To expunge (ik-SPUNJ) -- from the Latin for "to blot out" -- is to wipe out or obliterate.
Example: "To live without limiting what you can achieve, you must recognize your constraints and then act to expunge them."
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Language Perfectionist: Let's Split this Scene
By Don Hauptman
A contentious issue among language enthusiasts is the use of the split infinitive. Before reviewing the arguments of the two sides, let's look at a few examples:
"It is even possible to legally download textbooks free, thanks to some new sites and services."
"This is a chance to constructively harness the idealism of thousands of Americans..."
"In New York, if a lethal agent is detected, the city plans to immediately distribute drugs to counter the bug."
"On several occasions, Israelis have managed to temporarily suppress violence."
For centuries, language purists insisted that an infinitive must never be split. Then came the reaction: Permissivists denounced the prohibition as a "superstition."
A few writers on language take a middle position. I'm in this camp. The split-infinitive taboo is a convention of the language, so let's respect it -- unless the result sounds awkward. All the above examples could be rephrased to avoid the splits. On the other hand, rephrasing would be difficult or impossible with this sort of sentence: "Analysts expect the stock price to more than triple next year."
But clumsy sentences can also be created by splitting the infinitive. I found this example in a concert program: "Sousa marches often seem to not particularly relate to their titles."
Recently, an eloquent case for nonsplitting was made by a reader (Richard Palumbo) in a letter to The New York Times Book Review: "Split infinitives are like putting an insurmountable obstacle in the way of a speeding train that must stop to clear the tracks before picking up speed again. We lose the thrust and impact when we separate preposition and verb..."
That makes sense to me. So my advice is simple. Follow the rule unless a good reason exists to break it. I sometimes wonder if anything would have been lost if the Star Trek mission had been "to go boldly where no man has gone before."
A contentious issue among language enthusiasts is the use of the split infinitive. Before reviewing the arguments of the two sides, let's look at a few examples:
"It is even possible to legally download textbooks free, thanks to some new sites and services."
"This is a chance to constructively harness the idealism of thousands of Americans..."
"In New York, if a lethal agent is detected, the city plans to immediately distribute drugs to counter the bug."
"On several occasions, Israelis have managed to temporarily suppress violence."
For centuries, language purists insisted that an infinitive must never be split. Then came the reaction: Permissivists denounced the prohibition as a "superstition."
A few writers on language take a middle position. I'm in this camp. The split-infinitive taboo is a convention of the language, so let's respect it -- unless the result sounds awkward. All the above examples could be rephrased to avoid the splits. On the other hand, rephrasing would be difficult or impossible with this sort of sentence: "Analysts expect the stock price to more than triple next year."
But clumsy sentences can also be created by splitting the infinitive. I found this example in a concert program: "Sousa marches often seem to not particularly relate to their titles."
Recently, an eloquent case for nonsplitting was made by a reader (Richard Palumbo) in a letter to The New York Times Book Review: "Split infinitives are like putting an insurmountable obstacle in the way of a speeding train that must stop to clear the tracks before picking up speed again. We lose the thrust and impact when we separate preposition and verb..."
That makes sense to me. So my advice is simple. Follow the rule unless a good reason exists to break it. I sometimes wonder if anything would have been lost if the Star Trek mission had been "to go boldly where no man has gone before."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Happy Deepavali
Port Dickson Toastmasters Club wishes all Hindu members and friends a Happy Deepavali, the Festival of Lights.
Word of the Day Laissez-faire
Laissez-faire (lay-zay-FARE) -- French for "allow to do" -- is the economic policy of allowing markets to be free of intervention by the government.
Example : "To the laissez-faire businessman, freedom means an end to all government regulation. To the communist, freedom can be achieved only when individual incentive has been crushed and 'the people' own everything."
Example : "To the laissez-faire businessman, freedom means an end to all government regulation. To the communist, freedom can be achieved only when individual incentive has been crushed and 'the people' own everything."
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Word of the Day- Parsimonious
Parsimonious (par-suh-MOH-nee-us) is another way of saying miserly or excessively frugal.
