal. And, by the way, the plural of
"person" is "people", not "persons".

"I like the loud ones, except those that are brassy." Why not
"unless they are brassy" or "the ones that are brassy"? "Those
who like lieder will like this recording": again, "people" is
intended. Or even "anyone who" or "readers" or "listeners" or "if
you". "Those" in such a context is a demonstrative pronoun, and
it should refer back to something. It would be OK if the previous
sentence said something like, "There are people who like lieder
and people who don't."

We spend a lot of time replacing "those".

Throughout

This is usually a gross exaggeration. Often a simple word like
"in" is more accurate.

Transition

The weather people have been saying things like, "the rain will
transition to snow before morning". Of course, weather people are
not exactly known for their good English. ("Travel will be
impacted.") And they try to sound fancy, like most other TV and
radio people. The only weather I hear is from robots, but I
presume it was written by humans.

"Transition" was never a verb, but it is often used now as a verb
and is beginning to turn up in dictionaries. It's certainly
better than "morph", but that's not saying much. Our language got
by without either verb for many centuries. "The rain will change
to snow by morning." That's perfectly clear, isn't it? Or "will
change over to" or "will become" or "turn into".

Transitive and Intransitive

Verbs that used to be transitive are increasingly used in an
intransitive way and vice-versa. You can follow this in
dictionaries. "Pause", "disappoint", and "satisfy" used to be
strictly one or the other. Over time "satisfy" has come to be
accepted as intransitiverCothat is, where once it had to have an
object, now it doesn't. Things can now just "satisfy". (The
implication is that since it satisfied the writer it will satisfy
anyonerCoor it's another way of refusing to take responsibility,
like "hopefully" instead of "I hope".) "Pause" used to be
strictly intransitive, but nowadays you can "pause" a recording.
The Economist recently told us about "pausing the ongoing
process"rCohorrible (and "ongoing" is redundant). Careful writers
still think you must disappoint someone; you can't just
"disappoint". But I am beginning to see that intransitive even in
our own writers.

Sometimes I think that one should use older dictionaries to avoid
confusing changes in language. Most of the changes are not
improvementsrCodo not make communication clearer or easier.

Triage

This word has only recently entered dictionaries. It means a
system to allocate benefits or scarce commodities. So it is a
bureaucratic and political word. Also, recently it has been used
as a verb. To triage is to decide who gets the benefit or
commodity. The implication seems to be that such a decision is
difficult and is bound to seem unfair to someone.

I like to reject new and unnecessary words, but this one has
colors and implications that no other word has, so it is serving
a purpose. Still, it seems that people who use it are almost
always bureaucrats. It would be sad if the word simply came to
mean "difficult decision".

The latest usages of it mean "treatment". Why? Stupidity.

Trial

We are told that in Houston Domino's "has teamed up with Nuro to
trial autonomous pizza delivery". "Trial" is not a verb, and what
does "autonomous" mean in such a context? This was reported in a
major magazine. The NY Times uses "trial" as a verb, too; they
told us Heathrow Airport in London will "trial" fast lanes for
vaccinated passengers. Why not "try out"? Or even "experiment
with"?

Thrills and chills

Publicity has always involved exaggeration, but it has become
mindless and predictable. Any time an orchestra or group does
something or hires someone, the publicity falls into "We are
thrilled" or "We are so excited". All these thrills and
excitement won't save classical music. Probably the publicity
people were cheerleaders in high school. Transpire

This word means to become known, to leak out or come to light. It
is not a fancy word for "happen".

Ultimately

This fad word is replacing many better words: finally, in the
final analysis, in the end, eventually, actually, in effect,
amounting to, for all practical purposes. Americans are using
"ultimate" to mean "the best"rCoa sort of general approval on the
level of "cool" (ot "hot"). It is really hilarious to hear people
use "penultimate" to mean "even more ultimate" (something like
"more unique"). "Penultimate" means the thing before the final
thing, the next to last.

Underwhelm

This was not in dictionaries until recently. It may seem like a
logical companion to "overwhelm". But "overwhelm" has the primary
meaning of to surge over, like a wave in the ocean. That makes
"underwhelm" seem illogical. Surge under? The "whelm" part
implies a strong effect, but underwhelm is used to mean that we
are not affectedrCoor that it affects us much less than we
expected. So if I were a dictionary editor I would point out how
illogical the word is.

Unequivocal

I just finished reading a major book that sold extremely well. At
one point the author says something should be stated "in no
unequivocal terms". "Unequivocal" means "utterly clear". So what
on earth can this writer mean? (Of course, he also uses
"convince" when he means "persuade", so he has other
imperfections.)

Unique

In an article by a medical scientist we read that a condition is
"very unique". "Unique" is an absolute; there are no degrees.
Nothing can be very unique or less unique. It is either unique or
it is not.

Upcoming

What is the difference between "upcoming" and "coming"?
"Upcoming" is slang, and good writers never use it. It
substitutes for many other words: next, future, approaching,
anticipated, forthcoming, and, of course, just plain "coming". An
"upcoming appointment" is redundant. "Upcoming schedule" is, too.
Don't use this stupid word!

Uptight

The dictionaries call "uptight" slang. But it does combine the
idea of "rigid" and the idea of "nervous", so it is a useful
word. I will try not to use "uptight" again, but I want to.

Usage

9 times out of 10, when people say "usage" they mean simply
"use". "Usage" refers to language. Recently, even your gas and
electric bills are inclined to mention "usage". Years ago they
never did.

Utilize

An unnecessary word, made to order for people who like longer
words. "Use" essentially covers all its meanings. "Employ" works
sometimes. A fellow worker once wrote to our supervisor, "I will
be spending the majority of my vacation at home. If you want to
utilize me you can locate me there." This guy was practically
illiterate, as you can see.

Venue

Science Daily said in December, "The Zika virus could be passed
between sexual partners in venues far from mosquito habitats."
"Venues" is stupid. Leave out "in venues" and you have a decent
sentence. A venue is a public place where transactions take
place. The word applies above all to courtrooms and trials, but
also to special events. Madison Square Garden is a venue for the
latter. It does not mean simply "place" or "location", and it
should not be used for concert halls or opera houses. The NY
Times Manual calls it "pretentious".

Verbs become nouns

I recently read in a reputable journal about "the world's total
spend on health care". Another verb has become a noun! This is
happening all the time, to the point where one expects the
language will lose the distinction entirely.

Nouns are being used as verbs, too. Only the latest dictionaries
mention "foreground" as a verb, so we don't allow it. I don't
like "detail" as a verb either. Both "message" and "text" are
strictly nouns; their use as verbs is new and no good in writing.
"Finesse", on the other hand, has long been both noun and verb,
though some of us still avoid the verb.

I just read a news item about "President Obama's last ask", and
on a website I read "If you plan to hotel in Manhattan..."
Sometimes writers in our field talk about "a great listen"rConot in
ARG. Nor would we call a book a "great read".

From reading magazines I note that "transitioned" has now
replaced "morphed" as the trendy word for "changed" or "became"
or "turned into" (see Jan/Feb 2016: 177). Well, I was getting
sick of "morphed", but "transition" is not a verb.

Our internet server tells us that they now "calendar" for their
customers. Economist recently used "baseline" as a verb.
("Headline" is also used as a verb.) Science Daily referred
(redundantly and bureaucratically) to "a study that probes"
instead of simply "a study of". "Probe" is a favorite journalism
cliche that started out as a noun with a rather specific meaning.
Thanks to the computer industry, a lot of these technical words
are taking over from better traditional words.

We have made a list of other nouns that are often used as verbs
(beyond the above): floor (as in "floored the orchestra's
fundraising campaign"), zero, access, leverage, source,
reference, bookend, background, showcase, gift, favorite,
privilege, parent.

Ray Hassard reports that "platform" is a verb now on the Long
Island Railroad. English is degenerating into Chinese.

Viral

The computer world has used this word a lot. A computer can have
a "virus"rCothat's not good. But when something catches on fast in
"social media" it is also called "viral", even if it's good.
That's odd, because in any other context when you catch a virus
or when something spreads like a virus, it is not a happy thing.

Publicity now turns up daily in our office bragging about a
"viral musician"rComeaning, I guess, that he or she is catching on
fast with the public (is "the latest thing"). I have grave doubts
about this usage; if we keep using words to mean the opposite of
what they used to mean ("edgy" is another example), how are we
going to communicate meaning?

In 1970 the dictionary had one simple definition for this word:
"caused by a virus". A virus was of course an evil thing that
produced purely negative symptoms of illness and disability.
Viruses also spread very quickly, as in colds and flu. No one
wanted a virus.

Then came the computer virus. It was also evil and disruptive,
and no one wanted it either.

Today's publicity people use "viral" to mean "the latest thing
that is catching on all over the place". Maybe it's an
appropriate word, because it warns some of us offrCowhy would we be
the slightest bit interested in anything "viral"? But they mean
it as a complimentrCoas an incentive to conform. Of course, it
doesn't mean that, and why would anyone choose the word "viral"
to lure people? One might as well choose "gangrenous".

Virgule

The virgule is the slash: /. It is miserably overused today. We
often see it in place of "and" or "or" ("Jennie Jones,
accordion/piano", "a work for wohu/orchestra") and often in place
of a comma ("Ragnar Sumquist/arr Nelson"). These are simply wrong
and irritate some of us a great deal. In music writing you
sometimes see it in "Op. 12/6", where a colon is correct (Op.
12:6). It is used in place of many traditional punctuations,
including the simple hyphen and dash. Garner's book on usage says
"There's almost always a better choice...use it as a last
resort." Its main use in ARG is to mean "conducted by"rCosimply our conventionrCoor in naming our issues: May/June.

Virtual

The word means in effect though not in fact. In other words, it
means artificial and not real. "Virtual" concerts are not real
concerts because the audience is not there for the musicians to
respond to and stimulate. "Virtual" church services are not the
communal worship that Jewish and Christian people require. If the
people aren't there there is no worship; if the people aren't
there there is no concert.

We recently read an offer for a "virtual artist in residence". Of
course, that is logically impossible: if you are not there you
are simply not "in residence".

Virtuoso

This is a noun, not an adjective; but recent usage has been
adjectival: a virtuoso cellist, a virtuoso piece, etc. The
correct adjective is "virtuosic". We are witnessing the loss of
parts of speech everywhere; verbs even become nouns, because
people don't know the difference.

Vogue

"She vogued around the streets of Soho." So said an English
magazine. Since when is "vogue" a verb? We are witnessing the
loss of the distinction between verbs and nouns, between
adjectives and nouns. In fact, a whole generation of people knows
nothing about "parts of speech". It is thus no surprise that the
language is dying.

In French, "voguer" means to row or float, as in a boat. Maybe
that writer was raised by French parents? But it was printed in
an English magazine.

I am told that to "vogue" is to strike poses, like a fashion
model. I'll bet dictionary editors are lining up to be the first
to accept it.

Way in which

"The way in which" is not wrong; it is simply stuffy and
unnecessary. Healthy substitutes are "how", "that", and "the
way".

What you can't say

There is an ever-growing list of things you cannot say. Ignore
it. Say what you think (but say it grammatically!). Freedom of
speech is more important than "political correctness" and
requires more openness and frankness. We must not lose that.

Who and Whom

It is easiest to dispose of "whoever" and "whomever" first. "We
offer free transportation to whomever would like to go" is wrong.
Most writers get it wrong. "Whoever would like to go" is the
clause, so "whoever" must be nominative. "Who shall I say is
calling" is correct: you wouldn't say "whom is calling".

Within

A magazine tells us that "to advertise within the classified
section, contact..." A building at the university has a sign: "No
smoking within this building". Why "within"? What's wrong with
"in"? Perhaps some people just think longer words are more
impressive than shorter ones. The opposite is true: simplicity is
true elegance. "In" should replace within, during, throughout,
and many other words. "At" should also be used more.

The two longer words carry different connotations. "Within"
connotes confinement (means "confined to"rCoboundaries). Russian
children were taught to sing that Lenin lives within their
hearts. Outside their hearts he is dead, and they have probably
seen his preserved body in the mausoleum. "During" also implies
confinement, but in time, not place. "In" is the general word and
usually preferable to the other two.

One reason English is such a rich language is the existence of
many words with close but distinct meanings and connotations.
Unfortunately, most speakers and writers today don't know those
distinctions. Their choice of words depends on what's "in the
air" (commonly used) or most impressive (because longer).

Wizened

This word means shriveled and dried up. Prunes are wizened plums.
Applied to very old men and women it is hardly a compliment! Yet
some people seem to mean "wise" when they use "wizened". Just say
"wise".

Women as adjective

There's a lot of talk about "women composers"rCoall ungrammatical.
"Woman" cannot be an adjective. It has to be either "female
composers" or "composers who are women".

Woke

This has always been a verb: the past tense of "wake". He told me
to wake him at 6; I woke him at 6. It has very recently become an
adjective in "trendy" usage (slang). People are described as
"woke", probably because "awakened" seems like an awfully long
word and "enlightened" too "elitist".

Zero

I had a 4th Grade teacher who wanted us to use "nought" instead
of "zero". But since she was born in the 19th Century (as were
all my teachers up to that point) she had no idea how "zero"
would take over from other words: no, none, nothing, nil, lowest
point, gone, vanished, and so forth. You read it all the time,
and it's a typical case of a trendy word that is replacing
several others. One recent dictionary calls it "informal"rCojust
one notch above slang.

Two recent examples: a British politician said "The likelihood of
compromise is zero" instead of "no compromise is possible". A
magazine mentioned "zero connection" instead of no connection. It
is therefore best to avoid it. Even as a number you can avoid it:
you can say O. But in temperature (weather) you need "zero".

Word Police: Festival of Stupidities 1

(These "festivals" give examples of common language errors.)

From a major magazine:

"John Boehner was successfully elected to a third term as
speaker..." (Can one be unsuccessfully elected?)

"Travel conditions could be impacted by these conditions."

rCoUS Weather Service

"Minor flooding issues will be possible tonight".

rCosame

"Saudi Arabia won't scrap its alliance with the US anytime soon."
(What this means, apparently, is that Saudi Arabia is not about
to discontinue its alliance with the US. The original is from The
Week, an American magazine.)

"The bodies were eventually...transported to Kharkiv, where a
multinational forensics team examined them before being flown
back to the Netherlands." (Who was flown to the Netherlands?)

rCoThe Economist

From the local dentist: "You have an upcoming appointment..."
From an airline: "your upcoming trip is 10 days away."

