Contraction Subtraction

Most are quite comfortable with simply adding an apostrophe and an s to a noun in order to form the possessive singular. It gets tricky, however, when using pronominal possessives. Pronominal possessives (that is, pronouns) do not carry apostrophes. They are: hers, theirs, yours, ours and its. Its is most commonly mispunctuated.

Sign of the Times

An article in Monday's New York Times about France's presidential elections was of particular interest to me not because of the content, but because of one word: enormousness. The article read:

The enormousness of the turnout was reflected in another statistic: By 5 p.m., 74 percent of France’s registered voters had cast their ballots — higher than the total percentage participation in the first round of the 2002 contest.

At first glance it may seem an odd choice of words, however, it is actually precise. I bring this to light because I previously blogged about the commonly misused word enormity, and I was glad to see enormousness in print. To reiterate, while it would seem as though enormousness and enormity are interchangeable because they vary only slightly (as with the synonyms audacity and audaciousness), the significance of the terms differs enormously. What follows is the definition of enormity from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. e·nor·mi·ties
1. The quality of passing all moral bounds; excessive wickedness or outrageousness. 2. A monstrous offense or evil; an outrage. 3. Usage Problem Great size; immensity: “Beyond that, [Russia's] sheer enormity offered a defense against invaders that no European nation enjoyed” (W. Bruce Lincoln).

USAGE NOTE: Enormity is frequently used to refer simply to the property of being great in size or extent, but many would prefer that enormousness (or a synonym such as immensity) be used for this general sense and that enormity be limited to situations that demand a negative moral judgment, as in Not until the war ended and journalists were able to enter Cambodia did the world really become aware of the enormity of Pol Pot's oppression. Fifty-nine percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of enormity as a synonym for immensity in the sentence At that point the engineers sat down to design an entirely new viaduct, apparently undaunted by the enormity of their task. This distinction between enormity and enormousness has not always existed historically, but nowadays many observe it. Writers who ignore the distinction, as in the enormity of the President's election victory or the enormity of her inheritance, may find that their words have cast unintended aspersions or evoked unexpected laughter.

In contrast, the noun enormousness is defined by Dictionary.com as "very great or abnormal size, bulk, degree, etc.; immensity; hugeness." The New York Times got it right. What an enormous relief.

Alphabet Soup & Other Resume Don'ts

Yesterday at my internship I had the exhilarating opportunity to rifle through the resumes, cover letters and clips of summer intern hopefuls. I was amazed at the quantity of budding journalists aspiring to take my place as an intern in the world of celebrity gossipdom. For the record, I am quite aware that gossipdom is not actually a word. But shouldn't it be? The huge stack of papers was daunting, but fortunately it didn't take long to weed out the good from the bad and the ugly.

I've always heard that most people would be shocked to find out how often job candidates make mistakes on their resumes and/or cover letters, but I never suspected just how common it is.

The Good

The best resumes and cover letters in the bunch were succinct and plain. If there was an objective, it was explicitly and unambiguously stated. The formatting was symmetric and aesthetically pleasing in general. Most importantly, there were no mistakes.

The Bad

The worst of the bunch were riddled with grammatical errors, misspelled words, misused words, run-on sentences and poor formatting. Some were even either addressed to the wrong person (if the e-mail address doesn't match the heading, you've got a problem) or gave all the reasons why they should be chosen for a job at the wrong publication! Here are a few highlights:

In the introductory sentence, one college co-ed proudly discussed her challenging coursework at Columiba University. I'm sorry, but did an esteemed Ivy League institution like Columbia really not introduce you to the wonderful world of spell check?

Some errors were more subtle, though equally annoying, like the girl who consistently failed to use the spacebar following punctuation. There were also misused words that spell-check wouldn't catch, though a meticulous individual certainly would. For example, one applicant praised a certain selection of the magazine. Clearly, she meant section. There were also resumes with no cover letter and cover letters with no resume. But it gets worse.

The Ugly

Get this: people actually sent headshots along with their resumes. I'm serious! I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, your Glamour Shot is not going to land you a job as a journalist. The intern coordinator giggled each time she opened an attachment that included a pixelated jpeg of what looked to be an aspiring actress. If you want to be an actress, act. Don't apply for a job that would have you writing about actresses.

