he language (English, in this case) is a topic that's always of interest to a writer (such as myself), and as such it seemed apropos to compile an articles page dedicated to hosting discussions of words, vocabulary, language, and other such things, when they come up in the news.

The more recent additions to this page are added on top, making a scroll down the page an descent through reverse chronological order.

January 19, 2004

Here's a random email about a random thing, from Donnie.

I have grown up using a certain phrase, that phrase is 'couldn't care less'. That, of course, means that there is nothing in the entire world that you could care less about.

I have seen (many times) on your site, and elsewhere all over the internet the statement that someone 'could care less". So, if you could care less, why don't you? I mean, seriously, if you could care less about Bush's foreign policy, follow it and love it (horrible example since you are quite politically aware). But, if you 'Could care less' why not start now?

Which leads me to my 'coup de grace' (so to speak). So, if 100 babies die in an industrial accident and someone/anyone says that they 'could care less' (I certainly hope no human would ever do that though), does that mean that if it were only 99 babies died they would be caring less? Hell, using that logic the worst of serial killers might even make decent parents...

I hadn't thought about this one in years, but now that he mentions it, I recall wondering about it years ago.  I've always heard "couldn't care less" and "could care less" used interchangably, both to mean "don't care at all."  Clearly this is wrong at least half the time, since "could" and "couldn't" are um... antonyms.

Literally, it should be "couldn't", and people usually use it literally, such as "There was a men's golf tournament this weekend, and after the 14 year old girl just missed the cut, I couldn't have cared less who won."  But I wouldn't think it odd if I asked someone "Did you see who won that golf tournament after Wie missed the cut?" and he said, "I could care less."

I suppose we should hunt down people who say "could" when they clearly mean "couldn't" and teach them a grammatical lesson. You first. On the other hand, perhaps "could" is being used sarcastically or satirically in this instance? In other words, "couldn't care less" is said seriously, while "could care less" means the exact same thing because it's being said facetiously?

Also, it's not at all his point, but why couldn't a serial killer make a good parent?  Many serial killers are very compartmentalized in their lives, with normal behavior reigning in most areas, and homicidal urges coming out elsewhere. This is why most of them get away with it for so long; they kill people mostly at random so there isn't any clear motive to tie them in, and they are perfectly normal in other aspects of their lives.

For example, John Wayne Gacy was a father and husband, did charity work, ran a successful construction business, etc. He just had a bad habit of raping, torturing, and murdering young boys, (33 in all) and he might have kept at his hobby for years more if he'd been a little more meticulous about body disposal and careful about victim selection.

January 3, 2004

Here's the Your Dictionary.com list of top words of all types for 2003.  I lost interest about halfway down the list, but you might find it more fascinating than I did.  The thing I noted about new slang and hot words is how geographically dependent they are.  The guys doing this list seem to be East Coasters, since half of the "Youth-Speak" terms on there are stuff I've been hearing for years; years and years in some cases, such as "Give it up," "Tricked out," and "Rice rockets." While other stuff I never heard about once is high on their lists, such as "Allision" a term used in conjunction with that New York ferry crash that was news everywhere for about a day, but remains a hot topic in NYC, apparently.

¤ And from Lake Superior State University comes their annual listing of words that should be banned due to mis/overuse.

• Metrosexual: An urban male who pays a great deal of attention to appearance.
• X: As in "X-Files," Xtreme, Windows XP and X-Box.
• Punked: To dupe, popularized by the MTV show "Punk'd."
• Place Stamp Here: Printed on return envelopes.
• Companion animals: Also known as pets.
• Bling or Bling-Bling: Flashy jewelry.
• LOL: E-mail speak for "laugh out loud."
• Embedded Journalist.
• Smoking Gun.
• Shock and Awe.
• Captured Alive.
• Shots Rang Out.
• Ripped From the Headlines.
• Sweat Like a Pig: The problem is pigs don't sweat.
• In Harm's Way.
• Hand-Crafted Latte.
• Sanitary Landfill: Also known as a dump.