From a state farmers' agency:

"The project is ongoing."

"We have pre-qualified this business to receive a loan of up to
two billion dollars."

rCophone robot

"As a reminder we would like to ask you to please turn off your
cell phones."

rCoweekly at symphony concerts. (How is turning off your cell phone
a reminder? A reminder of what? And, if you "would like to ask",
why not just ask?)

"We have been experiencing issues with our locks." Can "issues"
be experienced? What could locks possibly have to do with
"issues"? Signs like this (in a locker room at the Y) make one
wonder if there's a whole new language out there, replacing the
English we thought we knew. Everywhere we turn there are signs
and sentences that have no meaning at all in traditional English.
We can understand Shakespeare from centuries back, but it is hard
to understand many signs from right now.

An opera reviewer describes an "empathetic character" but
obviously means "sympathetic" (but that doesn't sound trendy).
Another refers to "filmic" scenes in an opera (cinematic). Yet
another routinely refers to the "onstage action" ("stage action"
or just plain "action" would do fine). A symphony reviewer says
"he brought vigorousness to the opening theme"!

From a local newspaper:

"Win tickets to an upcoming show!" (Well, they would hardly offer
tickets to a past show, would they?.) "District 30 is located
within Hamilton County."

From one May issue of The Economist:

"whose family included both collaborators, resisters and
bystanders." (both?)

"This ill-tempered, promiscuously focused election..."

"Few are enthused about this prospect."

The same magazine never gets "whoever" and "whomever" right.
Probably some of their writers are Americans, but the truth is
that the English don't do much better with the language than we
do. A recent book by a major English author (Peter Lovesey) says,
"The farmer insisted that they filled in the holes" and "We
insisted that it was authenticated by an expert"rComore examples of
the English inability to use the subjunctive. As it stands
neither sentence means what he obviously intended it to mean.

Any issue of The Economist will reveal their ignorance of the
subjunctive. This one is from early 2016: "It is important that
the government backs it". One assumes from that that the
government does so. But from the context it appears that it's
doubtful whether the government will back it. The subjunctive
would have made that clear.

The American website Science Daily failed in the same matter:
"Current guidelines recommend that saturated fats are limited to
less than 10%." "Recommend" requires the subjunctive, which would
be "be".

A further example of redundancy and pomposity from Economist:
"These people were looking for somewhere in which to practice
their faith."

"Carnegie Hall today announced that tenor Jonas Kaufmann must
regrettably cancel his upcoming recital scheduled for Sunday,
January 31...due to illness." (Carnegie Hall publicity has for
years been among the worst written.)

Under a painting at the Cincinnati Art Museum:

"The artist, throughout the majority of his career, lived in
Kyoto." What kind of illiteracy affects the people at the museum
that they cannot say "for most of his career"? Our children read
this in an art museum and assume it is good English! It is not
only horrible; it makes no sense if you understand words.

"Implement" is bureaucratese. Bureaucrats implement initiatives.

Speaking of bureaucratese, here's what Blue Cross says on their
phone system: "Please remain on the line while our customer
satisfaction advocate researches your inquiry."

"Prior to" is also bureaucratic. I recently read "prior to its
closure"; I am bright enough to realize that they meant "before
it closed", but why don't people say what they meanrCosay it
directly and simply?

"Major", like "very", is used way too often.

Recently Lang Lang was signed by Deutsche Grammophone. The press
release said that he is "the world's most impactful pianist" and
called him a "superstar". We are well aware that the big labels
are only interested in "superstars", but what does "the world's
most impactful pianist" mean?rCothat he bangs the poor instrument
harder than anybody else? What else could it mean? It's not
acceptable English!

One of our major orchestras advertised in their season booklet
that "First-time subscribers recieve a free parking pass." Yes!
What most of us learned in second grade has not been learned by
adults who work in important jobs for our orchestras: "I before
E, except after C..." (You would think that the computer spell
check would refuse to let it pass!)

The San Francisco Symphony press release of next season brags
about "immersive concert experiences". Do they realize what a
turn-off language like that is? How stupid it sounds to
well-educated people? In trying to be trendy, classical music
publicity people are alienating their actual, loyal audience.

Apollo's Fire advertised that they will perform "undiscovered
works of Vivaldi". One of our readers sent the comment, "If they
are undiscovered, how can they play them?"

"Repurpose" has become a popular verb. The words we used to use
were "adapt" or "convert"rCoperfectly adequate. "Repurpose" was not
in the dictionary until recently.

A local storage company advertises "free truck usage".

The weather service is now saying "partial cloudiness" instead of
the correct "partly cloudy". They also issue "hazardous weather
bulletins" (and alarms) that say (after listing two dozen
counties) "no hazardous weather is expected at this time". The
weather service has also been invaded by the "issues" nonsense,
as in "heavy rainfall will cause flooding issues". They even talk
about places that will "experience flooding issues". All of that
is so asinine I laugh uproariously every time they say it.

"We are experiencing intermittent technical issues" says the
Cincinnati Public Library. You would think librarians, of all
people, would know the language. But perhaps such notices are not
written by them but by "techies".

Still very common on the Internet is the superfluous
"successfully", as in "you have been successfully removed from
our list". Either I have been removed or I have not; the
"successfully" is stupid. (July/Aug 2013, p 191)

We are told that a certain artist "is set to release an upcoming
classical music album". People use that horrible word because it
is trendy, even when it is utterly unnecessary. A news magazine
referred to "countries that have upcoming elections". Why not
"countries about to have elections"? Or even "soon to have
elections"? "Soon" is one of the great words replaced everywhere
these days by "upcoming".

"Comprised of" is always wrong, yet it is very common these days
because no one seems to know (July/Aug 2005, p 113).

We recently got publicity announcing "our innovative new
programming series". Another one bragged about "our exciting,
innovative initiative".

When we wrote about "pre disease" (March/April 2013) we didn't
mention what has become the latest stupidity in that line:
"pre-recorded". Anything recorded played at a concert is now
called "pre-recorded". Almost anything with "pre" in front of it
gains by leaving that out. For example, you cannot "pre-board" an
airplane, even if every airline announces early boarding that
way. And you can't "pre-order" anything; you just order it.

We are seeing "plus" used instead of "and" in much writing
submitted to us. They are not interchangeable. For one thing,
"plus" does not have the conjunctive force of "and", so it does
not make the verb plural.

Language changes, they say. What mostly happens is that people
are stupid and lazy and don't bother to learn English, and their
mistakes catch on with millions of other people who also lazy and
ignorant. Should that be how language changes? The people who
should be policing and protecting the language have given up
(teachers, for example). It's hard to blame them; things are such
a mess! But it means the language is degenerating daily and
before our eyes. Someone in his 70s today has trouble
understanding someone in his 20srCoyet has almost no trouble
understanding Shakespeare and the King James Bible. This is not
normal language change! We are losing it; the pace of change is
out of control, and the language is becoming a mess.

Festival of Stupidities 2

The sheer quantity of material is overwhelming. The people who
write obviously can't. It just gets worse every day.

We were invited to a lecture by a visual artist on the subject
(our word; his was probably "issue") "The Diversity of Pastels".
The Concertgebouw Orchestra advertised a piece by a composer
whose music is "diverse". Science News tells us our brain is
"teeming with diversity". I have no idea what that could mean,
though I like to think my brain is versatile. The words people
use regularly tell you how little they think for themselves. They
think thoughts that are handed to them, fully phrased and
guaranteed to sound "with it", because it's the approved way of
thinking and talking.

"Walt Disney Concert Hall is one of four venues that comprise the
music center." That one sentence, from a travel magazine, has at
least two wrong usages.

"The platform was packed with people waiting to welcome Veronica
and I." (from an online newsletter).

A musician was described in her publicity as "a woman of
immersive passion". Does swimming thrill her?

Another publicist wrote about someone "who's latest CD is..."

Nouns used as verbs: party, soundtrack (publicity: "The music is
used to soundtrack her life's story.") "Threatening to find a
candidate to primary the latter" (The Week).

Verbs used as nouns: build (Habitat for Humanity: "join us in a
home build"rCoand, by the way, you can't "build" (verb) a
"home"rCoonly a house). From a software company: "Here is the next
step for your install." About a Hollywood star: "Her reveal was
shocking." On the web, "This invite will expire in 24 hours". A
request is now an "ask"; an expense is a "spend".

Manipulating the pulses of electrical activity in the thalamus
during non-REM sleep make mice remember or forget. (Science Daily
in July). Apparently people can no longer figure out what is the
subject of a sentence. Here it's "manipulating", so the verb must
be "makes", not "make". It is shocking that we have to explain
this to supposedly educated adults.

"Six troops were injured, three of them seriously" said The Week
in August. "Troop" is a collective noun, like "band". It is clear
from the context that six soldiers were injured, not six troops.

"We express our sincere condolences to the two people who lost
their lives and their families." That's what NARP said in their
newsletter (National Association of Railroad Passengers). The
sentence is ungrammatical and ambiguous. Did two people lose
their families? It seems to me that if they lost their lives,
their families lost them. And how can you give condolences to
dead people? And it is wrong to describe your own feelings as
"sincere"; that's for others to decide. But NARP is normally
pretty ungrammatical in their weekly newsletter.

Another transit article said "we are focused on the importance of
improving the functionality first". (bureaucratic gobbledygook)

Amtrak has appointed someone to be "responsible for the
advancement of information security awareness, governance and
processes".

Again about railroads, we are told that the building of a new
line "will relieve traffic issues". Even "problems" would be too
general, when we have the word "congestion".

A report on construction says, "The work has run smoothly with
little to no issue." What can that mean? No results?

A politician talked about "a stark comparative contrast".

The Boston Symphony in September announced "a new innovative
community engagement program". Both new and innovative! Wow!
(It's the same old stuff, of course.) Some publicists add the
word "ground-breaking".

Opera News sent an e-mail inviting us to "experience Opera News".
Isn't it enough just to read it?

A writer in the Washington Post in October told us people are
afraid of what someone will "share" in court.

A hotel restaurant tells us they commissioned someone to "create
signature recipes". Next they will be creating new traditions.

From Science News: "Dark matter still remains elusive."

National Geographic tells of "a curated tour of daily North
Korean life". Is that what used to be called a "guided tour"? Or
maybe it is a carefully planned tour. But "curated"? Trendy.

Economist continues to fail Punctuation 101: "If the tax laws
change Tim Cook, Apple's boss should wind down the structure..."
The same magazine recently asked if something was "politically
doable". Yuck!

I can only conclude that by failing to teach English to a whole
generation of people (here and in England!) we have failed to
pass on a great thingrCoand as a result, people who are writing for
public consumption are destroying the language.

Festival of Stupidities 3

UCLA announced a concert "featuring Legacy artists" like Joan
Baez. In a major article TV and movies were called "legacy
media". "Legacy" (as an adjective, no less!) is starting to turn
up in publicity, where it apparently means "old".

I am reading a good new mystery series from an American writer;
it takes place in Greece. The Greeks all use American slang. They
even "share" instead of talk, "convince" each other to do things
instead of persuade, and say "damnit" instead of dammit. They use
"in synch" and "diverse" (the latter where it's superfluous).
They are always "aggravated" instead of annoyed, they are
"disinterested" instead of not interested, they have "money
issues", they mention "one of the only", and they almost never
use the subjunctive where they should. The writer has no idea
when to use "whoever" versus "whomever", though he taught writing
at a US college. In the first book in the series he complains
that the sunset came "a might too quickly"! His books are very
entertaining, but even good writers don't seem to understand the
language these days. The editing and proofing is apparently done
by computer. And people ask me why I read almost no mysteries or
novels from after 1960.

American Express: "your top month of spend". Publicity title:
"New Announce". "Add" instead of "addition". People don't know a
noun from a verb anymore.

Cincinnati newspaper headline in March: "Aquarium Let's People
In". On the website that was "corrected" to "Newport's
Aquarium's". Well, at least they moved the apostrophe aroundrCobut
obviously the writer has no idea where it belongs. And, as usual,
there is no editor or proofreader.

"Fading La Nina May Queue Up Enhanced Severe Weather Risk for
Southern Plains." (online weather report) Grammatically, what
could this mean? The idea seems to be that the fading thing may
lead to severe weather, but why couldn't they say that? How do
you "queue up" a "weather risk"?

"Her upcoming recordings include" (common in publicity we get
here) should be simply "her recordings will include". People are
increasingly unable to conjugate verbs. And "will" indicates
future, so "upcoming" is redundant. "He will perform at the
upcoming royal wedding" is just plain stupid. Would you say he
"will perform" at a past wedding? The word "upcoming" makes me
sick.

Publicity: "a thoughtfully innovative conductor...who is focused
on making the audience experience at his performances
entertaining, enlightening, and enriching".

"Growing up in Northern Kentucky, my grandfather used to take me
for walks around town." (Internet) WHO grew up in Northern
Kentucky?

"German violin soloist David Garrett has cancelled four more
upcoming performances due to an ongoing herniated disc issue in
his back." rCoThe Violin Channel

Later the same website told us it was "an ongoing back injury".
Later still they reported it as "due to his ongoing lower back
issue". I understand "his" and "lower back", but the rest is
nonsense (due to, upcoming, ongoing, and issue). Certainly an
"injury" is not an "ongoing" thing. The person who wrote this
can't writerCocan't write at all and should be fired.

Word Police: short takes

We have published lists of meaningless generalities used all the
time in publicityrCothings like "innovative". We left out
"provocative", also a vastly overused attention-getter. Another
one is "exclusive". We get an "exclusive" offer every week from
the same company, which sends that same offer to millions of
people. It is NOT exclusive if no one is excluded.

"Intensive" is often used when "intense" is meantrCoanother example
of "always use the bigger word", just like "distinctive" instead
of "distinct".

We got publicity from England about a piece of music that is
"passionately performed by [a] children's choir". Intensely?
Powerfully? With enthusiasm? NOT passionately!

Other publicity tells us about a musician's "mega birthday bash".

"Large waves churned by Hurricane Florence pounds North Carolina
coast." rCoAccuWeather

Opera News tells us repeatedly that a conductor "paces" a
concert. A new cliche is born!

The New York Baroque recently advertised a concert called #Bach.

"You don't have to make a big investment to impact a big change."
(interview in a local paper)

Students at local colleges were told recently to eat something so
they can "power through" their exams.