Perhaps my personal favorite was the girl who matter-of-factly explained her apparent genius by talking about how smart her family thinks she is. Way to go, Mom! You really instilled some self-confidence in your daughter! She superfluously described her intelligence by saying, in far too many words, that her family is often floored by her intellectual capacity and curiosity in all things pop-culture. Here's the kicker: her subsequent sentence read, "I must say, I agree." I don't.

Bottom Line: Your resume will be thrown out, no questions asked, if it is sub-par with regard to common sense (spelling, grammar, content). Check it once. Check it twice. Getting an interview, after all, is always nice!

Get Lost

I'm not sure that there is anything that bothers me more than people who write "loose" when they mean to write "lose." I'm not sure if it is an inadvertent error or if it is a common mistake because of ignorance of the difference. Either way, here's a quick and painless lesson:

Lose rhymes with choose and refers to misplacing something or being defeated, as in a sports game. For example: Don't lose your temper.

Loose rhymes with goose and is the opposite of tight. For example: This belt is loose.

Spell check isn't going to catch this one for you, so it would behoove you to commit it to memory.

Similarly, loser refers to a person or team who lost. Looser is used in comparison to refer to something - an article of clothing, perhaps - that is less tight than something else.

Mouthing Off at the MoMa

On Fridays from 4pm-7pm, the Museum of Modern Art on West 53rd St. offers free admission to guests compliments of Target. The only stipulation is that guests must agree to face long lines and crowded galleries. My Uncle was in town visiting this holiday weekend, and we decided to take advantage of the free admission and visit the MoMa.

I first visited the museum in December, and was quite pleasantly surprised by their collection. Not only do they offer temporary exhibitions and permanent installations of modern art, but also a wide selection of the work of Pablo Picasso (my personal favorite). Pictured at right is one of Picasso's most famous paintings, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.

I was not, however, impressed by the descriptions that accompanied many of the paintings. First of all, I am suspicious of descriptions that purport to reflect the artist's own sentiments. I find it hard to believe that artists analyze the thematic significance of wide brush strokes, for example, during the creation process. But what annoys me even more than the supposed credibility of the descriptions is the language used to craft them. Take, for example, exhibit A, which is the description that accompanies this painting, italics mine:

The result of months of preparation and revision, this painting revolutionized the art world when first seen in Picasso's studio. Its monumental size underscored the shocking incoherence resulting from the outright sabotage of conventional representation. Picasso drew on sources as diverse as Iberian sculpture, African tribal masks, and El Greco's painting to make this startling composition. In the preparatory studies, the figure at left was a sailor entering a brothel. Picasso, wanting no anecdotal detail to interfere with the sheer impact of the work, decided to eliminate it in the final painting. The only remaining allusion to the brothel lies in the title: Avignon was a street in Barcelona famed for its brothel.

Alluding to a recent hilarious piece in Esquire (definitely worth a look), the highlighted sentence needs to have its car keys taken away. What I mean is that the sentence is unreadable and superfluous for the sake of superfluousness. All it's really saying is that the painting is really big, which emphasized how different it was for its time.

When I saw Salvador Dalí's famous work, The Persistence of Memory, I was surprised by how small it is. Having studied Spanish and Latin American art both in high school and college, I had only seen this piece in books, and therefore expected it to be much larger than it actually is. The description that accompanies this piece is as follows, once again, italics mine:

Dalí rendered his fantastic visions with meticulous verisimilitude, giving the representations of dreams a tangible and credible appearance. In what he called "hand painted dream photographs," hard objects become inexplicably limp, time bends, and metal attracts ants like rotting flesh. The monstrous creature draped across the painting's center resembles the artist's own face in profile; its long eyelashes seem insectlike or even sexual, as does what may or may not be a tongue oozing from its nose like a fat snail.

Upon reading this seemingly forced bit of explanatory prose, my Uncle asked me, "What is 'verisimilitude?'" His response, I'm quite confident, is shared by many museum patrons. Verisimilitude is not a word that often works its way into daily conversation, and using it to describe Dalí's phantasmagoric work (another little-used word...look it up, it's a fun one) makes the description inaccessible to the average person.

"It means simliar to the truth, I think," I replied after pondering the term. In fact, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it this way:

NOUN: 1. The quality of appearing to be true or real. 2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real.

There you have it.