Example : "Stingy rich people are parsimonious because they enjoy being so. Pinching pennies isn't a financial planning strategy for them, it's a twisted hobby."
Example : "Stingy rich people are parsimonious because they enjoy being so. Pinching pennies isn't a financial planning strategy for them, it's a twisted hobby."
Monday, October 12, 2009
Word of the Day Consternation
Consternation (kon-ster-NAY-shun) -- from the Latin for "to throw into confusion" -- is the state of being utterly bewildered.
Example : "Imagine my consternation (and embarrassment) when the new CEO declined to come downstairs to the conference room to meet with us."
Example : "Imagine my consternation (and embarrassment) when the new CEO declined to come downstairs to the conference room to meet with us."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Congratulations to Tan Soo Guan, CC
Congratulations to Tan Soo Guan, CC for being the 1st Runner-Up Division Humor Contest Winner. This contest involved 7 Areas with a total of about 30 Klang Valley clubs
Tan Soo Guan, CC receiving his Champion Area Humor Contest Award from Area Governor Suresh
Tan Soo Guan, CC receiving his 1st Runner-Up Division Humor Contest Award from Division Governor Barry Ong.
Tan Soo Guan, CC receiving his Champion Area Humor Contest Award from Area Governor Suresh
Tan Soo Guan, CC receiving his 1st Runner-Up Division Humor Contest Award from Division Governor Barry Ong.The Language Perfectionist: More Literary Devices
By Don Hauptman
In a previous column, I discussed figures of speech that writers and speakers employ as rhetorical flourishes.
The list is long, so here's a second take. For some reason, perhaps because of their classical roots, many begin with the letter A.
anacoluthon (an-uh-kuh-LOO-thon) -- A departure from normal grammatical structure or sequence. Example: "Either you go ... but we'll see."
antiphrasis (an-TIF-ruh-sis) -- The use of a word to mean its opposite. Example: referring to an enemy as "my friend." This is more commonly called irony or sarcasm.
apophasis (uh-POF-uh-sis) -- Claiming not to know what to say. Example: when someone receiving an award protests, "I'm at a loss for words." Or slyly announcing that one will not address a subject. Example: "I won't even mention my opponent's prison record." The former is also called aporia and the latter paralipsis.
aposiopesis (ap-uh-sy-uh-PEE-sis) -- An abrupt break in mid-sentence, where the speaker leads up to a word or phrase and then doesn't utter it. Example: "Stop right now or I'll ...."
asyndeton (uh-SIN-dih-ton) -- Omitting the conjunctions that would normally be required. A famous example: Julius Caesar's "I came, I saw, I conquered."
In a previous column, I discussed figures of speech that writers and speakers employ as rhetorical flourishes.
The list is long, so here's a second take. For some reason, perhaps because of their classical roots, many begin with the letter A.
anacoluthon (an-uh-kuh-LOO-thon) -- A departure from normal grammatical structure or sequence. Example: "Either you go ... but we'll see."
antiphrasis (an-TIF-ruh-sis) -- The use of a word to mean its opposite. Example: referring to an enemy as "my friend." This is more commonly called irony or sarcasm.
apophasis (uh-POF-uh-sis) -- Claiming not to know what to say. Example: when someone receiving an award protests, "I'm at a loss for words." Or slyly announcing that one will not address a subject. Example: "I won't even mention my opponent's prison record." The former is also called aporia and the latter paralipsis.
aposiopesis (ap-uh-sy-uh-PEE-sis) -- An abrupt break in mid-sentence, where the speaker leads up to a word or phrase and then doesn't utter it. Example: "Stop right now or I'll ...."
asyndeton (uh-SIN-dih-ton) -- Omitting the conjunctions that would normally be required. A famous example: Julius Caesar's "I came, I saw, I conquered."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Language Perfectionist: A Gaggle of Gaffes
By Don Hauptman
Mistakes can be a good thing. They teach us what to avoid. The trick, though, is to learn by observing others make them.
With that goal in mind, here's another roundup of misspellings, misunderstandings, and other misuses -- all found via Internet search, but equally frequent in print:
-"I just find it as ridiculous as any other hair-brained conspiracy theory."