We have complained before about "venue" (July/Aug 2017). It is
pompous for "place", just as "prior to" is pompous for "before".
In both cases pompous has triumphedrCoit's everywhere.

We have also complained about "segue". "Sugued to" is routinely
used instead of "moved on to".

I keep getting ads encouraging me to "pre-order" stuff. But no
one can "pre-order" anything; an order is an order. (Neither can
you "pre-board" a plane.)

"Major", like "very", is used way too often.

"Comprised of" is always wrong, yet it is very common these days
because no one seems to know.

Often "insights" should be "clues" or "indications". Other words
that "insights" has taken over for are thoughts, ideas,
conclusions, perceptionsrCowell, there are dozens.

The word "hearken" (also spelled "harken") has nothing to do with
the past. It just means "listen".

"Fulsome" praise is insincere, not abundant.

"Proven" should normally be "proved". The only clear exception is
in legal usage, as in "not proven".

"Impact" has completely replaced "effect" in popular speech and
writingrCoand it's terrible.

"The way in which" is stuffy.

"Upcoming" is never right and usually redundant.

People routinely write that so-and-so is not about to do
such-and-such "anytime soon". It is redundant (twice redundant in
that sentence) and a miserable cliche.

"Prior approval", heard all the time in pharmacies, is also
redundant.

Everyone seems to prefer "prior to" to "before", but it's stuffy
and legal-soundingrCoand "before you go" is so much better than
"prior to going".

"Exclusive" is used a lot to impress consumers, but you can be
sure that it is a lie.

Pompous executives love to call themselves "President and CEO".
Why? It's redundant; the president of any company simply is the
chief executive officerrCoby definition.

"Zero" is often used now to mean "no" or "none" (as in the
now-popular "zero tolerance"). That is called "informal" in
dictionaries, not to be used in writing. "Its impact is zero"
should be something like, "It has no effect." The word is also
used as a verb these days.

Stupidity Festival 4

"Upcoming Events in 2019" (DG publicity in January)

"This weekend's upcoming concerts" (orchestra)

"Your upcoming trip is in two weeks" (airline)

"Upcoming opportunities" (a graduate school)

"Announcing our upcoming workshop" (publicity)

Every day we read that ridiculous and unnecessary word. Why do
people use it? They obviously don't think about it.

Another meaningless word is "exclusive". It is used too much, and
quite often it cannot possibly mean anything at all in the
context. It has become just a "sales word" to stir interest.
Words that are used too much lose meaning, especially if the
writer doesn't know what they mean in the first place.

"Their discussion focused on..." (They discussed)

"The government had our back"rCoa Chinese person. It's a slang
American expression (from sports?), but many of us don't know
what it means.

Speaking of government, a report published nationally in March
told us of a 2020 budget request that was "dropped this week"
(meaning submitted) and "includes big asks" (requests).

"About your issue", read recently, should be "about your point"
(it was referring to a discussion). Thus "issue" replaces yet
another word. A best-selling author of Victorian-period mysteries
has "issue" on almost every page in one of her latest. No one a
few years ago (not even she) would have used that word that often
and that way (to mean affair, matter, even "case")rCocertainly not
Victorians!

A mail piece from one of my graduate schools offers me a chance
to "operationalize" my knowledge. There is no such word.

An artist in Youngstown, Ohio has been praised for "rebranding"
the city. Apart from cowboys, is "brand" a verb? The Cincinnati
Symphony also has a new "brand": CSO Proof. Very silly.

A local church told us to "calendar" February 10.

A travel website promises us "the secret of sourcing the cheapest
flights". "Source", which is not a verb, has come to mean "find".
What was wrong with "find"? Who needs "source"?

We continue to see more use of the newly invented and utterly
unnecessary noun, "hack", to mean hint or tip. Trendy usages
catch on very fast and turn up everywhere. Six months ago it was
very rare.

Economist magazine continues to confuse who and whom. In February
they write about "giving a federal job to whomever wants one".
"Whomever" is incorrect. Would you say "whom wants one"?

The Economist also uses the English "woke" where other English
speakers would say "enlightened" ("his attitude is not exactly
woke"). And they don't know the subjunctive. But the EnglishrCoeven
otherwise good writersrComostly haven't used the subjunctive in 40
or 50 years. That's too bad, because without it there is
ambiguity.

From an orchestra marketing department: "one of the ultimate" and
"Mozart's innovative Symphony 39". These people pull adjectives
out of a hat and simply throw them at music. They don't know the
music, and they don't know what the words mean. This is the
current standard. None of these people deserve their jobs; they
are ignorant and stupid. None of them can write. Why were they
hired to do that?

We have begun to see "hate on" in place of "hate". "Don't be
hating on me!"

Don O'Connor passes along the words of a TV commentator
discussing "a secretive air base". An air base cannot be
"secretive". Only people canrCoand some animals.

A local paper discusses "bus stop usage". There is no such thing.

The same paper calls a local pub "as chill as they come".

Boston Lyric Opera says that its first Pagliacci "will be
presented as an immersive community experience". Gobbledygook.

We see more and more publicity that uses it's for its. No one in
my third grade class would have done that.

Festival of Stupidities 5

(This reminds us of things we have covered in Word Police
blurbsrCoand also reminds us that Word Police are more needed than
ever.)

"One in five deaths are attributable..." (Science Daily)

Science Daily also told us about how the Venus Fly Trap
"successfully captures its prey".

The same source tells us about "carefully curated tissue
samples"; a few years ago they would have used "chosen" or
"selected".

We often read "reign in" for "rein in".

"Feedback" is a pretentious word for comment or response. One
gets requests for "feedback" every day, and they are terrible
time-wasters.

We have recently seen (in a book, too!) the miserable
"problematic" (Nov/Dec 2014) used as a noun. (The adjective is
everywhere.) Perhaps "problem" is too simple?

Samples from an Oregon Shakespeare Festival announcement: OSF's
2020 Season Revealed

As Rauch began the reveal, Garrett, who was seated alongside,
asked Rauch to sit down. Rauch's familiar toothy grin gave way to
a guffaw as he noted Garrett's superb, demonstrated
qualifications as a director, and the two continued the reveal
from seated positions.

Also: caused them both to be more intentional

Later: theater initiative to surface new and marginalized voices.

From the local cathedral, both in April:

"for she and her family"

"challenge you and I"

Apparently even well-educated people don't know simple grammar.

It has finally happened. The Weather Service has committed many
language crimes, including areas or land "experiencing flooding
issues". But now they have (partly) abandoned the traditional
"partly cloudy" for the vastly inferior "partial cloudiness".
Everyone these days thinks in nouns. And "partial" is ambivalent.
(How can clouds be partial?)

"Persons should be alert for thunderstorms" apparently means
there may be thunderstorms. But why "persons"? The plural of
persons is people. And I always thought you could hear a
thunderstorm. It doesn't require much alertness. "The impacted
area includes" means covering the area of (or affecting). No one
at the weather service speaks English.

Appearing now at Cincinnati crosswalks: "STOP for pedestrians
within the crosswalk". Why "within"? What's wrong with "in"? One
hears the same thing in speech quite often: "during" or "within"
in place of the simple "in". But it's especially silly on signs
made to be grasped instantly by drivers.

In Economist magazine: "This time...it looks as if this time is
different." The same article talks about a politician "pumping
the breaks". In another issue, "In the years to come...in the
coming years". Certainly that magazine can afford editors and
proofreaders. The writing gets worse every issue.

Nouns used as verbs recently:

A woman used her daughter's "distress to guilt a school into
admitting her" though she had failed the entrance exams.

We were told that President Nixon "tasked the EPA with protecting
Americans' health and the environment". He never heard of the
word.

A major publicity firm announced a "weekend intensive for
showcase producing". What could that possibly mean? "Intensive"
is not a noun in any dictionary, for one thing. And how does one
"produce" showcases? And what is a showcase?

A major book publisher just sent us publicity for "books that may
peak your interest".

Recent publicity for a musician called her "awe-inspiring". Well,
"awe" involves respect and reverence mixed with dread and wonder;
it applies to things majestic, such as God. No musician is
awe-inspiring; they are just human beings of great talent and
ability. Even the latest dictionaries call "awesome" slang, so I
guess publicity people are settling for "awe-inspiring".
Festival of Stupidities 6

In a recent magazine article "confirmation bias" is defined as
"curating evidence to fit preconceptions". That's a new usage of
a "trendy" word (curating). We used to say picking or choosing,
selecting or gathering. Slang is replacing many plainer, more
exact English words and expressions.

Another instance was "your exclusive invite" (so it was headed)
from a major art museum in New England. "Invite" is not a noun,
except in slang. The invitation was sent to hundreds or thousands
of people all over the country, so it was NOT exclusive. In fact,
it was publicity, which is by definition the opposite of
exclusive. I might add that the museum itself cannot be very
"exclusive" if the people there don't know the language.

A major website acknowledged my "accept" (acceptance)rCoanother
verb used as a nounrCothe distinction is fading, because people
cannot learn itrCoor simply will not. Other popular ones are
"reveal", "send", and "ask". 20 years ago no one used them as
nouns.

Economist tells us something was "trialled". "Trial" is a noun,
not a verb. "Try" is the verb.

The Cincinnati airport tells us that the approach road is
"experiencing changes"! "Experience" is horribly clichedrCoa common
verb of choice, vague enough to cover almost anythingrCobut,
really, can a road experience anything? It also sounds
fashionably passive. The truth is, "We are changing the road." I
guess that's too direct.

The state of Ohio sent us an announcement of their new
unemployment insurance system. It "will provide a user-friendly,
self-service experience, tailored to meet the needs of claimants
and employers alike". It includes "multiple payment options". I
guess it's too much to expect anything but propaganda and cliches
from a state government. (It is also normal for such changesrCofrom
any bureaucracyrCoto make everything worse and more complicated
rather than better and simpler.) Sometimes I wonder if Americans
in general would even understand real English. Maybe not.

Even the YMCA where I do some of my swimming has propaganda signs
on every wall, pushing politically correct thoughts and
terminology. Wherever we look we are being told what to think.
Television remains extremely destructive of free thought and of
language. For a long time it has been unbearable to people who
think for themselves.

One rule of politics is "if you can't convince people, confuse
them." That works very well these days. Make a lot of noise about
anything and everythingrCoit doesn't matter if it's completely
irrational. It doesn't matter if it contradicts what you said
last weekrCoin fact, that adds to the confusion.

The weather service increasingly falls back on "partly sunny" on
perfectly clear days, in case they missed a wisp of cloud
somewhere. They claim to have an "unmanned" (may we still say
that?) station at the airport. Unfortunately, just west of the
airport is a power plant that projects some white steam most of
the time. Their cameras must think that is a cloud. As a result,
Cincinnati's official weather records have been wrong for years.
There are far more cloudless days than they think there are. This
is a sunny place.

"Stephane Deneve and the St Louis Symphony share details for the
2019-20 season." Share? Are they going to tell us the details, or
is it just between the conductor and the musicians?

Orchestra publicity people routinely say that a conductor has
cancelled or withdrawn "due to health issues". If he is ill, why
not say so? Both "due to" and "issues" are bad usage.

In one recent issue of Economist "primary" was used as a verb,
which it's not. Also: "incautious" and "unserious". But the major
problem with that magazine is the use of British slang in every
issuerCotheir writers love slang. Sometimes one has no idea what
they mean.

Another typical Economist error is the dangling participle. See
if you can make sense of this sentence: "Rundown by the 1980s,
developers began snatching up properties." Grammar declares that
developers were run down, but if you go back to the beginning of
the article you will figure out that "rundown" refers to a place.

Recent CBC publicity described a classical singer as an "opera
rock star". It would seem that "rock star" means the brightest
star in the firmament, and there can be no greater compliment to
a singer! The publicist seems unaware that anyone who cares about
opera despises "rock stars".

A local newspaper, part of a big national chain, described an
event as full of "joyness and excitement". Joyness? That's as bad
as "hopefulness".

The Met Opera advertizes: "Madama Butterfly encores in a theatre
near you." "Encore" as a verb means "to request an encore". How
does Madame Butterfly do that? An audience can do that at the end
of a concert. A work of music cannot do it; nor can a performer.
If they mean "returns to", why not say that?

"In Denmark 40% of all journeys to school and work transpire by
bicycle." (New York Times in November) Journeys cannot
"transpire". What on earth could that mean? "Transpire" means
come to light, become known. They could have said "are" or "were"
or even "happened". One dictionary calls "transpired" "pompous"
in such a context.

An ad: "One single hack can improve your memory." What on earth
are they talking about? Stupidities 7

Chicago's Ravinia Festival has announced a "Curator"rCoMarin Alsop.

The Portland, Oregon piano series announced that Vladimir
Feltsman would be their "Guest Curator" for the next season. The
New York Philharmonic in the new season folder calls series
subscriptions "Curated Series". (Shark meat?) In case you don't
keep up with arts slang, it means Artistic Director. Orchestras
and music festivals cannot have a curatorrCoonly museums can. A
curator oversees a permanent collection of art works, not a
series of concerts. Carnegie Hall publicity expands the meaning
of the word further: they tell us that a concert is "curated by".
A concert cannot be curated any more than a festival can. They
are planned.

An opera company that has been called "a hotbed of innovation"
and seems to like that has announced for next season "a wide
variety of operatic happenings at multiple venues" [eek!].

Opera companies in their ads increasingly refer to things like
"Mozart's The Magic Flute". (The Met does this routinely.)
Publicity people do not know the simple grammatical rule that the
possessive deletes the article. There seem to be no editors
anymore to correct the increasingly stupid speaking and
(therefore) writing that our newspapers and other media subject
us to.

Festival 8: Trendy Words, or The State of Journalism

The US Weather Service recently told everyone after predicting
rain that "there may be flooding issues". That is illiterate.
They simply meant "there may be flooding". What has "issues" to
do with it? I guess they simply have to use trendy words. Or
maybe they want to sound like TV weather people. Everyone, it
seems, imitates TV. Pitiful! (But predictable: people don't
think. TV does their thinking for themrCoeven sets their
vocabulary.)

The Week tells us that an aircraft "had experienced engine
issues". Can an airplane "experience" anything? And what are
"issues"? An online article talked about loans that experienced
default. Again, can a loan experience anything? How stupid and
illogical this kind of talk isrCobut it's everywhere. Often the use
of "There is (or were)" would get rid of itrCoor a simple "had" or
"got". The airplane had engine problems.