We continued our perusal of the fifth floor galleries and came upon a lovely painting by Claude Monet entitled Agapanthus. I was curious to know what the title meant, and guessed aloud that it must be the type of flower in the painting. I've already admitted to being a nerd, so it should come as no surprise that I am the type of person that always looks up the things that I don't readily know. So, when I got home, I looked up "agapanthus," and found it to be the Latin genus name for the African lily, or lily of the Nile. The term comes from the combination of the Greek terms agape, or love, and anthos, or flower.

What, then, is the lesson in all of this? Bring a good dictionary the next time you decide to visit a museum. You might just learn a few things!

Artificially Sugarcoated Sweetener

An article in The New York Times today discusses a lawsuit brought against the makers of Splenda, the artificial sweetener that commands 62% market share, by the makers of Equal, which once dominated the category.

The lawsuit concerns one carefully crafted phrase: "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." So boasts Splenda's tagline, though Equal insists that the claim is misleading and untrue. Merisant is the maker of Equal, while McNeil Nutritionals is the company behind Splenda. The article asserts:

It is unusual for a dispute over advertising claims to go to a jury trial. The case centers on Splenda’s tagline “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” — a claim that Equal mocks as an “urban myth” on its Web site.

While both sides are expected to present phalanxes of neurobiologists and chemists as expert witnesses, the dispute hinges on the role of language in creating and defining the product.

“The phrase ‘made from sugar’ may seem simple enough, but it has spawned an epic battle among the parties over proper diction and syntax,” the judge overseeing the case, Gene E. K. Pratter, wrote in an opinion last month.

“For example, McNeil claims that ‘made from sugar’ clearly excludes the interpretation that Splenda is sugar, or that Splenda is made with sugar,” she continued. “Made with sugar would mean that sugar is an ingredient listed on the package. Drawing upon an often effective rhetorical device, McNeil asks the question, how could a consumer interpret a product that is ‘made from sugar’ and ‘tastes like sugar’ as actually being sugar?”

I come from an advertising background, and I worked in marketing before I enrolled in graduate school. My instincts tell me that in general, one should be cautious of claims made by advertisers because though they are often technically true, it is often the case that they are misleading. Advertising is a mecca for hyperbole and superfluous fluff, and consumers are bombarded with more claims than even the most astute subconscious has time to register. That said, it is important for the public to understand how language can be used strategically to convey a problematic message. The article continues:

In papers that were filed with the court and sealed — but were then cited by the judge in her opinion last month — McNeil acknowledged that “unaltered sugar/sucrose is not an ingredient in Splenda.” Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of advertising law at Georgetown University who has followed the case, said: “The key issue is, what can you say about your product that’s made in a lab and its relationship to nature? How much can you suggest that it’s natural, whether because the components were found in nature, or your body processes it as natural?”

Merisant argues that it is chemistry, not sugar, that generates Splenda’s sweetness. “At the end of the day, they say Splenda is ‘made from sugar,’ ” said Merisant’s lead outside lawyer, Gregory LoCascio of Kirkland & Ellis. “People think it’s sugar without the calories, or skim sugar, or magic sugar, and it’s not. It’s artificial sweetener.”

McNeil’s outside lawyers referred all calls to a McNeil spokeswoman, Julie Keenan, who provided a statement saying that Splenda “is made from pure cane sugar by a patented process that makes three atomic changes to the sugar (sucrose) molecule.”

“The resulting sweetener, called sucralose, retains the sweet taste of sugar,” she said.

Equal, also known as aspartame, also does not have an iota of sugar in it. It is composed of two amino acids and a methyl ester group. But Equal promotes itself as an artificial sweetener and tones down the references to sugar in its marketing, saying only that it “has sweet, clean taste, like sugar.”

If anything can be gleaned from this story, it is that consumers should be cautious of claims made by advertisers. After all, advertisers are attempting to generate sales, bottom line. But this is not new. What is unique about this case is that brings to light how language can be used to create ambiguous messages. Be wary, therefore, of the claims advertisers make. They don't call it "sweet-talk" for nothin'.

Unfazed by "Nonplussed"

Sometimes people use "big" words because they want to sound smart in certain situations (interviews, first dates, speeches, debates). Sometimes people use "big" words because they are smart. There are also people who just happen to know a lot of words, perhaps because they are accomplished linguists, they have studied Latin or another foreign language, they are well-read, or they studied extensively for the SAT, GRE, etc.

