language

Archived Posts from this Category

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Itch vs. Scratch

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , |
[2] Comments 

Language lovers can lead a lonely life. Seriously, there are few people interested in discussing etymology or proofreading menus with me. I really don’t know why!

So how very excited I was when, while enjoying pizza with friends, dear Lisa said she had two submissions for us here at Which Word Wednesday. Oh, joy! We then had a fabulous language discussion, easing my language loneliness. And now we get to wrestle out the first of Lisa’s submissions, the nuances between itch and scratch.

Her premise? When you have an itch, you scratch it—you do not itch it. Looks like a question of whether itch is a proper synonym for scratch. Let’s start with definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

itch
noun :: an uncomfortable sensation on the skin that causes a desire to scratch
verb :: be the site of or cause an itch

scratch
noun :: a mark or wound made by scratching
verb :: score or mark the surface of (something) with a sharp or pointed object

Both words take on double-duty as nouns and verbs. As a noun, an itch is something we feel when our skin is irritated and itchy. Itch can be an action (a verb), but it refers to the “experience [of] an itch” or to “feel a restless or strong desire to do something.” But it does not mean “to scratch.”

Things can be itchy—bug bites, scratches, rashes, and so on. But people do not perform the act of itching, unless they itch us with a rough personality.

So we can scratch our itches, but we cannot itch them, because that would only compound our discomfort.

What’s my WWW verdict? An itch is something we experience, not something we do.

What’s your verdict? Do you itch your scratches or scratch your itches? Does your personality give others an itchy feeling? Does this post remind you of Itchy and Scratchy? Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

 

Friday, May 4, 2012

Beach Retreat 2012 Reading Synopsis

Posted by erinstraza under culture, faith, language | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

My reading jaunt at Beach Retreat 2012 is coming to a close. [sigh.] It’s been thoroughly enjoyable and greatly filling!

New friends found at Beach Retreat 2012.

At the end of a Beach Retreat, I like to reflect a bit on the books I’ve consumed and how each has nourished me. A theme or thread often emerges between the seemingly random books selected. It’s like they’ve become friends after a week at the beach, discovering little pieces of commonality in their personalities and characters. Here’s the treasure from this year’s stack.

I once wrote a poem with this line: “Let my life be a stage where Your glory is displayed for all to see.” I was reminded of this line while reading Donald Miller’s A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: How I Learned to Live a Better Story. He challenged me to live a life that is a story worth reading about. For me, this includes developing a better awareness of how I spend my moments, because each day has only so many. I want to spend mine wisely, on projects and writing that will make my life story something of a grand play where God’s glory is magnified.

Awareness and focus on the important things such as these are slippery. Anchors keep them moored. Ann Voskamp taught me that gratitude for all the little gifts in everyday life serves as a tether for keeping my eyes fixed on the meaningful. The act of writing down the lovely in life unwraps these important God-gifts, making them tangible. (Also, her poetic writing style fed my writer’s heart.)

Story pops up again in Brian Godwa’s Word Pictures: Knowing God through Story & Imagination. Here I learned how God is the master storyteller, using plenty of examples and parables and characters to tell of who He is. Seeing life through the story lens places the everyday in a different light, making it more of an adventure to unwrap than a day to plod through.

In the midst of stories and gifts, A. W. Tozer tells me not to be a sloth. If it’s gratitude I want, then I will have to purposely unwrap God’s gifts. If it’s a better life story, then I will have to actually live a better life story. If it’s knowing God more intimately, then I will have to actually pursue Him. Sounds practical and easy enough, but I needed to hear it.

The subtitles of these four books say much: How I Learned to Live a Better Story. A Dare to Live Fully Right Where You Are. Knowing God through Story & Inspiration. Expect God to Interrupt Your Life. I would love for my life to be shaped by the richness from these reads!

I also read The Hunger Games, which I enjoyed (made the movie much more understandable). I walk away from that thinking of the girls I met in India. I don’t want to be the clueless Capitol, gussied up and filled with self while all around me there are people starving, brutalized, and neglected. If I’m going to just live life for my own comfort and amusement, I may as well have pink hair and crazy clothing. It’s as ridiculous as it looked in the film.