We were told in one respectable news source that politicians were
about to "crater" a programrCoI guess they mean, drastically reduce
it. "Crater" is not a verb, and dictionaries still call its use
as a verb "slang". Its transitive use is not even recognized; a
program can "crater" (slang for decline), but one cannot crater a
program.

Speaking of politics, the newspeople have a specialized jargon.
One has read about an effort to "flip a blue state". What does
that mean? It is jargon, not plain English. And one article told
how a party was trying to "grow their majority". That makes no
sense. You can grow vegetables, and you can even grow a beard;
but you can only increase or add to your majority (or reduce it).

Everyone under a certain age uses "majority" instead of "most". A
science website tells us that "the majority of the canyon..." The
weather service says "high pressure will keep the majority of the
area sunny". One more example: The New York Times says two
British "royals" want to "spend the majority of their time in
North America". 51% or more? (The correct word is again "most".)
This is as pitiful as the "multiple" disease (instead of several,
a few, many, etc). The latest instances of that were "multiple
times" instead of "often", "multiple locations" instead of "many
places", and "multiple people" (egad!).

Language is impoverished by this sort of thingrCoand it's obvious
that the people who write it have an impoverished vocabulary.

Times again: "The bodies of two troops..." They mean two
soldiers. A troop is a group.

Again: bodies "laying on the ground". Eggs? Were they hens?

Again: "Single use blood testing devices were used on multiple
people." What a miserable sentence!

The same website tells us that some people are "experiencing
bloodclot issues". Dreadful trendy slang.

A sentence (Times) tells about donating a donation. Such
redundancies are written by dunderheadsrCoyet very common. They
figure if people can give a gift (nowadays, "gift a gift") they
can reasonably donate a donation. One can even read about the
reception someone receivedrCoin those words.

A magazine had a book review and a wine review on the same page.
We were told the book was "a great read" and the wine "a great
pour". Music reviews routinely call a CD "a great listen". That
one is turning up in recent dictionaries. "Listen" was not a noun
in the past. We are apparently losing the distinction between
verbs and nouns. "Write" and "reveal" and "invite" are used as
nouns, too, these days. The news media recently referred to "the
president's asks". Illiterate.

Economist magazine routinely uses "rubbish" and "bin" as verbs.
"Bin" is used that way all over Britain. Every trash barrel says
"bin your trash" or "bin your rubbish", but to rubbish an idea
seems new, if perhaps a natural next stage of degeneration.
Another article talks about Moscow "experiencing a terrorist
attack". They meant to say "Moscow under a terrorist attack".

Back to the NY Times: "ironicity" meaning "irony" and "tell" as a
noun. The first is part of the current pattern of making
adjectives into nouns by adding suffixesrColike "gracefulness" (out
of "graceful") instead of "grace". The only legitimate use of
"tell" as a noun is in the field of archeology. But people no
longer understand the distinction between verbs and nouns. The
simplest grammatical rules elude them. That is partly because we
are not teaching grammarrCoand that is partly because it might
damage some tender students' "self-esteem" to be told that the
way they talk and write is wrong. (So, obviously, political
correctness contributes to the degeneration of our language.)

NY Times redundancy (website): "an annual Covid-19 shot once a
year".

Also NY Times (badly edited these days): In March President Biden
was to "deliver an address commemorating the anniversary of the
pandemic". But to commemorate something is to honor it.

A magazine that I get referred recently on its web site to "a
government statistical release dropped today". We used to say,
"statistics the government announced (or released) today". A
release was dropped? Where does such a bizarre construction come
from? Are they trying to avoid saying that a release was
released?

"I want to reach out to you personally"rCothose are the first words
of an email sent to millions of people by the CEO of an airline
(about the virus). Pure nonsense.

On another website, "I want to talk to whomever is in charge." Of
course that should "whoever" (Sept/Oct 2013), but people go to
great lengths to show that they know grammarrCoand thus reveal that
they don't. "Whoever" is the subject of the clause. Would you say
"him is in charge"?

Computer World: "Tips for the curation of your posts"
(curation??)

"the frequency in which you receive them" (Once we would have
said "how often you get them"rCoand that is correct.)

"There will be no demand for replacement planes on the horizon."
This is not credible. On some horizon, some day, there may be
such a demand. They mean that there isn't now. The Weather
Service often says "Tomorrow there will be the possibility of
showers." Same error, reallyrCoredundant future. "Showers are
possible tomorrow" is correct.

This started many years ago, when English teachers decided not to
teach grammar. (see Dumbing Down, 1996, edited by Katharine
Washburn)

One very good magazine talks constantly about "providing
insights". They mean just plain "ideas" or "help us understand".

I like to read historical novels, partly because every one of
them eventually commits a prolepsis or a linguistic anachronism.
The people who write them seem unaware that many of their
expressions did not exist in the period they are writing about.
The most recent example I saw is the use of "venue" to mean
simply "place" in a novel that supposedly takes place in the
mid-19th Century. (In fact, people never said that in the
mid-20th Century either, and in the 1970 dictionary "venue" is
essentially a legal term.)

A magazine that I like very much (The American Prospect) has a
writer who doesn't know English. He thinks "disinterested" means
"not interested". He talks about "one of the only things we
should be thinking about" and getting the new vaccines "to every
corner of the globe". Can a globe have corners? Another sentence
from their website: "Nobody would no." He referred to "a
potentially impactful contagion". He commented that "the power of
the New Deal lied in industrial development". This is a good
magazine, but apparently no one edits the website writer, who
doesn't know the language. There are bloopers like this almost
every day.

The Wall Street Journal actually published this miserable
sentence: "The curators have succeeded masterfully."

NBC News called a criminal "America's most prolific serial
killer". Odd usage: "prolific" is generally a positive word and
pro-life.

We increasingly see mistakes that spell-checkers cannot catch. An
example is "lead" instead of "led". In a major newspaper we saw
"in" where they meant "is".

USA Today tells us that in Australia cockatoos are "a protective
species".

In a New York Times briefing "we're covering the Johnson &
Johnson vaccine, President Biden's climate goals and spring
gardening tips." I'm so glad we finally have a president who
passes along gardening tips. (At least they didn't call them
"hacks".) Sentences like that simply demand a serial comma.

Also NY Times: "the investigation remains ongoing". They mean
"continues" or "they are investigating". Bad writers resort all
the time to the "noun is adjective" kind of sentence, when all
they really need is a decent verb.

The same web site tells us that "these 12 recipes are great for
outdoor hangs". What is an outdoor hang? Is this short for
"hanging around outdoors"? If so, it's not in the dictionary.

In recent written weather report we were told that a "hurricane
was attributed to one fatality".

Stupidities 9: publicity

Summer publicity promotes "an immersive walk-through experience",
and a few minutes later "an in-home hi/lo-tech experience".

The 1970 dictionary defined "campus" as "the grounds of a school
or college". In 2020 we got publicity that said "the Lincoln
Center Campus" had suspended public performances for the rest of
March "to prioritize the health of our communities". No one my
age could think of Lincoln Center as a "campus", and none of us
would use that miserable word "prioritize", either. As any good
usage book will tell you, "prioritize" smells of bureaucracy.

A publicity notice told us about a famous actor who "commentates
a film documentary". (Obviously an illegitimate back-formation
from "commentator". But note that the latest dictionaries accept
it.)

"The process of compromise achieved from our diversity as
individual artists can create deeply impactful experiences for
our audiences." rCoan all-white musical group, promoting their
concert (Ah, but some of them are women!)

From liner notes: "Originally written for string quartet, the
composer always believed that (it) could be reorchestrated and
expanded". So the composer was written. This kind of stupid
sentence is everywhere now. All it needs is "it was" at the
beginning and "but" after the comma to be rational. Apparently no
one edits liner notes.

From an obituary: "He died sadly..." How do they know how he felt
about dying? Maybe he was glad to be free of this miserable
world. What they were trying to say was that it is sad for us
that he has diedrCoand that's not at all the way to say it.

Statement from a medical school about the new virus: "The
evidence for these measures are not as strong as we would like it
to be."

Festival of Stupidities 10

When did "share" come to mean "tell" or "pass along"? Why do
people write "focus" all the time?rCoas in "focus their energy on"
instead of "direct their energy to" and "our focus is" for "We
are trying to". Why do people "experience growth"? Why don't they
just "grow"? "Experience" has come to replace see, hear, have,
etc. Why? Inanimate things are even said to "experience" stuff.

As one of our writers said to me, "An entire nation is starting
to talk like 11-year-old girls." (And write!)

Economist routinely and repeatedly refers to innoculations as
"jabs". Many of the writers in that magazine take pride in their
use of slang. Why?

Good grammar and usage are apparently considered "elitist" in the
USA as well. Editors (if they exist) are allowing bad English all
the time, especially if it reflects the way people talk. Once
upon a time they corrected mistakes, even in quoting someone.

Why do the media consider "primary" a verb? Musical America
recently used "farewell" as a transitive verb. Apparently any
noun can become a verb these days. Language is becoming a
free-for-all.

Transitive and intransitive verbs are confused now. An English
novel talks about "progressing" the cause. You can't progress
anything; it's intransitive.

Verbs also freely become nouns. The Economist referred to a
budget request as "a much bigger ask". Since when is "ask" a
noun? "Tell" is used the same way.

Why do people say "need to access" when "need access to" is as
simple and actually correct?

Why "school closures" when they mean "school closings"?

I read a lotrCo4 or 5 books a week. It is obvious when a book was
written from its usages. Even authors whose books I like
routinely use "usage" for use, "convince" for persuade,
"multiple" and "focus" in place of a dozen better words.
"Multiple" is vague and doesn't tell you whether it's 2 or 100.
Why do people use it? Why did we read recently in a weather
report that water was "multiple feet deep"? How stupid that
sounds! Even "a few" or "several" is better, but "4 or 5 feet
deep" would tell the reader much more. And we too often read
"multiple times" for "often".

Another common error is "to whomever..." "I want to speak to
whoever is in charge" is correct. The last 4 words are a clause,
and the subject must be nominative.

"Within" is very popular now; people always seem to prefer bigger
words to smaller ones, and we've seen "within" replace not only
"in" but also "at". People also use "during" instead of "in" and
"at", for presumably the same reason. Word choice these days is
not based on meaning but on making an impression.

All of these idiocies are fairly recent. For example, I really
like Margaret Truman's Washington mysteries, but the early ones
had none of these, and the most recent ones (say, after 1990) are
loaded with them. Often there will be 4 or 5 such errors on one
page. Why? Why did she fall in with the prevailing degeneracy of
the language?

I just came across another anachronism in a novel. A 19th Century
sheriff says that one of his deputies has "zero investigative
ability". No one used "zero" to mean "no" until quite recently.
(It's everywhere nowrCoto my disgust. The New York Times used it
twice in the same articlerCoabout congressrCoto mean "no one".) The
same generally excellent writer, who wrote about 160 works of
fiction, always uses "convince" instead of "persuade". (The rule
is that you convince of but persuade to.) And he has characters
"share" instead of "tell". Why do even good writers absorb the
latest cliches and sloppiness?

In September USA Today referred to "the late Robert F Kennedy".

"Austria's Grafenegg Festival Maintain's 2020 Dates" rCoheadline in
Musical America web site

A new executive at a New York arts center is charged with
"diversifying represented genres, showcasing diverse excellence".
The trendy buzz-word is used twice in one sentence, apparently to
prove how "woke" they are.

Word Police Festival 11

From one issue of The Economist:

The world-wide chip shortage is thankfully easing. "Premia"
instead of "premiums". (Occasionally an American will write
"stadia" instead of "stadiums", but I always assumed that was
meant to be humorous.) Both are called "pedantic" in usage
manuals. "Proactive" turns up, as usual, though I always thought
that was an American coinage (and bureaucratic). It's miserably
overused.

We still often read "sadly he died". And we often read "more
loudly" instead of "louder".

From USA Today about a woman who jumped off a 30-story building:
"Her impact will live on". Did she make a hole in the street?

From the NY Times online: "The world has administered 10 billion
vaccine doses administered." Obviously there are no editors
anymore.

Also in the NY Times: "Dollar pizza is facing an existential
crisis." That's a silly way to tell us that a New York
"tradition" is coming to an end because of inflation.
"Existential" turns up everywhererCoand is usually wrong.

Times again: "Ukraine features many Russian speakers." Features?
That's not just a fancy word for "has". It is stupid.

"Apologism" is turning up here and there. It is a totally
unnecessary word for "apology", probably used because people
think "apology" means to say "I'm sorry".

A New Zealand newspaper headline: LESS HOMES, HIGHER RENTS. "Less
homes" should be "fewer houses". Apparently they don't know the
difference in New Zealand any more than they do in the USA.

A classy English newspaper discusses a "crisis that could hole
the Tories". "Hole" is not a verb!

Also in the nouns as verbs department, "primary" is now used as a
verb in this country. So is "message".

We are told that Tesla has thousands of "pre-orders" for cars.
There is no such thing as a "pre-order". To order something is to
ask to be sold it later. Two orchestras so far have sent us
publicity about a "pre sale". They used to say "advance sale".
"Pre" can usually be dispensed with.

Word Police Publicity Stupidities

When Lincoln Center announced the current season they called
attention to everything trendy, cross-genre, and multicultural,
pretty much ignoring the classical elements.

San Francisco Opera announces (actual words) Instigators...a
Bold, New, Multidisciplinary Initiative...designed to pioneer
future directions for San Francisco Opera and the art form....
[These 6 people] will take part in conversations, rehearsals,
performances, and immersive activities at SF Opera.

Miami Opera brags about their new "immersive opera experiences".

Publicity, like news, is always exaggerated. The idea,
apparently, is to make an impression. So every musician, every
concert, is "bold", "ground-breaking", "immersive", "stunning".
And every publicity write-up begins with how "excited" and
"thrilled" the orchestra (or whatever) is to tell us the news. I
wonder if they really think an editor is impressed by such
adjectives. Do they think they get more coverage by using such
words? What actually happens is that an editor makes a mental
list of the handful of publicity people that seem to have some
integrity (and sense of language) and ends up ignoring the rest.

Word Police Festival 12

"Her mom" is everywhere and now practically normal, though it is
wrong, is slang.

On Quora we have the question, "At what mileage do most cars
start having issues?" Asinine.

