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.

 

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Which Word Wednesday: Epee vs. Foil

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

Over the Christmas holiday, I got to visit with my honorary niece (hey Miss Hannah!) who is home from college. She mentioned that she is giving the fencing team a go, and that led to a discussion about the swords. Both épée and foil are common crossword puzzle answers, so I was familiar with the terms and asked which she was using . . . but neither of us knew the difference, so I said I would have to look them up.

Hence, today’s Which Word Wednesday duel (pun intended), the match up between épée and foil. Here are the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

épée :: noun
a sharp-pointed dueling sword, designed for thrusting and used, with the end blunted, in fencing

foil :: noun
a light fencing sword without cutting edges but with a button on its point

Ron Evans gives us more detail in his The Artful Nuance: “An épée is a fencing or dueling sword having a bowl-shaped guard (to protect the hand), a rigid thirty-five-inch blade” and a foil is a weapon “resembling an épée but weighing less and having a flat guard and a more flexible blade.”1

From these sources we can summarize the differences as follows: The épée has a rigid blade with a bowl-shaped guard whereas the foil has a flexible blade with a flat guard.

What’s my WWW verdict? Whether it’s an épée or a foil . . . on guard!

What’s your verdict? Did you know the difference between an épée and a foil? Have you ever participated in a fencing match? 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), 87.

 

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Frog vs. Toad

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

Are you familiar with the Frog and Toad children’s books? I read them back in the day and was reminded of them in an article by Erin Newcomb posted at Christ and Pop Culture on Monday. The best books present characters so real that readers consider them friends. Frog is the sort of guy who is friendly and easy going. Toad is more serious and pensive. Their differences do not prohibit them from being friends, however (a lesson we all need, whatever our age).

But Frog and Toad are not people; they are creatures. So I began to consider the differences between actual frogs and toads . . . which landed me on the topic for this week’s Which Word Wednesday.

Let’s dig in with the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

frog :: noun
a tailless amphibian with a short squat body, moist smooth skin, and very long hind legs for leaping

toad :: noun
a tailless amphibian with a short stout body and short legs, typically having dry warty skin that can exude poison

Both are tailless with short bodies. But frogs get the long legs and moist skin while the toads have short legs and dry skin with warts and poison.

Ron Evans gives us further insight from his The Artful Nuance: “They differ in at least four obvious respects. Frogs like water, are smooth skinned, leap, and have teeth. Toads, except when breeding, aren’t aquatic; are dry, rough skinned, and warty (though they don’t cause warts); and are toothless.”1

What’s my WWW verdict? When you come across a stout, tailless amphibian, and you aren’t sure if it’s a frog or a toad, just ask it to smile. The presence or absence of teeth will solve it.

What’s your verdict? Do you the Frog and Toad adventure stories? Were you aware that frogs have teeth but toads go gummy? 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), 104.

 

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Prim vs. Prissy

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

Selections for Which Word Wednesday typically are chosen from a language debacle or mystery that I simply must put to rest. I must be in a language slump, because this week, I couldn’t think of even one example to draw upon.

Good thing we have The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language by Ron Evans. He provides a whole book full of examples. I flipped through the pages until this entry caught my eye: PRIM/PRISSY (ADJ.). That sounded interesting to me, so here we go, fellow language lovers!

We’ll start with the definitions from The Oxford American Dictionary:

prim :: adjective
stiffly formal and respectable; feeling or showing disapproval of anything regarded as improper

prissy :: adjective
(of a person or their manner) fussily and excessively respectable

When I hear the word prim, I immediately think of proper, as in “prim and proper.” I’m not sure why I always yoke those two together. It also makes me think of someone who is British. I have no explanation for that.

As for prissy, I think of someone who would never go camping (unless it was glamping) because of the outdoorsy bathroom situation. (Interesting side note: OAD says that prissy has been around since the late 19th century, “perhaps a blend of prim and sissy.”)

I do not consider either prim or prissy to be complimentary. Evans supports this in The Artful Nuance:

A prim person is affectedly precise or proper, stiffly formal, and so fastidious in manners and morals as to displease observers.