Finally, I’ve just started Robert Lane Greene’s You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity. It is a commentary on language covering everything from history to usage to common misconceptions. The message so far? What people are saying—the words and phrases they use and misuse—are windows to their very souls. Haughty judgment of how someone speaks is never appropriate, and Greene reminds me that the heart is what is being said rather than how they are saying it.

_______________
Sources
1. Donald Miller, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: How I Learned to Live a Better Story(Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson 2009).
2. Ann Voskamp, One Thousand Gifts: A Dare to Live Fully Right Where You Are (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan 2010).
3. Brian Godwa, Word Pictures: Knowing God through Story & Imagination
4. A. W. Tozer,  A Disruptive Faith: Expect God to Interrupt Your Life (Ventura, Cal.: Regal 2011).
5. Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games (New York, NY: Scholastic 2008).
6. Robert Lane Greene, You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity (New York, NY: Delacorte Press 2011).

 

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Espresso vs. Expresso

Posted by erinstraza under culture, language | Tags: , , |
1 Comment 

There I was, scanning the dessert menu of a quaint little place called Island Creperie, and my eyes did a double take. Not on the St. Marteen Crepe with its delectable combo of bananas and Nutella (which was fabulous, by the way). No, it was after that, when I stopped at the Hot Drinks section to look over my coffee options.

Right there, for all the world to see (and adopt!) was expresso. ack!

And of course, I couldn’t contain myself. I had to discuss. Language talk makes for delightful table conversation, so I drug my beach retreat friends into a riveting discussion about which was correct. (The Hubster is accustomed to this. Lodge Ladies? Not so much. My apologies to them.)

I was so stunned, I took a picture. Of a menu. I am a weirdo. But I had to document what I often hear but haven’t ever seen in print.

Lodge Lady J mentioned that in France espresso was a small shot, un express. Maybe that’s why this little French-like restaurant spelled espresso incorrectly? But why not just call it un express to make it French-authentic? hmm. My only consolation: Another Which Word Wednesday, plopped in my lap. On vacation, even!

Here’s what I found in The Oxford American Dictionary:

espresso :: noun
strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans; from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally ‘pressed out (coffee).’

So espresso is Italian; un express is French. Perhaps as Americans we are combing the two to form the hideous expresso?

The Oxford American Dictionary goes on to note: “The often-occurring variant spelling expresso—and its pronunciation |ikˈspresō|—is incorrect and was probably formed by analogy with express.” Makes sense, the association of express, a word we know, with espresso, a foreign term.

Makes sense, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. Then again, the restaurant also spelled mocha with a K (moka is also Italian, a brewing process for a coffee drink with no chocolate). Sighs all around.

What’s my WWW verdict? Pretty simple: Espresso has no X. And restaurants as fabulous as Island Creperie don’t need to resort to exotic spellings to make their menus look fancy. Just spell it correctly. That’s fancy enough.

What’s your verdict? Do you like a little X in your espresso? Do you want to launch a campaign to save espresso from those who do? Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

 

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Toward vs. Towards

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

Lynne Truss—author of Eats, Shoots and Leaves—compares herself to the little boy from The Sixth Sense. She says that instead of seeing dead people, she sees dead language.

I can also see dead language. I also see lifeless punctuation. It’s the little things that make my ears itch, like the pronunciation of the T in often or the use of a non-word like irregardless.

Then there are words that are acceptable for use depending on which side of the pond you call home. Most differences between American English and British English are pronunciation in nature (we say advertisement with four syllables: ad-ver-TISE-ment; the Brits say it with three: AD-vertis-ment).

But there are also some spelling differences between American and British English, such as toward versus towards.

My sources tell me that toward—no S—is standard in American English. The Oxford American Dictionary explains it like this:

It might seem pedantic to point out that toward is the correct U.S. spelling and towards is British. On the other hand, so many writers at all levels seem ignorant of the difference that always using toward is a costless, unpretentious way to signal your fluency in American English. It’s the same with gray (U.S.) and grey (Brit.), though many Americans have been using these two interchangeably for so long that some U.S. dictionaries now list grey as a passable variant. This is not likely to happen with toward/towards, though—at least not in our lifetimes.