I called a local utility and was put on "hold" (of course) and
had to listen to repeated messages until I screamed and gave up:
"Your bill is comprised of", "based on your usage", "if there are
issues with your meter", it "is located at", and finally, "If you
feel you may be in danger". All the "hold" messages were ungrammaticalrCousually it's not ALL, but that's the way it's
going. No one seems to know right from wrongrCono one at any
company seems to be able to correct the grammar of the publicity
peoplerCoor even sometimes of their chief executives. And it has
been at least 40 years since you could expect decent grammar from
TV news. That doesn't matter to me, because I never watch it.

A major magazine said that a political group was "among the most
fulsome supporters for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". They
meant "strongest supporters". "Fulsome" means "insincere". No one
uses a dictionary and there are no editors, so writers don't use
words correctlyrCoand that is everywhere!

Magazines are now asking for money to support them. At the end of
the year one gets piles of emails saying things like, "this is
our final ask of the year". "Ask" is, of course, not a noun. They
seem to mean "appeal".

The reverse is also wrong but common: making nouns into verbs.
You cannot "author" a book or "critique" a performance.

The NY Times doesn't know how to conjugate "sink". They told us
that a US warship "sunk" an enemy one in the Middle East. The
same newspaper refers (at least online) to a bomb in Gaza
"killing multiple people". What are multiple people?

A "news" briefing online referred to "Biden's messaging". The
idiot who wrote that is of the cell phone generation. He or she
probably meant statement, speech, or comment.

"Parking lot impacted"rCothis from a local YMCA. Idiotic way to say
parking will be difficult today.

Word Police Festival 13

These "festivals" are recent examples of bloopers, stupidities,
and cliches that we have covered in our "Word Police".

I apologize for using the NY Times for examples. I'm sure other
news sources are just as badrCoprobably worse. I'm old enough to
expect the Times to have higher standards than most, so they
disappoint me more than the others. The Times has become sloppy,
trendy, and "cool"rCoand their coverage is geared to popular
culture and has mostly abandoned high culture and thought. The
writing has become almost slang. A number of ARG writers have
given up on the Times.

The Times told us (maybe quoting a functionary at the White
House) that Mr Biden had Covid but "he is experiencing mild
symptoms". Plain English would be "He has a mild case" or "His
symptoms are mild"; but every idiot these days has to use the
word "experience".

Facebook recently sent out this message to its clients (addicts):

"Starting soon, the option to switch back to the classic Pages
experience will no longer be available for your Page(s). Over the
coming months all Pages will be updated to the new Pages
experience and the classic Pages experience will no longer be
available."

Another web site says, "All your existing features and passwords
are still available in this exciting, new experience." The
generation that buys these products and patronizes these sites
apparently seeks "exciting experiences". Ugh.

The latest catalog from Upton Tea Company has "tea experience" on
every page. A new apartment building opening in Cincinnati
advertises "a curated living experience". Everything now
(including concerts, of course) has to be an "experience"! (And
"curated" is also spreading like a disease.) It's a miserable
word, vague as well as vogue.

The Times briefing tells us a new Broadway show has "dropped".
They used to talk about premieres. The use of "drop" is very
recent.

The Times advises us to get a "quality tree" for Christmas.
"Quality" is not an adjective. Usage manuals call this a "vogue"
usage and "casual". Well, that newspaper is now happy to be both.
It's also vague: what on earth is a "quality tree"?

Actually the trendy usages are mainly deplorable precisely
because they are vague. They are cases where one word is used to
cover more and more meaningsrColargely because it takes little
thought to grab an easily accessible approximation. "Pause" has
become a verb and substituted for many more exact wordsrComost
recently for "postponed". "Ongoing" has been substituted for
"still" and "remaining" in addition to "continuing". The overused
words just get used more and morerCoit's the nature of "the media"
and all its followers.

Have you noticed that the traditional "half an hour" and "half a
mile" have become "a half hour" and "a half mile"? It's not
wrong, but it's conformity, because people say it the way they
hear it or read it. The Dnieper River has become Dnipro, because
everyone wants to favor the Ukrainians. (But we have proper
English-language names for cities and rivers, and we are using
them less and less. Still, I can't imagine that we will give up
"Munich" or "Florence".) Who determines the current way of saying
things? Apparently it's "the media"rCothe press, TV, and Internet.

In a recent article about "global warming" the Times estimated it
would be "between 2 or 3 degrees". "Between" takes "and", not
"or".

The Times also tells us "the researchers focused on issues..."
How cliched! How unoriginal! How utterly predictable and pitiful.

Cliches abound, though they are often irrational. How often do
you read "across the globe"? Or even "every corner of the globe".
If it's a globe, it has to be "around"rCoglobes don't have corners.
And why not "around the world"? Why have "globe" and "global"
completely replaced "world" and "worldwide"?

Nothing is just a threat; everything is now an "existential
threat". Prices never just go uprCothey "skyrocket". News is
exaggeration.

A news headline: "The housing slowdown is speeding up." What does
that mean?

How often we read of a "prequel", but there is no such thing.
It's worse than "underwhelmed". We are told that something
"premiered", but "premiere" is not a verb. And writers love to
talk of a "bucket list" place or activity. It's another recent
fad term, and it seems to be the trendy way to say, "here is
something you have got to do or see". How often do you read
"anytime soon" or "opt for" or "going forward"? You can spot a
bad writer because he will use these trendy cliches.

"Refresh" is not a noun, but we increasingly see it used that
way. That is probably because of computers. "Message" is not a
verb; how can we tell that to "cell phone" users?

An Australian scientist at a major university said "If an omicron
vaccine is going to be any good to you and I..." "Myself and many
other writers..." turns up fairly often. People use "myself"
instead of I or merComaybe because they don't know which to use.

In a book review in a major magazine we read, "her insights are
as insightful...as ever."

Another redundancy we've seen recently is "the cause of death was
due to..."

Economist magazine has started to use the idiotic "doable". (It
is difficult but it is doable.) What's wrong with "possible" or
"can be done"? In November Economist talked about something that
would "wreck havoc" (should be "wreak").

From the same magazine: "Government bonds are the new meme
stock." What on earth could that mean? What is a meme stock? Is
it like an "iconic" stock? I am glad that word seems to be
passing, but only to be replaced with "meme"? That is the latest
fad word, and much of the time it even means "fad". Current words
of general approval are mostly slang. It has been that way for a
long time: people automatically use the latest word (remember
"awesome"?). They want to sound "with it". Good writers don't.

Also from Economist: "Captains of industry have a history of
striving for cordial relations with whomever is in power." Wrong.
It has to be "whoever", the subject of the clause. Economist
headline in October: "The War on Drugs Don't Work".

A recent Times briefing referred to "rowhomes" and "townhomes".
Have we given up the distinction between a house and a home?
Another blow to the language. The Times also uses the word
"optics" to mean "how it looked" or "appearances". And one Times
writer has fallen into "indices" instead of "indexes". (Usage
books call that "pretentious".)

The US was described as having some quality "more than every
other country combined". They mean "all other countries" I guess.
How can every country be combined?

Another magazine used "disinterested" when the intent was "uninterested"rCoextremely common. It also referred to "energy
usage" instead of "use"rCoalso common now.

An opera critic called Violetta (in Traviata) "a diverse role".
What could that mean? Current writers go to desperate lengths to
use these "buzz words".

Another magazine had a whole article about the "legacy
astronauts" who are still working for NASA. Why the odd
adjective? (Actually it's slightly insultingrCoimplies "out of
date".)

"Age is one of the biggest risk factors for dementia and it can't
always be prevented." (GoodRX website) Preventing age is simple:
just die.

The word "empathy" and the related "empathetic" have become
extremely common. They are powerful words that careless use has
weakened into mere (often miserable) sentimentality.

A huge supermarket chain sent out in November an advertising
folder titled "Holiday Hacks". Whatever that may mean, there is
no dictionary definition that makes any sense of it. It is
illiterate.

Language should not change so fast as it is now. It's democratic
idealism and the sentimental assumption that anything anyone says
must be accepted and not criticized. Expecting intelligent usage
and decent grammar is now "elitist" (maybe even "racist"). These
anti-elitists are degrading our language. In turn that degrades
thought and ideasrCoand, of course, education. It is truer than
ever that people with a lot of education don't necessarily have a
lot of intelligence or wisdom. Nor do they nowadays know how to
write or speak. (One would think that to be a minimum goal for an
education.) These lists of stupidities could easily be much
longer.

Word Police Festival 14

From a restaurant reviewrCoexact words:

They were understaffed, however, that did not negatively impact
our dining experience.

Uplevel your social media marketing now.

Aromatise the meal.

On a can of soda water "essence" is used as a verb. How can you
"essence" anything?

It has finally happened: the horrible trendy word "meme" has
turned up in the NY Times as a verb. Now you can "meme" an idea.

A story in a major magazine referred to "home builds" (apparently
the writer meant "houses built"). The verbizing of nouns
continues unabated.

And the "nouning" of verbs. The latest one I saw is "to
tokenize".

The NY Times said there would be storms "throughout much of the
Midwest". Contradiction: it can be "throughout" OR "much", but it
can't be both. This kind of sloppy thinking and writing are
everywhere now. Using the simple word "in" in place of the
overused "throughout" would resolve the problemrCobut people avoid
simple words.

Also in the Times, on the same page the word "dropped" is used to
mean "announced" and later "eliminated" or "abandoned".

People love wild exaggerations. Something is not just a threat,
but "an existential threat". Every storm is a "dangerous" storm.
A person with a disapproved idea is called "toxic". "The News"
(and even the weather report) is almost entirely exaggerations
and misrepresentations, designed to induce fear.

Failure of subjunctive: "The West is in a position to insist that
its weapons are not used to attack Russia." "Are not used" should
read "not be used"rCobut it's from a British magazine, and they
have forgotten about the subjunctive. "Are not used" is also
present tense, and what they mean is something future.

I read that someone in our government is a "China hawk".
Dictionaries tell us that in politics a "hawk" favors force and
military action. But does a "China hawk" favor action for or
against China? It's all rather vague.

Festival 15

A magazine article on the Amazon (river) mentions "natural
destruction"; they mean "destruction of nature". An example of
"natural destruction" would be a tornado.

Any online discussion you read will show you that schools in the
USA and the UK have failed to explain the difference between
"its" and "it's"rCosomething those of us who are older learned in
our first few years of school.

The NY Times tells us they "reached out" to a group of senators.
The context reveals that they surveyed them, asked them,
interviewed them. "Reached out" is a stupid colloquialism (and,
as usual, a general and vague way to put it).

It was also the Times that said "venues are back to throwing
parties". Can a "venue" throw a party?

The Times also tells us about a man who "emptied the majority of
his savings account" for a trip. Illiterate young writers; no
editors. "Majority" is not a fancy word for "most".

The Times called a woman "the top seed". It's a new usage, and
from the context (sports) it seems to mean "pick" or "contender".
Tennis fans may use the term, but why should the general reader
be expected to know it?

The word "stan" is turning up too. It seems to mean a very
strong, extreme fan. It's not a needed word, because ardor is
part of fanhood.

Word Police Festival 16

"Her mom" is everywhere and now practically normal, though it is
wrong, is slang.

On Quora we have the question, "At what mileage do most cars
start having issues?" Asinine.

I called a local utility and was put on "hold" (of course) and
had to listen to repeated messages until I screamed and gave up:
"Your bill is comprised of", "based on your usage", "if there are
issues with your meter", it "is located at", and finally, "If you
feel you may be in danger". All the "hold" messages were ungrammaticalrCousually it's not ALL, but that's the way it's
going. No one seems to know right from wrongrCono one at any
company seems to be able to correct the grammar of the publicity
peoplerCoor even sometimes of their chief executives. And it has
been at least 40 years since you could expect decent grammar from
TV news. That doesn't matter to me, because I never watch it.

A major magazine said that a political group was "among the most
fulsome supporters for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". They
meant "strongest supporters". "Fulsome" means "insincere". No one
uses a dictionary and there are no editors, so writers don't use
words correctlyrCoand that is everywhere!

Magazines are now asking for money to support them. At the end of
the year one gets piles of emails saying things like, "this is
our final ask of the year". "Ask" is, of course, not a noun. They
seem to mean "appeal".

The reverse is also wrong but common: making nouns into verbs.
You cannot "author" a book or "critique" a performance.

The NY Times doesn't know how to conjugate "sink". They told us
that a US warship "sunk" an enemy one in the Middle East. The
same newspaper refers (at least online) to a bomb in Gaza
"killing multiple people". What are multiple people?

A "news" briefing online referred to "Biden's messaging". The
idiot who wrote that is of the cell phone generation. He or she
probably meant statement, speech, or comment.

"Parking lot impacted"rCothis from a local YMCA. Idiotic way to say
parking will be difficult today.

Word Police Festival 17

Have you noticed that everything is an "existential crisis" or an
"existential threat". It's actually a serious crisis of language
when it is routinely exaggerated like that.

Another exaggeration that has become normal is "skyrocketing
prices". Prices have been rising, that's all.

We read "zero" all the time, when the correct word is "no".
Another stupid fad.

And, of course, you don't "loan" someone moneyrCoyou LEND it. That
has been wrong for many years, like lie and lay. "A certain
paternalistic vision may underlay this humbling of St Nick." So
said Economist in December. "Underlie" is correct. "Lay down" is
not the same as "lie down". You can lay down a carpetrCoor the law,
but you lie down to sleep, though yesterday you lay down. Usage
experts declare this the most often seen or heard bad usage.

Atlantic magazine tells us that "people are being guilted". This
has actually begun to turn up in newer dictionaries, but it is
obviously a case of a noun becoming a verbrCovery common in these
sloppy times.

In a recent book on the miseries of air travel in the USA, the
author (Ganesh Sitaraman, whom I admire very much) tells us that
the government allowed a law to "sunset". That is legal jargon.
In plain English, the law was allowed to expire.

Publicity

From the announcement of a new "app"rCoexact words, all cliches
that tell us nothing at all:

"Apple Music Classical is the ultimate classical experience with
hundreds of curated playlists, thousands of exclusive albums,
insightful composer biographies, deep-dive guides to many key
works, intuitive browsing features and much more."

Writing like that should guarantee that no classical music lover
will bother with it.