Prissy . . . means “fussily prim” and connotes sassiness, suggesting an exaggerated sense of what is proper or precise.1

So prim people displease others with their stiff disregard for anything that doesn’t meet their standards for propriety. Prissy people are prim people who get sassy about it.

What’s my WWW verdict? If you want to insult someone, use prim or prissy to describe her. But only if it is true—it wouldn’t be proper otherwise. (In no way am I being prim or prissy about this standard.)

What’s your verdict? Do you use prim or prissy to describe people? Are those descriptors properly applied now that you know the definitions and nuances? 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), 163.

 

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Allegory, Metaphor, and Simile

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

Last week I mentioned two extraordinary allegories—John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress and Hannah Hurnard’s Hinds’ Feet on High Places—in a post over at EWO Women of the Word.

I was reminded of these heart-engaging books while reading selected Proverbs from The Message translation of the Bible for the E100 reading challenge I’m doing with gals from my church. The Message author, Eugene Peterson, takes the Bible’s use of the personification of Wisdom and gives her a few friends (Lady Wisdom, Brother Knowledge, Understanding, Common Sense, Madame Insight, and Clear Thinking), as well as a few foes (Temptress, Seductress, Simpletons, Cynics, and Idiots).

The references got me wondering if allegory was the proper term for these examples, which in turn was fodder for this week’s match up for Which Word Wednesday. So let’s sort out the differences between allegories, metaphors, and similes, shall we? As usual, we’ll start with the Oxford American Dictionary for the definitions:

allegory :: noun
A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

metaphor :: noun
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

simile :: noun
A figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid.

An allegory is a complete story created to communicate hidden meanings—so the books I mentioned are, indeed, in this camp.

As for metaphors and similes, both are phrases and could be easily confused. Ron Evans helps with a few insights in The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language1:

“When Shakespeare wrote that all the world’s a stage, he expressed what was to become a famous metaphor.

“Saying that someone’s writing is as clear as mud is a good example of a simile.”

To say “the world’s a stage” means that life is full of experiences that are like scenes within a play and with people who are like the actors. It compares one thing to another by making a previously unidentified connection.

And to say that something is “clear as mud” is to compare bad writing, which is unclear, to the equally unclear thick goop that is mud.

What’s my WWW verdict? Allegories, metaphors, and similes help us see truths in creative ways. But use with caution—today’s creative truth can quickly become tomorrow’s cliché.

What’s your verdict? Do you like to use allegories, metaphors, and similes to tell truths in fresh ways? What’s your favorite allegory? Cast your vote and share your thoughts 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), 145.

 

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Argot, Jargon, and Lingo

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

Language ties people together. Families, friends, coworkers, and social groups use the same language to strengthen bonds between members. But the language that binds can also divide, keeping newcomers from feeling welcome and wanted.

For example, how well would an outsider be able to follow a conversation consisting of vague phrases such as future-proof, low-hanging fruit, bandwidth, and helicopter view? Why can’t we speak plainly?

Everyone likes a bit of a flair when it comes to language. But what do we call these specialized lexicons? This week on Which Word Wednesday we are going to consider the word trio argot, jargon, and lingo. Let’s look first to the Oxford American Dictionary for the definitions:

argot :: noun
The jargon or slang of a particular group or class.

jargon :: noun
Special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

lingo :: noun
The vocabulary or jargon of a particular subject or group of people; informal often humorous or derogatory.

These definitions don’t make much of a distinction for usage. All three refer to specialized words and phrases for groups of people. We have to look to others sources for additional help.

Ron Evans tells us in The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language1 that:

Argot is a specialized vocabulary or set of idioms used by a particular group, designed to be used by insiders only.

Jargon applies especially to the language or vocabulary of a particular trade, profession, or organization.

Lingo is a pejorative term to describe language the user doesn’t easily or readily understand.

That helps! Argot would include acronyms and abbreviations used for in-house references. Jargon would be used to describe the lofty language of physicians or lawyers or electricians. Lingo would be used to describe the lofty and annoying language used by physicians or lawyers or electricians.