Well, that’s a relief—we can be unpretentious and correct!

This ruling of no S at the end in American English also applies for the words forward, backward, and afterward. The S at the end is the British variation. (You can dig it out for use the next time you head overseas.)

What’s my WWW verdict? You can now be correct four times more often by dropping the S from these four words. Easy peasy! And according to the OAD, it’s costless. Bonus!

What’s your verdict? Do you speak American English? Or do you speak like the Brits with an S tacked on the backside of these four words? Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

 

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Misconception vs. Misperception

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

The other day I was typing away, working on a document for a client, when that little red squiggly line appeared under a word I had typed. I stared and stared at the word, trying to figure out why it had been marked by Word’s Grammar Troll. The word didn’t look to be spelled incorrectly, so then I wondered if I had coupled it with a wrong verb tense—but that wasn’t it either.

Then it dawned on me. The red squiggly was telling me that my word of choice was not a word at all. eek!

The word in question? Misperception. I was explaining how some beliefs we hold are incorrect because the facts we hold to aren’t really facts at all. So the word I needed was misconception or misunderstanding or misbelief—but not misperception, because according to The Oxford American Dictionary, that’s not even a word.

Now given, it is a word—we can read it and say it in plain English. It exists. And according to a quick online search, other people think it’s a word too, with 1.37 million uses of it on the Internet. (Well, let’s hope most of those occurrences are to set the record straight about this non-word usage.)

That brings us to Which Word Wednesday! Let’s look at the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary for the word I needed in my sentence, misconception, and pair it with the root of my non-word, perception:

misconception :: noun
a view or opinion that is incorrect because it is based on faulty thinking or understanding

perception :: noun
a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression

What I’m seeing is that misconceptions are inherently incorrect, and once all the facts are known, everyone would adjust to a new conception about the matter. For example, it was a misconception that the world was flat. Once we had facts, conceptions changed to align with the correct understanding that the world was round.

On the other hand, perceptions are simply the way you perceive something, which is sort of personal, neither right or wrong. I may see improper word use as a major catastrophe, while others aren’t quite so bothered by it. (But they should be.)

What’s my WWW verdict? Some words sound right when you hear them and even look correct when you see them, but that doesn’t mean they are words. Give it about 50 years though—heavy usage is nine-tenths of law.

What’s your verdict? Have you used misperception instead of misconception? What other non-words should we be watching for? Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Bull, Cattle, Cow, Ox, and Steer

Posted by erinstraza under culture, language | Tags: , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Talking about wild cows in the road may be cliché when it comes to travel commentary. But clichés become clichés because (mostly) they are true: I really did see cows in the road, in a large city, and that’s not the norm where I live. And I really was one of those gawking tourists.

As traffic maneuvered around a particularly large beast that had plopped itself in an intersection, I wondered what sort of animal it was. Cow? Cattle? Steer? I may live in central Illinois, but when it comes to identifying livestock by class, I’m clueless.

How happy I was to find a five-word entry dedicated to these large animals in The Artful Nuance by Ron Evans for this week’s Which Word Wednesday! Here are the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

"Roaming Cows," by A. Dollard, 2012

bull :: noun
an uncastrated male bovine animal

cattle :: noun
large ruminant animals with horns and cloven hoofs, domesticated for meat or milk, or as beasts of burden; cows.

cow :: noun
a fully grown female animal of a domesticated breed of ox, used as a source of milk or beef

ox :: noun
a domesticated bovine animal kept for milk or meat; a cow or bull

steer :: noun
a male domestic bovine animal that has been castrated and is raised for beef

How do we sort these out? Well, Ron Evans is a huge help. By his commentary, bulls and cows are both cattle—bulls are male cattle, cows are female cattle.1

Evans also provides insight for the remaining two terms, ox and steer. He says: “Steers and oxen are the same animal, though the former term usually applies to animals raised for beef, and the latter usually applies to draft animals: ‘We used the steers for beef and used the oxen for carrying things.’ ”2

So what sort of cow-animal did I see in India? Honestly, I’m not sure! But they had horns, so perhaps we could classify them as cattle? But it’s not likely these stray animals were used for meat or milk . . . so perhaps that makes them more of a draft animal, placing them in the oxen category? hmmm . . .