Whether hair-brained or hairbrained, it's wrong. The correct word is harebrained -- that is, the brain of a rabbit. It's true that hare was once spelled hair, but that was 400 years ago. Don't be harebrained; spell it correctly!
-"I do have a photo of his name on the marquis of the theater where he gave his last performance."
The canopy of a theater is a marquee (mar-KEE). A French nobleman is a marquis (mar-KEE or, in the anglicized pronunciation, MAR-qwis).
-"The people who do not have money or marketable skills -- the poor, the elderly, the frail, the uneducated -- fall between the cracks with no place, no role, and no money to buy what they need."
This is a commonly garbled metaphor. Something that is forgotten or overlooked falls into or through the cracks, not between them.
-"This is unchartered territory for ... presidential candidates, given the fact that the whole primary season starts ... three days after New Year's ...."
An organization that lacks a document outlining its principles and functions is unchartered. The word wanted here is uncharted.
-"Juliana, I enjoy this new newsletter format so much better than the daily newsletter which I felt obliged to peruse quickly so as to have time to do research."
The word peruse means to read carefully, and that takes time. It's often misinterpreted, as in the above example, as meaning the opposite: to read rapidly, to scan to get the gist. Incidentally, it's considered pretentious to use peruse when read will suffice.
Mistakes can be a good thing. They teach us what to avoid. The trick, though, is to learn by observing others make them.
With that goal in mind, here's another roundup of misspellings, misunderstandings, and other misuses -- all found via Internet search, but equally frequent in print:
-"I just find it as ridiculous as any other hair-brained conspiracy theory."
Whether hair-brained or hairbrained, it's wrong. The correct word is harebrained -- that is, the brain of a rabbit. It's true that hare was once spelled hair, but that was 400 years ago. Don't be harebrained; spell it correctly!
-"I do have a photo of his name on the marquis of the theater where he gave his last performance."
The canopy of a theater is a marquee (mar-KEE). A French nobleman is a marquis (mar-KEE or, in the anglicized pronunciation, MAR-qwis).
-"The people who do not have money or marketable skills -- the poor, the elderly, the frail, the uneducated -- fall between the cracks with no place, no role, and no money to buy what they need."
This is a commonly garbled metaphor. Something that is forgotten or overlooked falls into or through the cracks, not between them.
-"This is unchartered territory for ... presidential candidates, given the fact that the whole primary season starts ... three days after New Year's ...."
An organization that lacks a document outlining its principles and functions is unchartered. The word wanted here is uncharted.
-"Juliana, I enjoy this new newsletter format so much better than the daily newsletter which I felt obliged to peruse quickly so as to have time to do research."
The word peruse means to read carefully, and that takes time. It's often misinterpreted, as in the above example, as meaning the opposite: to read rapidly, to scan to get the gist. Incidentally, it's considered pretentious to use peruse when read will suffice.
Word of the Day
Inane (ih-NANE) -- from the Latin for "empty" -- means foolish or pointless; lacking sense or meaning.
Example: "When I saw Liz approaching that morning, I assumed I was in for some inane small talk. But it turned out she is a smart, well spoken, and interesting person who has added something to my life."
Example: "When I saw Liz approaching that morning, I assumed I was in for some inane small talk. But it turned out she is a smart, well spoken, and interesting person who has added something to my life."
Monday, October 5, 2009
Congratulation to Tan Soo Guan, CC
Congratulations to Tan Soo Guan, CC for his 2nd placing in the Division C Humor Contest. There are a total of 7 other Areas participating in this Division contest. Photos to follow later.
The Language Perfectionist: Whose Rules?
By Don Hauptman
In matters of grammar and usage, it's not always easy to know what's correct.
In France, a government-run Academy serves as the official authority. Here in America, no single authority has been appointed to give us definitive answers. We must consider various sources, sometimes conflicting, and make our own decisions.
Language authorities generally fall into one of two schools. The prescriptivists offer explicit guidance. The descriptivists simply record how language is used, without passing judgment.
