Huh??

I saw this AOL News headline:

Bush Blaming Congress On The Foreclosure Crisis?

A quick scan of the headline had me doing a double-take.  Then I had to read it a few more times.  Is it just me, or does the wording in that headline mean that "the foreclosure crisis" is responsible for Congress.  I'm pretty sure the headline writer meant it the other way 'round.

Shouldn't it have read "Bush Blaming Foreclosure Crisis On Congress?"  or "Bush Blaming Congress For Foreclosure Crisis?"

Could one of the many, many definitions for the word "on" actually support the headline being written that way?  If so, I just can't wrap my mind around it.  But if you can wrap yours around it, then please email me and explain it, because things like this just drive me nuts!

I know.  It's just a headline. 

But it's a stupidly written headline!!

Cut short

One of my pet hates is the use of abbreviations without using an explanation. There are some fairly common ones about, such as e.g. (for instance, for example). However, if you can get away without using the abbreviation, please do. I worked in the supplies division of the army for 6 years, and they are terrible for abbreviations and strange shortcuts. CSM e.g. means company sergeant major, the terror of all troops. I found guidelines for the use of abbreviations in the U.S..

Allied to that is textspeak, or should I type txtspk. When I first came to AOL, now 4 years ago, I didn't have a clue what somebody meant when they typed CUL8R. Of course, I now know it stands for "see you later". And I also appreciate that not every internet user is a 70 wpm fast typist like myself (coughs). Moreover, you can't type fast on a mobile phone keypad, and I see the need for shortcuts. However, textspeak is beginning to intrude into everyday language, and it's a degradation in my book. It's the answer to a lazy man's prayer.

En Garde!

A few weeks ago I was listening to a heated discussion on talk radio.  I no longer recall what the debate was about, but something that was said caught my ear and I listened intently for several minutes.  There were two "experts", a man and a woman, with contrasting views.  At one point there was a caller who agreed with the points expert #1 was making.  The caller made several statements to which expert #1 would agree.  After the caller made his last statement, expert #1  replied "touché".  From the context of the conversation and the statement being made by the caller, expert #1 had to have meant "touché" as a word meaning agreement.  Since then I have heard someone on television do the same thing.  And of course, I was very irritated both times.

So, just in case there is anyone out there who isn't sure what touché means or when it should be used, here's the scoop:

The word "touché" is french for "touched", but according to the American Journal of Etymology it is not of French origin.  It is believed that it was probably imported to France from the original Norse language of Norman settlers.

"Touché" is an interjection used in fencing to acknowledge a hit, and it is said by the fencer who receives the hit.  In the 1800s first blood duels were relatively common.  Drawing "first blood", or touching an opponent with the sword tip, was enough to win, and the loser would acknowledge defeat by calling out "touched", or "touché".

 

The word is used in language today to acknowledge a verbal "hit".  During a debate or argument, one person may acknowledge the other's witty or appropriate response by saying "touché".  But the word is never, ever used to express agreement.

 

Tags: Touché

aoljpictureUpload, aoljpictureUpload_2

Toboggin and Boggin

      Our recent snowfall and watching the kiddies wrapping up and getting out their sleds made me remember a pet peeve I have.  I hate it when people use the word "toboggin" for the knitted, wool cap they wear.  A toboggin is a light sled used for transport over snow.  According to my OED the word was Canadian French, "tabaganne", taken from an Algonquin word.  There are closely similar variations found in other Native American words. 

I have not found (or haven't so far) the origin of the word "boggin" for a knitted, wool cap.  I'm going to have to dig a little deeper, unless someone out there has a reference source for it.  I am aware of the word as Scottish slang for messy or smelly, and other similar adjectives.  But when did it become a name for a knitted cap?

Tags: toboggin, boggin

aoljpictureUpload, aoljpictureUpload_1

To Be Or Not To Be -- Silent?

Yasmin asked a question in a previous comment regarding the word "herbal".  She observed, "... this always irritates me when I hear it, in Britain we always say "Herbal" and when I hear people from the US it always sounds like "Erbal or Erbs why is the H silent but in spelling the H is always used, or is it just a slang that's used?"

Good question.  First of all I looked up the word "herb" in my Oxford English Dictionary of Etymology, 1966.  On page 437 it says, in part, "The sp. [spelling] with h is recorded from the earliest times, but the pronounc. [pronunciation] without initial aspirate was regular till early XVI."  So at least as early as the 16th century the silent "h" was common.