What’s my WWW verdict? Talking about animals in the road may be cliché, but I don’t care. I am glad to have seen it with my own eyes!

What’s your verdict? Do you know your cattle from your oxen? Have you ever seen large animals blocking city traffic?! Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 35.
2. Ibid., 36.

 

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Give a Friendly Toot

Posted by erinstraza under culture, language | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

When I took Drivers’ Ed oh-so-many years ago, there was a training video explaining the rules of the road. One scene showed a driver backing out of a blocked-view driveway, and the voice over said in such situations, drivers should precede slowly and “give a friendly toot” with your horn to warn oncoming traffic. This, of course, evoked much snickering from the class. I’ve never forgotten it.

I do believe the Friendly Toot Principle originated here in India. There is a lot of honking happening. I think it’s highly likely that our van driver has used the horn more in the past two days than I have used mine in 24 years.

But horn usage has a different feel here in India. Horns are friendly warnings by motorists wishing to pass others, squeeze through tight spaces, or merge into the flow. Truck drivers have painted instructions on the back of their trucks that say, “Horn OK Please” which is in desperate need of some punctuation. It could be a statement (Horn, OK; please) or a question (Horn, OK? please). Whatever it should be, it means that drivers who wish to pass should beep their horns first.

Driving in the States is rather solitary; it is rare that I interact with other drivers, aside from muttering to myself about crazy lane usage or rude drivers who drive too close for my comfort. Horn usage is reserved for those close-call situations when fear prompts me to response with some sort of acknowledgement of another driver’s error.

Here in India, however, driving requires engagement with others. You can’t isolate or space out. All your skills in communicating, negotiating, and maneuvering are needed. Horn usage is expected. And overall, it is friendly.

 

 

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Acronym vs. Initialism

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Long before prescriptivists were lamenting the onset of mobile phone text-speak, there were abbreviations like laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) and scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus) and USA (United States of America).

Abbreviations come in two flavors: acronyms and initialisms. This week’s Which Word Wednesday looks at the difference between the two. Here are the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

acronym :: noun
a word formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g., radar, laser)

initialism :: noun
an abbreviation consisting of initial letters pronounced separately (e.g., CPU)

Although both nouns refer to abbreviations, according to Mignon Fogarty’s The Grammar Devotional, “acronyms are special kinds of abbreviations that can be pronounced as words, such as OPEC (‘oh-peck’ for Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries).”1 Laser and scuba would also be examples of acronyms.

Fogarty explains that initialisms are “often confused with acronyms because they’re made up of letters, so they look similar, but they can’t be pronounced as words. FBI and CIA are examples.”1

USA is another example of an initialism.

How can we tell the difference? I’m thinking of initials when I think of initialisms. My initials are EMS, and I pronounce each letter separately rather than pronouncing my initials as a word (“ems”).

What’s my WWW verdict? If you can pronounce the abbreviation as a word, it’s an acronym; if you can’t, it’s an initialism.

What’s your verdict? Do you know your acronyms from your initialisms? How do tell one from the other? Do you have a favorite abbreviation? Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Mignon Fogarty, The Grammar Devotional: Daily Tips for Successful Writing from Grammar Girl (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 182.

 

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Metonym vs. Synonym

Posted by erinstraza under culture, language | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=peter+roget&num=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1499&bih=664&tbm=isch&tbnid=c3Wm64gPeE0k3M:&imgrefurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/roget_peter_mark.shtml&docid=HNAAZPYqzRcmiM&imgurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/images/roget_peter_mark.jpg&w=136&h=185&ei=T64WT47GOKqqsQKB0d2yAg&zoom=1

Thanks, Peter!