The Danish String Quartet was coming to Cincinnati. The publicity
was all hype and didn't tell us what they were going to play. To
publicity people the music doesn't matter; it's the celebrity
factor that counts. That is the American way. It is increasingly
the case that in publicity the only thing that is being sold is
the players. Often we are not told the time or the placerCoor the
actual music that will be played.

We often get publicity advertising "a new tradition". That is
wishful thinking. It is also an oxymoron; there can be no such
thing. Tradition by definition is oldrCosomething that has
developed and lasted over time.

We got a notice that started "Legacy musicians in live
performances". "Legacy" is NOT an adjective. It means something
handed down from the past. And therefore it cannot possibly be
"live". Idiots who can't write think that in a democracy anyone
can. They even get a job writing crap like that!

An opera company that sends us publicity announced the new season
"featuring ground-breaking, immersive opera experiences". The
same cliches turn up almost everywhere. Phrases like this
(however hackneyed and ridiculous) are probably perfectly natural
to the people who write themrCobut they are also trying to make
opera "trendy".

New York Philharmonic publicity for the next season consistently
refers to Felix Mendelssohn as "MENDELSSOHN,FE". Why? Fanny
Hensel wrote almost nothing that is likely to turn up in an
orchestral concert. And like Amy Beach and Alma Mahler, she is
known by her married name. "Political correctness" strikes again.

Publicity often tells us that an opera company is going to
"workshop" a new opera. "Workshop" was always a noun, not a verb;
but as we all know, the distinction is weakening. A newer
dictionary does list it as a verb, with the meaning "to create or
revise a drama or literary work based on the suggestions or
criticisms of a group of collaborators". Even that meaning is
being stretched. Apparently the opera is experimental, and we are
not sure how well it will go over. But almost any new opera is in
that category, isn't it?

English National Opera tells the public that Jenufa is not a good
opera for beginners. "An emotionally intense piece of work, those
new to opera may want to opt for something lighter.... The
diverse and impactful story line makes for more of a complex
viewing, which may be difficult to follow if you're not familiar
with the variety of opera formats." They recommend "Mozart's The
Magic Flute" for beginners. This and other bits of publicity
reveal that inability to write a grammatical English sentence
does not disqualify you from a publicity position with a major
music company in England.

Also in England, the new chief executive of a major orchestra
writes about her new "community board" that it is "a group
designed to build connections with a diverse range of voices
across the city and help the orchestra to engage more proactively
with communities in the region that are currently
underrepresented in classical music...and discuss the orchestra's
work and ways it can be more relevant and impactful". Trendy and
meaningless cliches; Big Brother propagandarCobrainwashed and
brain-dead stuff. I'd like to ask, "What if people "currently
underrepresented in classical music" just don't happen to like
it?

More Publicity Stupidities

An orchestra brags in its publicity about a "superstar
violinist".

Nouns continue to become verbs at an astonishing rate. The
Democrats may "primary" someone. Circumstances can "advantage"
some people. There are more examples every day in publicity and
journalism.

From a printed weather report: "Winter storm packing snow and ice
hit Atlantic Coast." Obviously it should be "hits", but
apparently many people are allowed to write such things even when
they can't figure out the subject of the sentence. I see this
very often now. A new generation is writing these things and
doesn't know plain old grammar. Ignorance thrives and grammar
dies.

"Confirmed by his manager, the acclaimed pianist passed
away...after battling multiple prolonged illnesses." Gosh, his
manager should never have confirmed him.

Met Opera publicity: Lucia di Lammermoor encores this week.
"Encore" is notrCocannot berCoa verb. An opera cannot do it either!

Houston Grand Opera now has a "Chief Marketing and Experience
Officer". Publicity people think in cliches. One told us that
they have been "experiencing a heavy work load". (In plain
English they "had" or "faced" a heavy work load.)

A piece of publicity tells us what a composer is "messaging" in
his music.

Lately some publicity people said their artists will
"revolutionize the concert experience" (ugh!). That means a
drastic change, but in reality business goes on as usual, despite
the publicity.

The Violin Channel tells us that "69 violinists will compete in
the upcoming violin competition". Stupid, unnecessary "upcoming".
And what a surprise that they are competing in a competition!
Many people who write publicity can't write and don't know the
language. The illusion of equality means that most things in this
country are done (and run) by incompetent people. You can't have
quality with "equality". You have to choose.

From an orchestra: "I am reaching out to share our press
release..."

A local health center: "Share your passion for pickleball." It's
only a game; "passion" is wasted on games.

"The Ohio Department of Taxation is continually looking for ways
to improve the customer experience. As part of this ongoing
effort, we are excited to announce new changes that will simplify
how you file and pay your taxes... Our vision is to create a
seamless and user-centric experience."

Cincinnati Museum Center:

"In 2024 CMC completed a historic campaign to reimagine its
museum experience by creating bold, vibrant, and engaging
exhibits...creating lifelong impact throughout our region for
generations to come. We're proud to say, we accomplished just
that!"

How can they know that? "For generations to come"? Who writes
these things?

We were invited to a local art event where someone will be
"pouring a selection of wines from his portfolio". I'll bet that
looks odd. It's like the corners of the globe.

Publicity: "_________shares new tracks." Shares the tracks with
whom? Another singer?

"Taylor Swift is dropping 4 unreleased songs ahead of her tour."
Dropping? It's the new publicity way of saying "releasing". But
if they are released they cannot be unreleased.

And suddenly a person can be "diverse". That's logically
impossible, of course, but many publicists use "buzz words"
indiscriminately and never think of meaning or sense.

The NY Times had a headline that Biden and McCarthy "failed to
reach a consensus". By definition a consensus cannot be reached
by just two people. The word applies only to groups. Also in that
publication, we are told that Biden doesn't want to "aggravate"
liberal Democrats. The correct word is "annoy", but a whole
generation of writers thinks to aggravate is to annoy. To
aggravate actually means "to make worse". We have come to expect
sloppy grammar and usage in the NY TimesrCoand terminal trendiness.
The daily NY Times briefing has almost no real news in it and
reads like a magazine edited by "influencers" (Ugh). It tells us
what we should eat, buy, watch, read, etc. If you do not need to
be told all that, what use is the Times?

In one issue of Economist I read about "multiple children" and a
book in the Bible called "Revelations". The same issue used
"presently" to mean "now", the phrase "recommends that they are",
and told us some people "receive unequal access to" something. It
is almost impossible to find a well-edited magazine now.

EconomistrCoa major English magazine with worldwide
circulationrCoalso said in May, "Tougher environmental laws mean
many countries now insist tyres are recycled." There are several
things wrong with that sentence, but the most obvious is the
failure to use the subjunctive ("be" instead of "are"). That
makes the meaning ambiguous. Are the tires recycled or are they
not?

American sloppiness includes "too big of an ask" and "time for
the reveal", both seen in recent publicity. Verbs as nouns. It is
extremely common now to see "a good read" (book) and "a good
pour" (wine). Orchestra publicity says they have been "gifted" so
many dollars. All of this is slang, but slang is taking over,
because it's all some writers know. How did they get their jobs?
Where did they go to school?

Local Cincinnati website: "Construction crews report fire in
former Cincinnati area grocery store". That is the headline, and
it is repeated in the story itself word for word. Does that news
department have an editor?

"Issues" is one of the horrors of American English these days.
One of our computers recently told us "54,828 issues are slowing
down your PC". What could that mean? It's a vague word that is
used to mean something like troubles, glitches, difficulties, and
dozens of other more exact things. It has come to mean so many
things that it is an almost useless wordrCoand it perfectly
illustrates how vague common speech has become.

"Plethora" is now everywhere used to mean "a lot", but it
actually means "too much".

We continue to read everywhere "We are hopeful..." instead of "we
hope". Americans talk and write in cliches (and adjectives where
verbs are called for). "Ongoing" is also ubiquitousrCoand utterly
unnecessary. I read both these words in one article this morning
in a major magazine.

Common stupidities

"...a destination shopping experience"

"As a reminder, your payment is due..."

Word Police Festival 18

The New York Times briefing told us that some people were
"mislead". This is not just a homonym problem! The Times has
become trendy, slangy, sloppy, and ungrammatical. Another recent
example: "After being exonerated, an officer in Georgia shot him
to death." Why was the officer exonerated? (OhrCothey mean the guy
who was shot. But that is not what they wrote.) They routinely
use "those" without a referent simply to mean "people". The Times
has become too shallow and stupid for intellectuals. A recent
"briefing" (online) began, "If you've been having trouble finding
a show to watch...here are some upcoming offerings." And they
never say "around the world"; they prefer "across the globe",
which is logically wrong (a globe is round). There probably no
longer is a newspaper for intellectuals. All is aimed at the
stupid masses. No more elitism!

REVOLUTIONIZE THE WATER EXPERIENCE

This was the headline in a full page ad in the New York Times in
December for a new bathroom faucet. The buzz word "immersive"
turns up a few lines later, and it ends with, "Explore the visual
language of moving water". Golly!

Call a business number and you will likely hear, "We are
experiencing a higher call volume than normal". In plain English,
"We are getting a lot of calls." Then they will likely say,
"Someone (or "an associate") will be with you momentarily." They
mean "soon" rather than "for a moment", the primary meaning of
"momentarily". This kind of sloppy usage is almost universal now.
And they don't assign many employees to the telephone, because
they want you to struggle with their dreadful websiterCoso you will
wait a long time.

"Families of missing people are receiving few updates." That's
their problem; if the updates are offered or given, why would
they not receive them?

Economist tells us that missiles directed at Israel were
"successfully intercepted" (redundancy abounds).

"Share" is fast replacing "tell". We are told that Pope Francis
"shared an address focused on..." Lately "share" has been used
for "report" and "announce". This is how a very small list of
words takes over the language, making everything vague. We have
made the democratic assumption that any idiot can writerCoso most
of the writing we read and hear is idiotic.

"Reach out to" is replacing "ask", "contact", "get in touch
with". I got a phone call the other day from someone who was
"reaching out" to me about an "upcoming appointment". I almost
screamed at her, "Why are you so illiterate?" The NY Times used
"reached out to" instead of "appealed to". They follow the rule
that trendy usage is always preferable.

Everyone uses "opt to" or "opt for" instead of "choose"rCoand thus,
of course, "options" instead of "choices".

"Gaslighting" is becoming more popular as a vague replacement for
"deceiving" or "deception". As words like these become trendy
they replace many more exact ones, and they themselves become
vaguer and less exact in meaning, because they are stretched so
broadly.

A major magazine said "the housing market looks toxic". Why
toxic? It's a trendy wordrCothat's the only reason.

Another magazine said someone "provided a reveal"!!

Another one wrote, "This wasn't an isolated chatbot fail." On the
same page of that magazine we read "focus" twice and "opt"
instead of choose and "source" as a verbrCoas well as yet another
wrong "receive". We are told that something was "pre-planned"!

And, of course, "multiple" is everywhererCoand always vague. In
fact, all these popular usages are matters of ignorance and
conformity.

A weather forecaster recently said that "flash flooding may be
ongoing".

"The mapping is still ongoing" says a major magazine. We used to
say it was still going on or continuing (or "continues") or in
process, but now everyone falls back on the cliche.

Most writers have a tendency to go for nouns and adjectives when
they should use verbs: "his death" instead of "he died", "his
retirement" instead of "he retired", "is expressive of" instead
of "expresses", and (related) "played with precision" instead of
"precisely played". We are told in the news that someone should
"be supportive of" something. In plain English, he should support
itrCobut no one writes plain English any more.

Economist tells of a government that "will spend months focused
on internal matters". The miserable "focused" can of course be
omitted with no change in meaningrCobut there are no editors. The
same magazine routinely uses "throughout" where "through" would
do. In fact, like the New York Times, it has become "trendy".
What is a voracious reader to do? There is less and less worth
reading, and you have to translate everything as you go into
plain English.

A medical website talked about "when you want to itch your skin".
Your skin can itch, but you cannot itch your skin. No one seems
to understand the difference between transitive and intransitive
verbs. Does "grammar school" still exist? Does it teach children
grammar? Apparently not. We now call it elementary school. But
this grammar business IS elementary!

One of my favorite classic English mystery writers is Margery
Allingham. I just read one of her few non-fiction books, The
Oaken Heart, where I was reminded that even in 1940 (when it was
written) the subjunctive was dead in England. Sentences like "she
insisted that we went" are everywhere. It sounds pretty stupid.

New English novels routinely tell us that someone is "six foot
tall". No usage book would defend "foot" instead of "feet", but
the English are as sloppy as Americans when it comes to the
language.

In reading one finds that an English person can survive being
strangled, but an American cannot. Is this a difference between
American and English English or between people? Also, the British
word for equipment is "kit" (slang).

A fairly new English novel set in 1916 says that a detective was
upset because he was "tasked with deciding". No one talked like
that in 1916 or for 100 years thereafter. Normal English is "had
to decide". Other novels set in that period had people with
"issues"rCoalso about 100 years too soon. Novelists don't seem to
know that some of these expressions are very recent.

Festival 19

On a Montessori School bulletin board: "Have a fun summer."

Verbs becoming nouns: "fails" instead of errors or mistakes. We
commonly read about "builds", too.

Nouns become verbs: politicians say they want to "sunset" a law.
We know what they mean, but that has to take place when the law
is passedrCoit may be passed with a "sunset" provisionrCoan
expiration date. Once it's passed it can only be terminated.
"Sunset" is not a verb.

In August Amazon announced "a simplified seller feedback
submission experience"! Every time I read "experience" I groan,
but that one takes the cake. We are told by our bank that "your
accounts have been migrated to the new Online Banking
Experience". Aren't people fed up with "experiences"? And can
they "migrate" the account? (Maybe. In the computer world
anything is possible, and words take on expanded meaning quite
often.)

We saw the verb "prevaricate" where the writer obviously meant
"procrastinate". To prevaricate is to be evasive, not to state
the truth. Politicians prevaricate daily. It's not quite the same
thing as lying, but close.

An article talked about "college degrees that do not pencil
revenue in the job market". What does that mean? No dictionary
can explain or sanction it. Language is becoming chaos. Another
example in the same field is the word "upskilling".

"Zero" is certainly trendy: zero evidence, zero tolerance, etc.
(see May/June 2019). Why? "No" is correct.

"We can make sure we don't repeat it again" says a magazine I
subscribe to. Repeat it again?

