The Death of the English Language: Science Talk

For some unknown reason, whilst deeply entrenched in a near-comatose state, I was scanning an article pertaining to science in one of our national papers. Seems the writer was uncertain about an issue, and like the editors over at Bill Simmons' incarnate Grantland.com, instead of opting for some fact-checking or the use of a copy editor, decided instead just to write something completely sophmoric.

Bacteria is the plural representation of the single organism bacterium. This addresses the first fault in the article. Secondly, Bacteria and viruses are two completely different entities.

Bacteria are fully living, single-celled organisms that have a varied trove of functions, most notably, the ability to independently reproduce. Inversely, viruses are not independent living organisms. They are much more minute than a bacterium and or not able to reproduce independently, rather with the assistance of the living cell they have invaded.

It should be expected that any writer entrusted with writing an article pertaining to science, even if they are simply a beat reporter or a 'current affairs' coffee-fetching device, should do a little fact-checking when putting together a piece.

Thanks for reading and my apologies for the lack of posts these last few months. I have something special planned for my readers the next little while, so check back in tomorrow if you will and follow the re-emergence of badnewsblog.

The Death of the English Language: Via

Continuing in my efforts to identify improper usage of English words and the miscarriages of suitable writing by those employed to write, I would like to take a moment to discuss an word short in length, but of such great potential to be applied incorrectly; Via.

Via literally means 'by way of', indicating the process and direction of the trip or journey, but not the means by which said journey is achieved.

It is a proper application of the word to say, for example "That we flew from Toronto to Las Vegas via Los Angeles." The journey is from Toronto to Las Vegas, however a stop-over in Los Angeles is an essential piece of information and the usage of Via in this case is the correct literal application.

On the other hand, where it is most often applied incorrectly is to describe a means of travel; "I arrived in London via concord" or "We landed at 12:00 and reached our destination via train." Both of these instances feature a poor usage of Via

The fact that Canada's primary coast-to-coast train is named Via should only help confuse locals, but the fact of the matter is that Via should always indicate the direction of the journey, and not the means by which it's achieved.

Thanks for reading. Again, sorry for the lack of content of late - I've been a busy boy.

The Death of the English Language: Stalemates

Derived from the game of chess, stalemate is a word that is commonly misused.

I was reminded of this recently during the U.S. Debt Ceiling negotiations. Needless to say, it was a pretty popular term that was applied incorrectly nearly every time I stumbled upon it.

"No End to the Debt-Ceiling Stalemate."

The Atlantic (July 30th)

"Sen. John Kerry to House GOP: Negotiate to End Stalemate."

The State Column (August 2nd)

"The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a plan to raise the federal debt limit and cut government spending, ending a bitter partisan stalemate that had threatened to plunge the nation into default and destabilize the world economy."

The Washington Post (July 2th)

By definition, a stalemate is not a means to an outcome, but an outcome itself. It represents an obstacle that cannot be overcome.

Stalemates don't end.

Reporters and columnists would be better suited using the terms standoff or deadlock for the next set of Debt Ceiling negotiations, that should come our way long before the return of the NBA.

The Death of the English Language: The Misuse of 'Protagonist'

Greetings and salutations my friends, allow me to extend my apologies for the lack of posts in July, barring any disasters, August will be a month of uninhibited learning.

Whenever I am faced with the unenviable task of attempting to fabricate a succession of relevant words with the ever-feared writer's block, I most often turn to that which interests me the most; crimes against our wonderful language by those entrusted with the exchange of written text.

One that I catch every so often in Entertainment sections of daily newspapers is the misuse of the term protagonist.

By definition, portagonist literally means 'first actor' from the Greek (protos and agonistes.) The word is applied to the person or character who drives or promotes the action in a work. The word protagonist is not simply the opposite of antagonist. There can be any number of antagonist in a work, whereas there can only exist a single protagonist.

Another error affiliated with the use of protagonist is the affiliation with the prefix pro and the fact that it implies a positive or admirable stance with the Latin pro-, representing 'for' or 'on behalf'. Protagonists often fit into the aforementioned category, however it is not exclusive to this, and the prefix must be considered as applied in the Greek sense, and not what the Latin origin of the same prefix may suggest.

Thanks for your continued support of this site.