The second group might be called permissivists. At least some of its members apparently believe that no rules should exist. If enough people use a word incorrectly, it somehow comes to be "right." Thus, for example, it's okay for disinterested to mean uninterested, instead of -- or in addition to -- its primary meaning of impartial. Many dictionaries have capitulated on this point. But by this reasoning, ain't is acceptable. After all, so many people use it!
If following a rule creates an awkward result, you might need to break it. But another choice often exists. For example, a venerable rule forbids beginning a sentence with however. The alternative: It's usually possible to respect the rule by substituting but or another word or phrase. Or by relocating however within the sentence.
In general, I advise observing traditional standards, unless a compelling reason exists to disregard them. Here's why:
1. Customs and conventions aren't irrelevant. They're part of civilized society. I call this "The Necktie Principle." No good reasons exist to wear ties, and one could cite several arguments against them. But a man in the corporate world who abandoned ties would likely come to regret that decision. So it is with language. Even the permissivists don't spell physician with an F, even though it would be more "logical."
2. We're judged by how we use language. In your career and social life, you're viewed as educated or uneducated, literate or illiterate, on the basis of how well you speak and write. Like it or not, such first impressions help determine your status, advancement, and romantic success.
3. It doesn't pay to be perceived as wrong, even if you can prove that you're "right." If you flout a rule, you may have a case. But it's impractical to justify your position in conversation or in most written work. For instance, if you use enormity to mean large and your listener advocates its traditional meaning of "a great evil," it would be a bit awkward to haul out a dictionary containing the permissive definition.
As you might guess, I incline toward the prescriptivist camp. But I recognize that language changes, and that the rules may be bent when necessary. As with many things in life, common sense should prevail.
In matters of grammar and usage, it's not always easy to know what's correct.
In France, a government-run Academy serves as the official authority. Here in America, no single authority has been appointed to give us definitive answers. We must consider various sources, sometimes conflicting, and make our own decisions.
Language authorities generally fall into one of two schools. The prescriptivists offer explicit guidance. The descriptivists simply record how language is used, without passing judgment.
The second group might be called permissivists. At least some of its members apparently believe that no rules should exist. If enough people use a word incorrectly, it somehow comes to be "right." Thus, for example, it's okay for disinterested to mean uninterested, instead of -- or in addition to -- its primary meaning of impartial. Many dictionaries have capitulated on this point. But by this reasoning, ain't is acceptable. After all, so many people use it!
If following a rule creates an awkward result, you might need to break it. But another choice often exists. For example, a venerable rule forbids beginning a sentence with however. The alternative: It's usually possible to respect the rule by substituting but or another word or phrase. Or by relocating however within the sentence.
In general, I advise observing traditional standards, unless a compelling reason exists to disregard them. Here's why:
1. Customs and conventions aren't irrelevant. They're part of civilized society. I call this "The Necktie Principle." No good reasons exist to wear ties, and one could cite several arguments against them. But a man in the corporate world who abandoned ties would likely come to regret that decision. So it is with language. Even the permissivists don't spell physician with an F, even though it would be more "logical."
2. We're judged by how we use language. In your career and social life, you're viewed as educated or uneducated, literate or illiterate, on the basis of how well you speak and write. Like it or not, such first impressions help determine your status, advancement, and romantic success.
3. It doesn't pay to be perceived as wrong, even if you can prove that you're "right." If you flout a rule, you may have a case. But it's impractical to justify your position in conversation or in most written work. For instance, if you use enormity to mean large and your listener advocates its traditional meaning of "a great evil," it would be a bit awkward to haul out a dictionary containing the permissive definition.
As you might guess, I incline toward the prescriptivist camp. But I recognize that language changes, and that the rules may be bent when necessary. As with many things in life, common sense should prevail.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Word of the Day - Inherent
An inherent (in-HERE-unt) quality, attribute, or characteristic is one that is permanent -- inseparably attached or connected. The word is derived from the Latin for "to stick."
Example : "Self-publishing is not inherently better than traditional publishing. Nor is the reverse true."
Example : "Self-publishing is not inherently better than traditional publishing. Nor is the reverse true."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)