I've been sick of LOL for about 6 years, so no complaints there, and I've always thought "bling bling" was a ridiculously stupid term. But how do they come up with this other stuff?  "Sweat like a pig" has been around for centuries... why does it show up now to be banned?  And what will we do to describe overpriced trendy clothing on men if we can't say "metrosexual?"  True, it's basically the equivalent of "wigger," a way to say "he dresses like a fag" without actually saying that, but still... it's such a useful term.

On second thought, I suppose "metrosexual" is more complimentary to the group being compared to by exclusion than "wigger" is. After all, a metrosexual man is one who in theory looks good and neat and clean and stylish, so it's sort of a compliment to gays, which is quite different from how "wigger" is generally used. Not that that has any bearing on whether or not it should or shouldn't be banned, I'll freely admit.

January 2, 2003

One of the stupider news moments in recent memory was when Fred Durst of Limp Bizket made a short remark at the Grammys about the upcoming Iraq Attack. It wasn't his remark that was so stupid... it was the reaction to it. More on that in a moment. First of all, here's what he said:

"I just really hope we're all in agreeance that this war should go away as soon as possible."

I didn't hear it at the time and wouldn't have thought anything about it.  I use that word all the time, and didn't think it was anything out of the ordinary.  It's not a real common usage, but the vocabulary you ordinarily hear spoken on TV is at about a 4th grade level, so that's no indication of anything.

The weird thing was that suddenly the grammar police were descending from the sky to bitch.

Durst, lead singer of the rap-metal band Limp Bizkit, was widely mocked after he deviated from the script at the Grammy Awards to offer an anti-war sentiment that grated on the ears of grammarians: "I just really hope we're all in agreeance that this war should go away as soon as possible."

Wordsmiths everywhere agreed: Durst is dumb, they said.

Barry Koltnow of the Orange County Register called him "illiterate." The Atlanta Journal Constitution said its copy desk was "in agreement that 'agreeance' isn't a word."

The Weekly Standard called the performer "Fred Dunce" and as far away as Sydney, Australia, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper called it a "fact" that agreeance is not a word.

Even the frequently insightful comic Boondocks mentioned it.  Everything is a black issue in that comic, and it's usually pretty funny, but the author looks stupid in this one, in light of the news that it is a correct word.  Possibly he wrote the strip before more news came to light, or didn't hear about it, or just didn't care since he thought he had a funny joke.

But it is a valid word.

The North American editor of the Oxford English Dictionary told the New York Observer newspaper that "agreeance" is, in fact, a word.

"It's in the OED," editor Jesse Sheindler told the paper. "He did use it correctly.

Sheindler said that "agreeance" was an obsolete word, having passed out of circulation by about 1714, but noted that it was still used occasionally -- especially in Australia.

What interests me is wondering why all these newspapers give a damn.  Have they ever heard a celebrity interviewed before?  Or a sports star, god forbid?  Most people can barely speak English, jocks especially. You could take any post game or post fight comments and make a week of jokes about the poor grammar and word mangling, etc.

So why did this one word, which they thought was incorrect, motivate such bitching?  My conjecture is that Fred Durst and Limp Bizket are associated with being snotty punks and inciting misbehavior, so the snooty types were eager to try and take them down a few notches.  None of which would make a penny in the ocean worth of difference to Limp Bizket's fans, but would make the snotty "Oh look, we're smarter than a big famous rich rock star." types feel briefly superior.  One wonders how well they would speak if thrust onto stage on live TV on the Grammys, rather than pecking away at a keyboard in their little newsroom, but that's not really a fair comparison.  After all, Durst has spent years being on stage and speaking in front of huge throngs.

I don't have any sympathy for Durst, personally.  I don't really like Limp Bizket, and my attitude towards them is pretty well stated on the Band Names entry.  I just find this interesting because of the frenzy to try and insult him over such a minor thing, especially when the insulters didn't have enough sense to look it up in a damn dictionary before running their mouths.