And then there are people who use "big" words incorrectly. There's nothing wrong with a wide vocabulary, however, it is imperative that you know the exact meaning of a word before you attempt to adopt it into your repertoire. It is much more reputable to use a simple word to convey the correct meaning than to use the wrong word because you think it sounds cool. Oh, and the thesaurus cannot be trusted solely for synonyms. Sometimes thesauri include as synonyms words that have slightly different meanings, and this can cause problems for those that rely heavily on the thesaurus to advance their vocabulary. The problems with the thesaurus could be the subject of another blog altogether...

For now I'd like to clear up the definition of a word that is more often misused than it is used correctly. The word of the day is nonplussed.

Nonplussed is commonly misused in place of "unfazed" (slang), "unimpressed," "not jaded," "indifferent" or "unaffected." Perhaps this is because the word sounds like it should mean not plussed, assuming that plussed meant something along the lines of "affected." However, in this case nonplussed is not the converse of plussed. Plussed is not even a word. (Transponster?)

Nonplussed means "perplexed." It comes from the Latin phrase meaning "no more, no further." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines nonplus this way:

SYLLABICATION: non·plus
TRANSITIVE VERB: To put at a loss as to what to think, say, or do; bewilder.
NOUN: A state of perplexity, confusion, or bewilderment.

Some more commonly used synonyms are: puzzled, confused, and baffled.

Hopefully this word will no longer leave you nonplussed.

Affect vs. Effect

I am a spell-check supporter. I think it is ludicrous that even a self-proclaimed stellar speller (I do appreciate a good rhyme) would opt not to utilize this tool when writing anything from academic essays to friendly e-mails. If you don't have spell-check enabled on your e-mail client, kindly enable it now. I will not stand for "definately" (the visual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard) any longer, and neither should you, your boss, your mom, or anyone else. But I digress...

The problem is that many people lean on spell-check as a crutch, and therefore are less careful in checking their document for grammatical correctness. Spell-check catches misspelled words, but not misused words. Just because the word exists as it is spelled does not mean it is spelled correctly for the intended meaning. Carelessness, in this sense, makes my blood boil. I am reminded of the "Friends" episode in which Ross, after having read the letter that Rachel wrote to him, screamed in a fit of rage, "Y-O-U-apostrophe-R-E means YOU ARE. Y-O-U-R means YOUR!"

To that same end, a friend recently suggested that I explain the difference between affect and effect. I am happy to oblige. This pair of homophones (the words sound the same but have different meanings) often concerns even self-proclaimed language lovers; the confusion stems from the haziness surrounding the way the difference is taught. Let's break it down.

Affect is most often used in the verb form. It means to influence. For example: The weather affected the turn-out at the picnic. The word affect in this sentence could be replaced with influenced and the sentence would mean the same thing.

Affect in the noun form is quite uncommon, and often misused. It is a psychological term referring to emotion or feeling. For the purposes of everyday conversation, it is best to avoid using affect as a noun.

Effect is most often used in the noun form, as a product of a cause. It means result. For example: The effects of the merger were groundbreaking.

Effect in the verb form is also quite common, though quite often misused. It means to cause. For example: She will effect a change in the organization.

A basic rule of thumb is to first determine which part of speech you are aiming to use. How something affects you may have many effects on your situation.

Does is affect you? (This sentence passed spell-check with flying colors)

How's that for effect?

RE: Irresponsibility

Regardless of what you think you've been taught, irregardless is not, in fact, a word. Go ahead, look it up. Not there? It's because it isn't a word. As if double negatives weren't frustrating enough, this little thorn in conversation's side is excruciatingly piercing, and at the very least idiomatically awkward to even the untrained ear (I hope). It sticks out like a sore thumb (enter supposably), and, like the previously mentioned phrase, "I could care less," is increasingly being used so that I fear it might sneak its way into slang. The "ir" is unneccessary. Spread the word.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines regardless this way:

ADVERB: In spite of everything; anyway: continues to work regardless.
ADJECTIVE: Heedless; unmindful.
re·gardless·ly —ADVERB
re·gardless·ness —NOUN

The problem with the non-word irregardless is that it is inherently redundant. It is a single-word double negative, if such a thing even exists. My trusty friends Strunk and White explain it this way:

Irregardless. Should be regardless. The error results from failure to see the negative in -less and from a desire to get it in as a prefix, suggested by such words as irregular, irresponsible, and, perhaps especially, irrespective.

While we're on the subject, let's move on to regard. In regard to is correct. In regards to is incorrect. You may, however, use the plural following as: As regards.

Regards,

Tracy