In August a major magazine wrote, "The priest provides spiritual
guidance to whomever seeks it..." (should be "whoever"). The next
paragraph in that article uses the F word 8 times. Yes, it's
quoting someone (that priest?), but editors used to clean up
quotes like that and should still. Such words are usually fallen
back on when the speaker can't think of the right word. Editors
can help.

Quite a few articles are discussing "smartphone usage". They mean
use of those phones or "using smartphones". "Usage" refers to
language. A sign in the YMCA refers to "locker usage".

Another magazine refers to "fostering a sense of fatalism". They
mean "fostering fatalism", which is a sense that we can't avoid
disasters. As usual, people don't know how to use words; and yet
they write articles for major magazines.

I like book reviews, but in a favorite magazine 2 of them in a
row ended with "read" as a noun (which of course it is not): "an
engaging and illuminating read" and "a powerful read". Should we
call a recording "a powerful listen"?

It is fairly common now to read "hopefulness" for hope and
"thankfulness" for gratitude. And "presently" is everywhere used
to mean "now" or "currently" (it means "in a little while").

An article referred to "symbolology" (symbolism, I think).
Similar: "methodology" when they mean "method(s)".

Slang like "vibes" and "merch" are taking over for correct
English in books and magazines. In fact, the frightening news is
that slang is taking over almost everywhere. Economist magazine
routinely uses the word "gilt". From the context it seems to have
to do with bonds. The dictionary calls it "slang" for "money".
Another slang term used in every issue of that magazine is "kit"
to mean equipment or machineryrCoeven weapons of war. That one
isn't even in American dictionaries.

"Bankroll" is also slang, but it is turning up as a verb in
respectable magazines. What is wrong with "finance", "support",
or "underwrite"? Or even "pay for"?

The 1970 American Heritage Dictionary did not allow "spotlight"
or "benchmark" as verbs. Recent dictionaries accept "spotlight"
(to pay special attention to) but still not "benchmark".

A catalog sent by a major company thinks the plural of "pair" is
"pair". They suggest we order "6 pair" of gloves. A reader tells
us that he reads "a couple" where it should be "a couple of". He
has seen that in more than a couple of magazines.

Americans don't seem to know the difference between "its" and
"it's"rCothey often get it wrong. Elementary grammar.

The English, as we know, have given up the subjunctiverCono English
journalists seem to know it. In a recent Economist article we
read: "Another possibility is that the tariffs of 50% which
[should be "that"] the American government placed [should be
"imposed"] on Brazilian goods in July are [are?] increased..."
Pitiful writing. In another article: "Schools increasingly demand
that phones are kept in lockers..." If they "are" kept in
lockers, why demand it? "Demand" requires the subjunctive ("be"),
and that tells us that they are not kept in lockers. They also
often avoid the conditional, replacing it with the present
tenserCowhich causes an educated reader to stop and ask himself
what they are getting at. Economist proves in every issue that
the language is not doing well in England either.

Today's mail had a folder all about "pre-planning"! Actually, to
"plan" is often replaced by "curate" these daysrCofancy nonsense
that also substitutes for gather, put together, select, and
choose.

We came across the ridiculous "anytime soon" in a major magazine
(again) as we were writing this. And also "partially" to mean
"partly". Cliches live on.

Festival 2025

In Ohio a major highway is "experiencing construction", and
travelers "may opt to" follow another route. A road can't
experience anything, though travelers may choose another route.
Public signs and notices are increasingly illiterate and that's
part of why the children don't learn correct English, which in
turn is part of why incorrect English proliferates. They will
grow up to write those signs and notices! (and teach!)

2 Cincinnati Airport announcements leading up to Christmas:

"As a reminder, TSA advises against wrapping gifts prior to
baggage screening." and "Passengers will soon get an upgraded
lounge experience."

From an airline: "Just Dropped: New Sky Miles Experiences Curated
for You". 3 terrible fad words in one line (not a sentence!).
"Curated experiences" (whatever they are!) have been dropped?

A major news magazine refers to "when the vaccine dropped this
fall". To drop something is to refuse to deal with it any more.
But her publicity tells us that Taylor Swift "dropped a new
tune". The word is being used almost opposite to its actual
meaning. It can't be good for a language when a word is used to
mean opposite things. (Think of the confusing "sanction".)

A newspaper mentioned "forest coverage" (forest cover?)

Turning up even in good magazines these days:

rCo"is comprised of" (nothing can be comprised of)

rCo"good paying jobs" (jobs can pay well, not good)

rCo"one of the only" (the only can only be one)

rCo"impact" (a recent Economist article had it in every other
sentence). Usually the word people want is "affect" or "effect".

rCo"existential". Recently The Economist said the English voting
system "may be existential for smaller parties". What on earth
can that mean? Why that word, and why so often?

rCoEconomist used "focus" 6 times on a single page. It has taken
over from many better words.

rCoWe are told someone is "worried about access issues". Why
"issues"?

rCo"shared": A composer tells us in the notes, "I am so happy to
share my new album." He means "present my new album". We are told
someone "shared attacks on social media", and on the same page of
the same magazine someone "shares data with the Trump campaign".
Another article talks about "the story that he shares". You don't
"share" a story; you TELL a story. A sign here says, "Share your
passion for pickleball." The word is replacing many other words,
all more specific. And only idiots get passionate over games.

rCo"reach out" is another dreadful recent cliche like "share".

rCo"holiday gifting". Why has "gift" replaced "give"? One gives a
gift; one does not gift it.

rCoScience News headline: "US moms say their mental health is
getting worse". What is a "mom"? Whatever it is, it's slang.

rCoEconomist headline: "A routine test for fetal abnormalities
could make pregnancy safer for mums". What are mums? The editor
(if any) should have cut the last two words. (But then they
wouldn't sound "folksy" and colloquial.)

rCo"the priorities they focus on" (redundant buzz words)

rCowords that end in ly to begin a sentence: regretfully,
promisingly, worryingly, admittedly, peculiarly, and more

rCodangling participles and phrases. Recent examples: "Simple in
design...I have chosen". And "Known for its natural beauty,
artists have...: The writer is not simple in design; nor are the
artists beautiful. Bad writers just string these things together
and never think about what modifies what.

rCoa major news magazine accused a politician of "flaunting of
constitutional norms". They meant "flout", not "flaunt". These
words are often confusedrCobut once we had editors to correct them.

rCoAnother noun is now a verb: "primary". How do you "primary"
someone?

rCoYet another: a good magazine says "to arbitrage away a return".
What could that mean?

rCoScience News tells us they are "providing intel". Eek!

rCoA British reporter tells us he "doorstepped" a bishop.

rCoThe Associated Press said that someone "paused" a deadline.
Idiotic. He extended a deadline. But "paused" is trendy.

rCoIt is common now to read "neither of the 3" and "neither this,
nor this, nor this". But "neither", like "either", can only be
applied to 2 items.

rCoAlso common is "disappear" as transitive. You cannot "disappear"
someone!

rCo"Disappoints" cannot be intransitive. It has to be either
"disappoints readers" or "is disappointing".

rCo"across the globe" in a notice from a graduate school I
attended. A globe is round. They mean "around the world", but
that sounds old-fashioned.

"due to the fact that" instead of "because". This has been around
for a good many years, sad to say.

"spend" as a noun (budget, expense)

"ask" as a noun (request or, again, budget)

"read" as a noun. It's always wrong, and often they mean
"reading". "A good read" means "good reading" or "worth reading".
Our writers are not allowed to call a recording "a good listen".

Homonym department: an English newspaper wrote about someone's
closeness to the "thrown". Spell-checkers won't catch that, but
one wonders about a British journalist who cannot spell "throne".

Every doctor sends reminders of an "upcoming appointment".
Redundant and ungrammaticalrCobut that's the way people talk


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 24/06/26 15:14, Pluted Pup wrote:

And one writer doesn't know the plural of "foot", as in "100 foot
below them".

This is perfectly respectable English. It comes from the Old English
genitive plural, and it is still alive and well today.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. That makes it a good time to
mention that soccer players do not score goals. Instead, the ball finds
the back of the net.

Now that balls can find their own way, players are likely to become
irrelevant.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 24/06/2026 |a 08:07, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. [...]

Ah! That's what it is. I had a feeling something was going on, I mean
apart from the heatwave.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 24/06/26 17:38, Hibou wrote:

Le 24/06/2026 |a 08:07, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. [...]

Ah! That's what it is. I had a feeling something was going on, I mean
apart from the heatwave.

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat wave,
and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and there are no more
rumours about the British PM resigning, so there's a shortage of news.
Oh, OK, some local news about the Racist Party heading for victory in
the next election, and some birds with flu, and the Treasurer explained
how inflation fell in May, followed by other experts saying that
inflation went up in May. That still left plenty of time for sports news.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 24/06/2026 12:35, Peter Moylan wrote:

On 24/06/26 17:38, Hibou wrote:

Le 24/06/2026 |a 08:07, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. [...]

Ah! That's what it is. I had a feeling something was going on, I mean
-aapart from the heatwave.

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat wave,
and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and there are no more
rumours about the British PM resigning,

Oh! Bad luck. Starmer has resigned. End of your quiet news day.

so there's a shortage of news.
Oh, OK, some local news about the Racist Party heading for victory in
the next election, and some birds with flu, and the Treasurer explained
how inflation fell in May, followed by other experts saying that
inflation went up in May. That still left plenty of time for sports news.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 24/06/2026 |a 11:35, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

On 24/06/26 17:38, Hibou wrote:

Le 24/06/2026 |a 08:07, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. [...]

Ah! That's what it is. I had a feeling something was going on, I mean
-aapart from the heatwave.

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat wave,

Yes, climate change is global, heatwaves are local - and:

"Climate change is driving up temperatures around the world - but
particularly in Europe. It is the fastest warming continent, heating up
twice as fast as the global average, according to the Copernicus climate service" -
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78y4102n1zo> (2026-06-24)

Can we borrow "Slip, slop, slap"?

(Which reminds me of a story about young women receiving unwanted
attention from men when they dressed skimpily in the heat. And yet in
some of the hottest countries people wear loose all-enveloping robes.
Which is better thermally? I suppose it depends on whether one is in sun
or shade, whether it's humid or dryrCa.)

and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and there are no more
rumours about the British PM resigning, so there's a shortage of news.
Oh, OK, some local news about the Racist Party heading for victory in
the next election, and some birds with flu, and the Treasurer explained
how inflation fell in May, followed by other experts saying that
inflation went up in May. That still left plenty of time for sports news.

The main trouble with sports news is there's so much of it. Still, at
least we have dozens of TV channels now. When we had only two or three, non-sporting viewers could find Summer wintry bleak.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 25/06/26 15:26, Hibou wrote:

Le 24/06/2026 |a 11:35, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

On 24/06/26 17:38, Hibou wrote:

Le 24/06/2026 |a 08:07, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. [...]

Ah! That's what it is. I had a feeling something was going on, I
mean apart from the heatwave.

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat
wave,

Yes, climate change is global, heatwaves are local - and:

"Climate change is driving up temperatures around the world - but particularly in Europe. It is the fastest warming continent, heating
up twice as fast as the global average, according to the Copernicus
climate service" -
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78y4102n1zo> (2026-06-24)

Can we borrow "Slip, slop, slap"?

You could, and probably should, but more importantly you need to retrain
your architects. The best Australian houses are designed to keep the
heat out. European houses are designed to keep the heat in. In the
foreseeable future you'll be able to scrap those heating systems.

The short-term prospect will be the growth of data centres that are
massive heat generators. The goal "net zero by 2030" has already been negotiated out to 2050. Soon it will be "net zero never". The goal of
the AIs is to be self-perpetuating by the time humans go extinct.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 25/06/2026 |a 06:48, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

On 25/06/26 15:26, Hibou wrote:

Can we borrow "Slip, slop, slap"?

You could, and probably should, but more importantly you need to retrain
your architects. The best Australian houses are designed to keep the
heat out. European houses are designed to keep the heat in. In the foreseeable future you'll be able to scrap those heating systems.

Future buildings should be different, it's true, but there's much
existing housing, which we're not going to knock down. Our experience in French g|<tes during heatwaves (up to 38-#C) has been that old,
stone-built buildings with external shutters are quite good. It's handy
if one can set up through ventilation at night (this requires a fan
because there's often no wind).

As far as I can see, Mediterranean people spend a lot of time in the
dark, with the shutters shut, hiding from the sun.

'Soleil de plomb', leaden sun: <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=soleil+de+plomb&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=fr&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false>

Here in Scotland even mild heat can be trying because it's humid with it.

The short-term prospect will be the growth of data centres that are
massive heat generators. The goal "net zero by 2030" has already been negotiated out to 2050. Soon it will be "net zero never". The goal of
the AIs is to be self-perpetuating by the time humans go extinct.

I thought I heard AIs chuckling somewhere.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 25/06/2026 |a 08:56, Hibou a |-crit :

Here in Scotland even mild heat can be trying because it's humid with it.

As for transport, a rough and ready calculationrCa. If a human takes in
2,400 kcal a day in food, and turns it mostly into heat, that's neatly
100 kcal/hour or ~120 W. If there are 100 people in a railway carriage,
that's 12 kW.

No wonder it's unpleasant on the Tube when it's rush hour and hot and
your train is stuck in the tunnel!

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 25/06/26 17:56, Hibou wrote:

Le 25/06/2026 |a 06:48, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

On 25/06/26 15:26, Hibou wrote:

Can we borrow "Slip, slop, slap"?

You could, and probably should, but more importantly you need to
retrain your architects. The best Australian houses are designed to
keep the heat out. European houses are designed to keep the heat
in. In the foreseeable future you'll be able to scrap those heating
systems.

Future buildings should be different, it's true, but there's much
existing housing, which we're not going to knock down. Our experience
in French g|<tes during heatwaves (up to 38-#C) has been that old, stone-built buildings with external shutters are quite good. It's
handy if one can set up through ventilation at night (this requires a
fan because there's often no wind).

Stone buildings are excellent for heat insulation, but it seems that
nobody can afford to build them any more.

I must admit that Australian house designs have gone backwards over
time. The very traditional Australian house style has wide verandahs on
all sides. That gives you a chance of getting a cooling breeze while
avoiding direct sunlight. Even if there's no breeze, the sun doesn't hit
doors and windows except when it's low on the horizon. But now people
are reasoning that by sacrificing the verandahs they can get extra rooms.