Why is the "h" silent?  The American Standard Dictionary of the English Language Fourth Edition, 2000, makes this interesting usage note: "The word herb, which can be pronounced with or without the (h), is one of a number of words borrowed into English from French. The (h) sound had been lost in Latin and was not pronounced in French or the other Romance languages, which are descended from Latin, although it was retained in the spelling of some words. In both Old and Middle English, however, h was generally pronounced, as in the native English words happy and hot. Through the influence of spelling, then, the h came to be pronounced in most words borrowed from French, such as haste and hostel. In a few other words borrowed from French the h has remained silent, as in honor, honest, hour, and heir. And in another small group of French loan words, including herb, humble, human, and humor, the h may or may not be pronounced depending on the dialect of English. In British English, herb and its derivatives, such as herbaceous, herbal, herbicide, and herbivore, are pronounced with h. In American English, herb and herbal are more often pronounced without the h, while the opposite is true of herbaceous, herbicide, and herbivore, which are more often pronounced with the h."

So apparently either is as acceptable as the other.   It always sounds strange to me to hear the "h" pronounced in herb (unless the Herb being pronounced is short for Herbert).   On the other hand, my mother has always pronounced the word "humble" as "'humble" with a silent "h", and that used to bug me no end!  But according to that usage note, it is acceptable either way!  I also found a reference that said it was more common in the South for the "h" to be silent in the word "humble", so perhaps that was something my mother got from her Virginia grandparents.

I hope this answers the question.

Tags: Silent H, herb, humble

What's The Deal With Dis-orientated?

This is a re-run of an entry I made in my main journal.  I thought it would fit well here:

Feeling Dis-orientated

I recently re-read (actually listened to the audio book of...) Death in Holy Orders by P.D. James and was reminded of a word that bugs the heck out of me -- disorientated.  I don't know why, but it just doesn't sound right.  The first time I saw it in print I thought it was a misprint.  But I looked it up and it is actually a word.  It means, of course, to "cause to be lost or disoriented", and the literal meaning is to "turn away from the East or (figuratively) from the right or the truth", thus the "orient" portion of the word, as in "oriental".  (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)

I have no problem with the word disoriented, but disorientated makes my mouth feel funny!  And if reading the word was bad, listening to it being read on the audio book was even worse.  Made my head spin every time I heard it.  And I think P.D. James uses it at least a half dozen times in that book.

Oh well.  I'll get over it.  Isn't it funny how some words just bug you or make your tongue feel funny when you try to say them?  I do love P.D. James, though, and Death in Holy Orders is probably my favorite Adam Dalgliesh story.  Love those "who-done-its."

 

P.S. I just checked my OED of English Etymology, 1966 and found this interesting note about the word "orient": "...place so as to face the east ...; determine the bearings of; ...ascertain one's bearings ...So, by extension with -ATE, orientate; prob. after orientaTION; situation so as to face east (of a church, east and west), bearing or lie of a thing, determination of bearings...." 

 

But the word "disorientate" doesn't appear in this book.

 

P.P.S.  Tag, Guido, you're it.

Tags: Disoriented, disorientated, P.D. James, Death In Holy Orders

Giving A Title Its Due

Well, I'm determined I'm going to get an entry in here before the day is officially over!

I've been playing around with several ideas for entries, but then Amanda left a comment in the previous entry that I feel I just MUST address.  Let's see what we can find out, shall we?

Amanda asked how to "properly give a book title its due recognition",  and she wondered "how to properly do speech in writing."  She wondered if she could put the actual quote on another line to emphasize it.  Let's deal with the second question first. 

I don't see why you can't put a quote on a separate line to emphasize it, but I wouldn't (like the example you used in your comment) put She said, on one line, and then the quote on another line.  I'd just go ahead and put the words She said and the quote on the same line, or I'd just let the quote stand alone without using the words She said.  I couldn't find anything that addressed this particular question, but I did find this nifty video about using quotation marks: Nifty Video About Using Quotation Marks.  The only thing I'll add is that when you're writing in your journal or in any personal writing I don't see why you can't style your writing any way you want.  If you're looking to get published, you'll have an editor (or team of editors) rearranging anything that needs to be rearranged, anyway.

Now, as for the first question dealing with properly giving a book title its due recognition:  Unless things have changed since my proofreading days, the preferred method is to underline the title of a book or magazine.   ONE CAN ALSO WRITE THE TITLE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.  I have also seen cases where a book or magazine title is typed in italics, but I was not taught to do so.  (I must offer a bit of a disclaimer here.  I was a proofreader for a newspaper, and sometimes journalism has its own rules and regulations when it comes to these things.)  I believe that it is more acceptable to underline titles.  However, two exceptions to this are the Bible and the Koran.  I don't think it's acceptable to underline these names, or to write them in all caps, nor would I italicize them.  Often when I'm writing online I will use all caps for the title of a book, simply because underlining may make it look like a hyperlink, but otherwise I prefer underlining.  Never underline and italicize a title at the same time.  It just isn't done.

I found one source that mentioned that The New Yorker uses quotation marks around everything whether it's a novel, a TV show, or a short story.  I think the main thing is to be consistent within your writing.  Decide which you are going to do, and then stick with it.

If I find anything more definitive about this, I'll post it at a later time, and if there is anyone out there who knows what the current rules are, please leave a comment or email me.

 

Tags: underlining titles of books, writing dialogue