True, Durst was just babbling and probably had no idea that it was a legitimate word, and yes he's lucky that it turned out to be one. But why did anyone care?  Why were reporters and commentators so eager to try and insult his word usage, when 95% of celebrities mutter, say "uh" after every sentence, speak in fragments and incoherencies, and just generally mangle the language?  And celebrities sound like motivational speakers compared to say, sports figures. Jocks can barely sign their own pay checks, much less talk intelligently.  And let's not feel too superior, how well would you do with 10 reporters standing a foot from you, a dozen cameras over their shoulders, mikes in your face, and fifty questions being shouted at once?

Obviously Durst's comments were on a very large stage, literally as well as figuratively, and I'd assume that a lot of the people bitching about what he said were actually upset with his "don't kill every single Iraqi just for fun" sentiment.  But the reports are that newspapers all around the world were bitching about him, and since basically no one earth but some conservatives in the US and UK support the Iraq Attack, we can't entirely explain it by pro-war bias.  Maybe throw in the healthy splash of Anti-Americanism that most international newspapers as well though?

One other funny aspect to it was that other musicians at the Grammys said they were told not to mention anything about the Iraq situation, yet Durst said no one told him a thing.  My guess is that the inappropriate comment police never imagined a big dumb red-cap wearing rap/metal novelty act lead singer would have anything to say in the first place.

January 2, 2003

A tiny college in Minnesota has released their annual list of Banned Words.  There are 23 words and phrases to never be spoken again, and most of them are good picks, and they give a brief explanation of why the word is to be nevermore'd for each.  Generally it's overuse to the point that the word has become meaningless.

MUST-SEE TV -- “Must find remote. Must change channel,” laments Nan Heflin from Colorado Springs, Colorado. Television once pitched entertainment. Apparently now it’s taken on a greater imperative. Assumes herd mentality over program taste.

HOMELAND SECURITY – A new and improved buzzword. With billions of dollars at stake, perhaps “national security” is just plain blasé. “What happened to the Department of Defense?” asks Rick Miller of Champaign, Illinois.

CHALLENGE -- “No one has problems anymore, they only face ‘challenges.’ Sonia Jaffe Robbins, New York, New York. “I think it’s a weasel word. ‘Challenges’ only have to be met. Problems require solutions!” Ray Lucas, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

They have their archived lists from the years, and I thought the 2002 list is better than this year's.  On all of the lists, there seems to be a lot of chip on shoulder'ism about useful terms.  If a term is useful, it's going to be used a lot, and usually it's describing a unique thing.  For 2002 they try to ban "car jacking", with the term "armed robbery" said to be a sufficient replacement.  So instead of "he was car jacked" you should say, "he was forced from his car, which was then stolen, and the person who stole it used a weapon robbed of his car at the point of a weapon".  That's convenient.  Aside from the fact that a lot of car jacking is just some one stronger and crazier throwing a person out of their car and taking it, without involving any weapon more than foul language and threatened fists.

I haven't looked back any further than last year, but I sincerely hope that "at the end of the day" has been banned. That was what I first looked for on this year's list, since I find that an especially stupid phrase, meaningless, and one that's grossly overused in the media.

Check out the history of the lists while you are there, it's interesting for the brutal honesty with which they explain things.

The tongue-in-cheek Banishment List began as a publicity ploy for little-known LSSU.

In order to gain the most media coverage possible, the Banishment List is released each year on New Year's Day. This is attributed to former newsman Rabe's knowledge of the press. New Year's Day is traditionally a slow news day.

The first list was dreamed up by Rabe and a group of friends at a New Year's Eve party in 1975. The following day, he released the list and the rest, as they say, is history. Since then, nominations for words and expressions to be banished have been invited and accepted throughout the year.

They're right about the slow news on New Year's, at least.  I can't find a damn thing to comment on today. 

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.