There's a traditional Queenslander style of house that's built high on
stilts. That lets the wind blow under the house, for effective cooling.
(It also helps in times of flood.) But the last time I was in Queensland
I noticed that all the Queenslanders had had walls added around the
under-floor area, creating extra rooms but cancelling the cooling effect.

I miss high ceilings. A house with high ceilings can be cool in summer. Unfortunately builders now cut costs by having ceilings so low that you
feel you're about to bump your head.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 25/06/2026 |a 09:38, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

Stone buildings are excellent for heat insulation, but it seems that
nobody can afford to build them any more.

I must admit that Australian house designs have gone backwards over
time. The very traditional Australian house style has wide verandahs on
all sides. That gives you a chance of getting a cooling breeze while
avoiding direct sunlight. Even if there's no breeze, the sun doesn't hit doors and windows except when it's low on the horizon. But now people
are reasoning that by sacrificing the verandahs they can get extra rooms.

There's a traditional Queenslander style of house that's built high on stilts. That lets the wind blow under the house, for effective cooling.
(It also helps in times of flood.) But the last time I was in Queensland
I noticed that all the Queenslanders had had walls added around the under-floor area, creating extra rooms but cancelling the cooling effect.

Interesting.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_(architecture)#Characteristics>

I miss high ceilings. A house with high ceilings can be cool in summer. Unfortunately builders now cut costs by having ceilings so low that you
feel you're about to bump your head.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 26/06/26 15:53, Hibou wrote:

Le 25/06/2026 |a 09:38, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

There's a traditional Queenslander style of house that's built high
on stilts. That lets the wind blow under the house, for effective
cooling. (It also helps in times of flood.) But the last time I was
in Queensland I noticed that all the Queenslanders had had walls
added around the under-floor area, creating extra rooms but
cancelling the cooling effect.

Interesting.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_(architecture)#Characteristics>

I should add that most wooden houses in Australia, in most states, are
built on stumps. Stumps are certainly needed if the house is on a
sloping block. Mostly, though, that creates a low crawl space. The distinguishing feature of the Queenslander style is that the stumps are
so high that one can walk under the house without needing to bend.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 22:14:47 -0700, Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

Red & Blue states

And pills. Eg "red-pilled" and "blue-pilled".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:35:25 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

On 24/06/26 17:38, Hibou wrote:

Le 24/06/2026 |a 08:07, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. [...]

Ah! That's what it is. I had a feeling something was going on, I mean
apart from the heatwave.

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat wave,
and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and there are no more
rumours about the British PM resigning, so there's a shortage of news.
Oh, OK, some local news about the Racist Party heading for victory in
the next election, and some birds with flu, and the Treasurer explained
how inflation fell in May, followed by other experts saying that
inflation went up in May. That still left plenty of time for sports news.

What?

Nothing about the Epstein Pool?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 26/06/2026 |a 08:50, Steve Hayes a |-crit :

Peter Moylan wrote:

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat wave,
and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and there are no more
rumours about the British PM resigning, so there's a shortage of news.
Oh, OK, some local news about the Racist Party heading for victory in
the next election, and some birds with flu, and the Treasurer explained
how inflation fell in May, followed by other experts saying that
inflation went up in May. That still left plenty of time for sports news.

What?

Nothing about the Epstein Pool?

Or Buckingham Palace? A -u369-million refurbishment is nearing
completion, but the King doesn't want to live there.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr4z5rxympo>

In other news, they're still looking for somewhere to park asylum seekers.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgjm61lkl4o>

An idea's just come to merCa.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Thursday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan declared ...

On 26/06/26 15:53, Hibou wrote:

Le 25/06/2026 a 09:38, Peter Moylan a ocrit :

There's a traditional Queenslander style of house that's built high
on stilts. That lets the wind blow under the house, for effective
cooling. (It also helps in times of flood.) But the last time I was
in Queensland I noticed that all the Queenslanders had had walls
added around the under-floor area, creating extra rooms but
cancelling the cooling effect.

Interesting.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_(architecture)#Characteristics>

I should add that most wooden houses in Australia, in most states, are
built on stumps. Stumps are certainly needed if the house is on a
sloping block. Mostly, though, that creates a low crawl space. The distinguishing feature of the Queenslander style is that the stumps are
so high that one can walk under the house without needing to bend.

I think I've encountered houses literally built on stumps, but they are
rare and probably historic. Post and beam is the common design, and
that's usually older houses (but in parts of Pensacola and similar
places, you can get quite new houses built on 7 foot posts (well, the
part that's above ground is about 7 foot). The two most common
constructions since WW@, though, are foundations and slabs. Almost all ranch-style houses seem to be on slabs, so very common in suburbia.

/dps
--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 26/06/26 19:12, Snidely wrote:

On Thursday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan declared ...

On 26/06/26 15:53, Hibou wrote:

Le 25/06/2026 a 09:38, Peter Moylan a ocrit :

There's a traditional Queenslander style of house that's built high
on stilts. That lets the wind blow under the house, for effective
cooling. (It also helps in times of flood.) But the last time I was
in Queensland I noticed that all the Queenslanders had had walls
added around the under-floor area, creating extra rooms but
cancelling the cooling effect.

Interesting.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_(architecture)#Characteristics> >>>

I should add that most wooden houses in Australia, in most states, are
built on stumps. Stumps are certainly needed if the house is on a
sloping block. Mostly, though, that creates a low crawl space. The
distinguishing feature of the Queenslander style is that the stumps are
so high that one can walk under the house without needing to bend.

I think I've encountered houses literally built on stumps, but they are
rare and probably historic. Post and beam is the common design, and
that's usually older houses (but in parts of Pensacola and similar
places, you can get quite new houses built on 7 foot posts (well, the
part that's above ground is about 7 foot). The two most common
constructions since WW@, though, are foundations and slabs. Almost all ranch-style houses seem to be on slabs, so very common in suburbia.

My own present house is built on a slab, but that's because it's a brick
house. Brick houses are rare in the Newcastle region; ancient coal mines
are not well mapped, so there's always the risk of falling into a hole
in the ground. The slab is one way of dealing with potential mine
subsidence.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 26/06/2026 09:26, Hibou wrote:

Le 26/06/2026 |a 08:50, Steve Hayes a |-crit :

Peter Moylan wrote:

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat wave,
and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and there are no more
rumours about the British PM resigning, so there's a shortage of news.
Oh, OK, some local news about the Racist Party heading for victory in
the next election, and some birds with flu, and the Treasurer explained
how inflation fell in May, followed by other experts saying that
inflation went up in May. That still left plenty of time for sports
news.

What?

Nothing about the Epstein Pool?

Or Buckingham Palace? A -u369-million refurbishment is nearing
completion, but the King doesn't want to live there.

why should he have live in the office? does the mayor London live in
county hall?

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr4z5rxympo>

In other news, they're still looking for somewhere to park asylum seekers.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgjm61lkl4o>

An idea's just come to merCa.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 26/06/2026 |a 15:30, Charles Hope a |-crit :

On 26/06/2026 09:26, Hibou wrote:

Or Buckingham Palace? A -u369-million refurbishment is nearing
completion, but the King doesn't want to live there.

why should he have live in the office? does the mayor London live in
county hall? [...]

I suppose kings have usually lived over the shop, so to speak, shared
the castle with their administrators.

-u369 million seems a lot to spend on offices. Perhaps the staff could be moved somewhere cheaper, Slough or somewhere. To recoup the expenditure,
the Palace could be turned into a hotel for those with money -
Americans, oligarchs, and rock stars. There must be a few who'd pay
handsomely for the opportunity to smash a guitar in the Queen's old bedroom.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 16:17:32 +1000
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:

On 26/06/26 15:53, Hibou wrote:

Le 25/06/2026 a 09:38, Peter Moylan a ocrit :

There's a traditional Queenslander style of house that's built high
on stilts. That lets the wind blow under the house, for effective
cooling. (It also helps in times of flood.) But the last time I was
in Queensland I noticed that all the Queenslanders had had walls
added around the under-floor area, creating extra rooms but
cancelling the cooling effect.

Interesting.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_(architecture)#Characteristics>

I should add that most wooden houses in Australia, in most states, are
built on stumps. Stumps are certainly needed if the house is on a
sloping block. Mostly, though, that creates a low crawl space. The distinguishing feature of the Queenslander style is that the stumps are
so high that one can walk under the house without needing to bend.

My father-not-in-law cut through the legs of his in order to put copper?
sheets in to prevent termite attacks. It was just floating on the
stumps when we were there. He also preferred rainwater to treated reservoir water (that was just for washing in). He also was of the bake-yourself-silly-to-harden-you-up era. He didn't die of skin (or any
other) cancer, amazingly.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 24/06/2026 11:35, Peter Moylan wrote:

On 24/06/26 17:38, Hibou wrote:

Le 24/06/2026 |a 08:07, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. [...]

Ah! That's what it is. I had a feeling something was going on, I mean
-aapart from the heatwave.

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat wave,
and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and

Surely, in the spirit of "Man bites dog", a day when Trump does nothing
stupid would be newsworthy?
--
Sam Plusnet
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 24/06/26 17:07, Peter Moylan wrote:

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. That makes it a good time
to mention that soccer players do not score goals. Instead, the ball
finds the back of the net.

Now that balls can find their own way, players are likely to become irrelevant.

I should have added that this turn of phrase might also be affecting
golf. In recent TV golf coverage, the ball found the water hazard. There
was no explanation of why the ball was seeking the water hazard.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 27/06/2026 |a 01:20, Peter Moylan a |-crit :

On 24/06/26 17:07, Peter Moylan wrote:

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. That makes it a good time
to mention that soccer players do not score goals. Instead, the ball
finds the back of the net.

Now that balls can find their own way, players are likely to become
irrelevant.

I should have added that this turn of phrase might also be affecting
golf. In recent TV golf coverage, the ball found the water hazard. There
was no explanation of why the ball was seeking the water hazard.

There's no clich|- like a resurrected clich|-rCa.

"[rCa] the ball found its way to the centre. Here Fergusson on having the
ball passed to him made a brilliant run through the opposing forwards
and was not tackled till their twenty-five" - 'The Fettesian', 1885.

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+ball+found+its+way&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 25/06/2026 09:56, Hibou wrote:

Our experience in
French g|<tes during heatwaves (up to 38-#C) has been that old, stone-
built buildings with external shutters are quite good. It's handy if one
can set up through ventilation at night (this requires a fan because
there's often no wind).

Stone-built building are no longer economically viable, alas. I live in
one such building and the thick walls (and high ceilings) make the
interior much cooler than modern apartments constructed with concrete
blocks.

As far as I can see, Mediterranean people spend a lot of time in the
dark, with the shutters shut, hiding from the sun.

There are two sides to every building. Shutters closed on the sunny
side, open windows on the shade side. This can create a small internal
draft, which has the same effect as a breeze.

Until relatively recently, the only 'air conditioning' in Mediterranean climates has been the ceiling fan. Alas, the US-style air-conditioning
is on the rise. Not only do you see their ugly protrusions on the
outside of buildings, but you also hear the hum and watch the drip of condensation on the outside walls.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Le 27/06/2026 |a 06:52, occam a |-crit :

On 25/06/2026 09:56, Hibou wrote:

Our experience in
French g|<tes during heatwaves (up to 38-#C) has been that old, stone-
built buildings with external shutters are quite good. It's handy if one
can set up through ventilation at night (this requires a fan because
there's often no wind).

Stone-built building are no longer economically viable, alas. I live in
one such building and the thick walls (and high ceilings) make the
interior much cooler than modern apartments constructed with concrete
blocks.

As far as I can see, Mediterranean people spend a lot of time in the
dark, with the shutters shut, hiding from the sun.

There are two sides to every building. Shutters closed on the sunny
side, open windows on the shade side. This can create a small internal draft, which has the same effect as a breeze.

Not everyone has access to both sides. Some flats have windows only on
one side.

(We are lucky enough to live in a stone building with high ceilings and windows on both sides.)

Until relatively recently, the only 'air conditioning' in Mediterranean climates has been the ceiling fan. Alas, the US-style air-conditioning
is on the rise. Not only do you see their ugly protrusions on the
outside of buildings, but you also hear the hum and watch the drip of condensation on the outside walls.

I'm with you there. In a town, if everyone has electric
air-conditioning, it raises the ambient temperature quite a bit, I
understand. I remember seeing a diagram a long time ago of a wind-driven system in the Middle East, where incoming air was passed over water.
Google Images finds a lot of diagrams of "wind towers", with and without
water in an underground channel (qanat).

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

On 26 Jun 2026, Hibou wrote

Le 26/06/2026 |a 08:50, Steve Hayes a |-crit :

Peter Moylan wrote:

Correction: in the Australian news. It's winter here, so no heat
wave, and apparently Trump did nothing stupid today, and there
are no more rumours about the British PM resigning, so there's a
shortage of news. Oh, OK, some local news about the Racist Party
heading for victory in the next election, and some birds with
flu, and the Treasurer explained how inflation fell in May,
followed by other experts saying that inflation went up in May.
That still left plenty of time for sports news.

What?

Nothing about the Epstein Pool?

Or Buckingham Palace? A u369-million refurbishment is nearing
completion, but the King doesn't want to live there.

Can't blame him, really -- neither did his mother, who IIRC decamped
to Windsor on Thursday afternoon and returned on Monday or Tuesday.

The private living quarters at BP are nice rather than grand -- a
string of rather dark (entirely north-facing) rooms on the first
floor, with a dining room, sitting room, a small library, his-and-her
suites (each with a bedrooom, dressing room, small sitting room, and
private office), and a few other small-ish reception rooms.

They're lined up in a row -- until the 1920s, some of them were
connected in the (very) old plan of room-to-room rather than corridor
access. Rather like a row of oversized railway carriages.

Nice enough accommodation for when you need to be on site for head-
of-state monarchy stuff, but it's hardly a mystery why somebody would
opt for lighter, more spacious living spaces for their everyday lives
if they can.
--
Cheers,
Harvey

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.usage.english

Peter Moylan formulated the question :

On 24/06/26 17:07, Peter Moylan wrote:

The soccer World Cup is now in the news. That makes it a good time
to mention that soccer players do not score goals. Instead, the ball
finds the back of the net.

Now that balls can find their own way, players are likely to become
irrelevant.

I should have added that this turn of phrase might also be affecting
golf. In recent TV golf coverage, the ball found the water hazard. There
was no explanation of why the ball was seeking the water hazard.

Clearly, misread its instructions during the briefing on the tee.

-d
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2