Happy Thesaurus Day! Today is the day we observe the word treasury that was written by Peter Roget, born January 18, 1779. Roget’s Thesaurus was first published in April 1852, which begs the question: What did writers do to find synonyms before then?! I, for one, am happy to be living on this side of 1852.

How will I celebrate this felicity? I just may crack out a gift the Hubster gave me last year, The Thinker’s Thesaurus. It’s a mega-Thesaurus. I highly recommend it.

Another merriment on tap here at The Patch is Which Word Wednesday. Isn’t it fun that Thesaurus Day falls on Wednesday this year?! We get to celebrate the holiday and a word match up all at once.

In honor of the Peter’s birthday, we’ll consider metonym vs. synonym. Here are the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

metonym :: noun
a word, name, or expression used as a substitute for something else with which it is closely associated

synonym :: noun
a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language

Both nouns refer to words that can be used to substitute other words. Word association is key—you should be able to use one word or the other with the intended meaning remaining the same.

A metonym is the term for words that are more general or loosely associated with each other. The OAD expounds: “For example, Washington is a metonym for the federal government of the U.S.”

A synonym is the term for words that are near substitutes for one another. Once again, the OAD provides insight: “For example shut is a synonym of close.”

Roget’s Thesaurus as well as The Thinker’s Thesaurus are sources to turn to when you need help finding that perfect word to communicate clearly. But I see the classic version as the source for synonyms and the lesser-known version as the source for metonyms. For example, if we look at the word creative, we find the following entries:

The Thesaurus offers 11 options for substitution in its entry:
inventive, imaginative, innovative, experimental, original; artistic, expressive, inspired, visionary; enterprising, resourceful

The Thinker’s Thesaurus offers two loosely related words in its entry:
(1) and/or original adj.: Promethean [Prometheus was the Titan god of forethought, who, based on some legends, was entrusted with the task of molding mankind out of clay.]

(2) as in resourceful person n.: debrouillard [French].

What’s my WWW verdict? If you are looking for basic substitutions to avoid repetitive speech, use a Thesaurus; if you need a witty term or reference, check out The Thinker’s Thesaurus.

What’s your verdict? Are you a Thesaurus reader? Will you celebrate Thesaurus Day? Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

 

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Geek vs. Nerd

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , , |
1 Comment 

When I was in junior high and high school, TV shows and movies highlighted the awkward lives of the socially inept. These were lovable-yet-dorky characters like Sarah Jessica Parker’s Patty Greene in Square Pegs.

At that time, being nerdy or geeky was not something to strive for. Today, being quirky in a nerdy or geeky way is better than conforming to some standard of cooldom. So which sort of quirky is which? That’s the word quandary for today’s Which Word Wednesday between geek and nerd. Here are the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

geek :: noun
an unfashionable or socially inept person

nerd :: noun
a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious; an intelligent, single-minded expert in a particular technical discipline or profession

From these definitions, geeks are inept but don’t draw attention to it; nerds are inept and lets everyone around see it in all its glory.

Ron Evans takes a different tact his The Artful Nuance: “A geek is any intelligent person with an obsessive interest, as in computers, science fiction, comic books, politics, or even sports. . . . It can be used almost neutrally or sometimes even positively.” 1 (Based on this definition, I could be classified as a grammar geek. Is that neutral or positive?) Evans continues: “A nerd is a socially inept or awkward and often unstylish geek.”1

Does that mean all nerds are geeks, but not all geeks are nerds? hmmm . . .

I found this great infographic (from dailyinfographic.com) depicting the differences between geeks and nerds. It says that people self-identify as geek more so than nerd. I think that’s because being geeky is not socially damaging. You can be geeky but cool. Being nerdy is not as socially acceptable because the nerdiness causes foolish or embarrassing behavior. (Click the image to see the infographic in full.)

What’s my WWW verdict? We’ve all got a little geek-and-nerd in us; it just takes the right topic and a demanding social situation to bring it to light.

What’s your verdict? Do you make distinctions between geeks and nerds? How do you tell them apart? Which do you tend to be? Do share in the comments.

_______________

Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 106–107.

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers