Planet Utah

The word "webinar" makes me vomit poisonous spiders

That's how much I hate it. Why? Because "web" doesn't sound anything like "sem." This makes "webinar" an offense to the ear, and to my tummy. It's the worst neologism since "Bushnomics."

Footnote: No, "Bushonomics" is not acceptable either.

Anklenote: Check this out; it's a veritable medina for those interested in neologisms.

Can we retire "on the backs of"?

I am so, so, SO sick of the intellectually flaccid and utterly meaningless pseudo-rejoinder, "There you go!" (Here's an example. Statement: "I need some time off; I'm going to see if I can find some kind of deal to Cancun at lastminutetravel.com." Well-meaning but intellectually flaccid and utterly meaningless pseudo-rejoinder: "There you go!") The only thing diffusing my angry obsession with this phrase is the sudden proliferation in Arizona political circles of another phrase--a more meaningful one, but one that has already reached maximum accetable concentrations in political discourse: "on the backs of."  Here's an example: "Arizona policymakers should not balance the state's budget on the backs of children and the elderly."

Duly noted. I'm sure lots of people share the sentiment, too. But just because you share the sentiment doesn't mean you have to use the exact same words when you communicate it. For example, you might want to try something along these lines: "The budget cuts being discussed by legislative leaders these days would be a boot to the throat of children and the elderly." Wow! I mean, seriously, SO much better than "...on the backs of children and the elderly."

Footnote: In New York, where they're proposing a "fat tax," I wonder if anyone has said, "The governor should not balance the state's budget on the asses of fat people."

Anklenote: I'm also tiring of "stole my thunder." This is a staple of talk radio: "Well, the guy who just called kinda stole my thunder, but..." I like the idea that "stole my thunder" communicates in three words what otherwise might take as many as many as seven ("said what I was going to say"). But I'm getting sick of hearing those three words in particular. So, as with subtituting "medina" for "mecca," I encourage Planet Utah readers to substitute "bleached my eye teeth" for "stole my thunder."

Do you want to draw curious stares in 2009?

I suppose that question answers itself--I mean, who doesn't? Well, I'm here to help.

As you probably know, Mecca is considered the holiest city in the Islamic world. For this reason, we here in the west have adopted the convention of referring to places of distinction as "meccas": a cultural mecca, for example, or a sports mecca, or a mecca for birdwatchers.

As you may or may not know, Medina is considered the second holiest city in the Islamic world. But you never hear anyone refer to something as a "cultural medina," or a "sports medina."

Recognizing this, I'd like to encourage all of my readers to start using "medina" instead of "mecca" in 2009. I will do the same.

Why? Just for fun. (And who knows--with a little bit of luck, we might also piss off some radical Muslims.)

In defense of "to be honest"

For about the billionth time today, I read a complaint about the use of the phrase "to be honest" in everyday speech. The complaint is always the same: "'To be honest' is a useless phrase, unless you're normally in the habit of being dishonest."

Correct in theory, wrong in practice.

In practice, "to be honest" is used in contexts in which the truth is normally avoided because it is considered too hurtful. By prefacing the truth with the phrase "to be honest," you are saying, in effect, "Okay, brace yourself...", or, "All right, you asked for it..." It's a way of saying to the listener, "I'm not a heartless son of a bitch. I know that what I'm about to say might hurt you, but I think it's important for you to know the truth."

For example, about 10 years ago a woman I had been dating--someone I liked very much--told me she didn't want to see me any more. I asked her why. She gave me some claptrap about how busy she was with work, how the timing was all wrong, etc. I said, "Please. Those are things you say when you don't want to hurt someone's feelings. I'm a big boy. I can take it. So why don't you tell me what's really going on?" Her response: "Okay, to be honest..."

She was saying, "All right. I'm going to be honest in a situation in which it would be easier for both of us if I were dishonest. But you asked for honesty, so I'm going to give it to you."

In that context--which is the context in which it is normally used--"to be honest" serves a very useful social function.

Footnote: Regular readers may recall a similar post on the use of the word "obviously." The standard complaint about "obviously" is that if something is obvious, you don't need to point out that it's obvious. Everyone recognizes its obviousness by virtue of the definition of "obvious."

I believe, however, that "obviously" is appropriate in contexts in which you want the listener to understand that YOU know something is obvious. Why? Because if you say the obvious thing without flagging it with an "Obviously...", your listener might think, "Geez, doesn't he know that's obvious?" For example, if I say, "This was a disappointing season for the New York Yankees," your average sports bar lunkhead will say, "OBVIOUSLY, Einstein." But if I say, "Obviously, this was a disappointing season for the New York Yankees," sports bar lunkhead will say, "You ain't kiddin', boss."

"Progress" is not a transitive verb

Though I'm a bigger Sarah Palin defender than just about anyone (except maybe this girl), I was mildly disturbed to notice that in her latest round of interviews she was using "progress" as a transitive verb, as in, "We need to progress this country toward a stronger economy, better education, and more affordable health care."

I'm a bit of a language traditionalist, so I tend not to like neologisms that are carved out of existing words or usages. "Incent," for example, drives me nuts, and so does "progress," at least the way SP uses it. (She pronounces it "pro-GRESS," which is correct when you're using it as an intransitive verb.)

Now, if she needs to make up a word to describe some new phenomenon--for example, maybe she wants to talk about those dorks who have entire second lives on the Internet, and maybe she wants to refer to them as "avatards"--I'm cool with that. But there's no reason to abuse an existing word to describe a very old, very common idea.

Language abuse

In the past 24 hours, I've heard the following four misuses of language, from four different--and ostensibly professional--communicators:

• "Sweet-toothaholic"

• "The Russians are flexing muscles they may or may not have."

• "The office of the presidency will literally pound you into the dust."

• "Unequivotably"

Did you know?

You've heard people use the phrase, "chomping at the bit." You've also heard people use the phrase, "champing at the bit." Well, I looked up both "champ" and "chomp" today, and they are synonyms. Either one works before "...at the bit."

If you ever find yourself at a Renaissance festival...

...please don't make the mistake of saying "from whence," as in, "We shall send the lusty troll back from whence he came!"

"Whence" means "from where." Accordingly, "from whence" means "from from where." That doesn't make sense.

Stick with plain old "whence" and you'll be fine.

Teachable moment

You probably saw this on Drudge -- a protester confronts Condoleezza Rice and shouts, "The blood of millions of Iraqis are on your hands!"

Condi should have responded, "I think you mean, 'The blood of millions of Iraqis IS on your hands.' Anyway, thanks for coming. Keep in touch."

Footnote: how the hell does a crazy lady with bloody hands get THAT close to the Secretary of State?

Guaranteed, or your money back!

Oh, how I hate that phrase. It's just so...wrong. But you hear it all the time, and you can find it all over the web, too.

Here's the problem: taken literally, this phrase means, "If it isn't guaranteed, we'll give you your money back." But that's not what anyone means when they say it. What they mean is, "Your satisfaction is guaranteed. If you are not satisfied, we'll give you your money back."

If you insist on truncating the phrase, then try, "Satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back."

There endeth the lesson.