What’s my WWW verdict? Argot and jargon are kind descriptors; lingo is mocking. Sadly, I have been misusing lingo for years (I thought it was a casual word for language—oops).

What’s your verdict? Do you use argot, jargon, or lingo? What’s your least favorite corporate buzzword? Cast your vote and share your thoughts 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), 17.

 

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Stalactites vs. Stalagmites

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

During my undergraduate studies at Illinois State University, I once took a course on geology to fulfill a general education credit. The professor was extremely passionate about rocks and land formations, which was good. He also spoke like a hippie, often interjecting “dude” or “butt-load” amidst the geological terminology. That was years ago. . . . it’s strange what the mind holds onto, huh?

I was reminded of what didn’t stick from that course while making waffles at a hotel in Maryland last weekend. The waffle batter had oozed down the sides of the griddle, so when I dislodged my golden griddle cake, it had pointy fingers of baked batter protruding around the edges. I commented that it looked like stalactites or stalagmites—but I wasn’t sure which one was the proper term for upward pointing formations. Those definitions didn’t stick from my college days.

Know Your Calcium Cave Deposits

Good thing we have Which Word Wednesday to solve this language dilemma. Let’s look first to the Oxford American Dictionary for the definitions:

stalactite :: noun
A tapering structure hanging like an icicle from the roof of a cave, formed of calcium salts deposited by dripping water.

stalagmite :: noun
A mound or tapering column rising from the floor of a cave, formed of calcium salts deposited by dripping water and often uniting with a stalactite.

Although the definitions tell us the difference, the real issue is remembering our up deposits from our down deposits. We’ll turn to another source for some memory hooks.

Ron Evans tells us in The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language that stalactite is Greek for “that which drips.” This reminds us that the deposits drip from the ceiling, and since ceiling starts with c it matches the c in stalactite.Likewise, the g in stalagmite reminds us that the deposits sometimes protrude from the ground up.1

What’s my WWW verdict? Whoever named those deposits was sure wise to use c for the ceiling formation and g for the ground formation. Thanks, Dude.

What’s your verdict? Have you ever seen geological deposits in your breakfast waffles? Have you ever taken a geology course taught by a hippie? 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), 188–189.
Image: http://www.threadless.com/product/1378/Stalagmite_vs_Stalactite

 

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Height vs. Heighth

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

There’s an old saying that if you don’t like the weather, wait a bit—it’s likely to change. I think the same can be said of English language. The only thing that’s constant is that it changes, so if you don’t like the rules, give it a few decades and maybe the winds will shift in your favor.

Today’s match up for Which Word Wednesday is an example of this. Alternate spellings and pronunciations abound for this word that The Oxford American Dictionary defines as “the measurement from base to top or (of a standing person) from head to foot.” Some people say height and others say heighth—but which is correct? We are not left to cast lots, however. We have resources to clear the confusion.

Dave Dowling tells us in The Wrong Word Dictionary that “the correct spelling today is height, though years ago the word ended in th.”1 The Oxford American Dictionary supports Dowling. Height is listed, but heighth is not.

So where did heighth come from and where did the h go? I believe that heighth got its extra h because we pair it so often with width. We like things to rhyme, don’t we? But I found some professional insight in The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations by Charles Harrington Elster:

It is incorrect to pronounce height with a th sound at the end. . . . [These] vestigial pronunciations from the 17th and 18th centuries, when several variants were in common use. . . . ‘Height (which has been by far the most frequent written form since 1500),’ . . . and modern authorities and cultivated speakers do not countenance these pronunciations.2

What’s my WWW verdict? Using heighth is sort of like writing your dates with an ordinal (i.e., September 14th, which would be pronounced September fourteenth-th)—there’s no need for the extra syllable. Height will do. Besides, there’s no h on the end—if you say heighth you are giving voice to phantom letters that don’t even exist.

What’s your verdict? Do you say height or heighth? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Dave Dowling, The Wrong Word Dictionary (Oak Park, IL: Marion Street Press, 2005), 122.
2. Charles Harrington Elster, The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999), 193–94.

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers