The Death of the English Language: The Misuse of The Word 'Tragedy'

An aquaintance of mine in Chicago wrote an article about the misuse of the word 'tragedy' for CBS Chicago's 670 The Score site. The piece has received a fair bit of a backlash since it concerns the recent death of IRL driver Dan Wheldon at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway this past Sunday.

Tim Baffoe / CBS Chicago

While any accidental death can be considered unfortunate, as the author points out, using tragedy to define it is an innacurate application of the word. The article is well written and concerns itself not with making a controversial statement, but with simply conveying the fact that tragedy has become one of those often abused terms.

Enjoy the article and if you will, seperate yourself from any emotional attachment to an unfortunate death, and simply understand the writer's perspective.

Thanks for reading.

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.

The Death of the English Language: Last vs. Latest

Despite having little to no free time today, I sacrificed the ten minutes I had planned on using to shave to drop some knowledge.

While it is easy to confuse the terms last and latest, there are variations between the two that lead to more adequate usage in the proper context. If you are referring to something with last, it should pertain to a final effort.

The last episode of Cheers made me cry. What the fuck is Norm going to do now?

According to that sentence, it is clear that the final episode of Cheers is the subject, as oppose to;

The latest episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians was the television equivalent of euthanasia; their last episode could not come soon enough.

See what I did there? O AN HE CRAFTY HUH. In this instance, latest refers to the most recent, not last episode.

Now, before you run-off sharing this precious nugget of information with your friends, remember, there are exceptions. Last, when used in the sense of latest, can be as impactful as an idiom and should be used only when there is no affordance for ambiguity.

Cubs catcher Soto just made up for an error in his last at bat by smoking a hanging slider from Ramirez over the fence for a 3-run home run and 13th inning walkoff win for the Cubbies.

Why the Cubs? Well, that actually just happened moments ago while I write this. Allow that to be today's sign of the impending apocalypse.

Thanks for reading.

Bon Voyage Glenn Beck, you ignorant prick.

UPDATE: Notice above, the 'word' impactful in bold. I feel like dying right now solely because I included that in a post. Impact is not a verb, thus impactful is not even close to a word. I hate my life. Sweet dreams.

The Death of the English Language: Gender Trolls

Let me preface today's entry by saying I'm bitter, unemployed and it just rained for the duration of my lunchtime barbecue party of one, only to stop the moment I came indoors. Such is my life, and without it, I probably wouldn't have any luck at all.

*Also, off-topic but really, perpetually on; for those who like to slip a little 'entire' before your 'durations' because you fancy upping the word count, think again, duration implies an entirety, requiring no quantification at all.

Onward with the nitpicking; today have I got a treat for y'all(s).

"Because of his gender, Lawrence Taylor had trouble getting into the girls locker room at St. Peter's School for Young Girls in Camden, New Jersey."

Ripped from the headlines, like an episode of Law & Order: Who The Fuck Cares Unit, is this doozy of a quote. (I lied; that quote is fabricated - also, I didn't lose my virginity when I was 13. I was 8.)

The word gender, in this case qualifies the subject, Mr. Taylor, and is substituted for sex (Haha yes please, I'll have two.)

Gender was originally employed as a grammatical term, until the 19th century when it became a euphemism for those too conservative to echo the word sex. While the taboo surrounding the word sex has diminished, gender is still the preferred word when referring to a person's sex.

I say fuck off to all these modern interpretations and applications of words. Can we not at least make the most minute of efforts towards this cause or do I have to have buttons made?

Be off with yourselves. Tell the woman you love that you barely tolerate her, grab a twelve of something cheap and get ready for the NBA Draft. If you don't hear from me tomorrow, it's because the Raptors drafted another white guy and I've killed myself.

The Death of the English Language: Have's and the Have Knots.

Recall earlier, during one of my "Death of the English Language" diatribes, when I discussed the concept of "Light Years" and its common misapplication.

The term is often confused as a measure of velocity, whereas it actually represents a measure of distance. When misinterpreted, people assume that by stating something is light years away, that it applies to a time unknown but still quantifiable.

Since both time and distance are linear measurements, technically the misuse of the term is not incorrect, but usually applied incorrectly with regards to the context.

Seems like I'm nitpicking a bit doesn't' it?

That brings us to today's seat-of-my-pants tutorial on "Knots" of the nautical variety.

You'll never catch a sailor making this mistake; but many a writer has used "knots per hour", when knots is a measure of nautical miles an hour. Writing "knots per hour" is redundant and technically means "knots per hour, per hour."

Hopefully reading that made you cringe half as much as I did whilst typing it.

Thanks for reading - find a patio tonight, consume an unquantifiable number of beers on an empty stomach and vomit incontrollably on the diaper changing station in the women's bathroom as a symbol of the disgust you see in the inequality of modern child rearing methods.

The Death of the English Language: Proverbials

Greetings friends - just a brief note today concerning something that has bothered me for quite sometime.

The unnecessary usage of the word proverbial bothers me to no end. When somebody utters a sentence that is inherently proverbial, it does not require a statement intimating that it is.

You just hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Or even worse; a true abortion of the English language;

You just hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head.

Jesus H. Christ; you have given me no other option but to eat your first born progeny before regurgitating it on a bed of mixed greens before lightly covering it with a drizzle of a bitter vinaigrette.

All that requires being said is; You just hit the nail on the head.

Unless the person you are addressing is actually framing a home by driving a nail into a 2X4, it is commonly understood that it is proverbial.

The only exception to this is when the sentence actually refers to a proverb, the difference being that a proverb is a fixed expression, whereas a proverbial expression allows room for alteration.

Since I don't feel obligated to search for an actual proverb, I'll assume that if your read this site you are inherently brilliant and require no further explanation of the difference between the two.

I will now leave you to enjoy the second half of the Mavs game. But, before I go, remember that proverbial statements differ slightly from idiomatic expressions. Should you require a brief refresher on what Idioms are; search the column on the right for Idioms, certain that I've already covered that.

The Death of the English Language: Dangling Modifiers

An element of the English language that can be as equally as entertaining as it can be frustrating is the implementation and confusion surrounding Dangling Modifiers.

Most commonly, dangling modifiers, also known as a dangling participles, are a result of an unattached present participle in a sentence, fragmented by the placement of a comma. Being a bit of a punctuation whore, I often encounter sentences where a dangling modifier exist, which to the trained eye can lead to chuckles accompanied later by sighs and frustration.

How about an example;

"When slathered in spicy mustard and topped with sauerkraut, nobody can deny the sanctity of a grilled hot dog."

In this instance, the notion following the comma should apply directly to that before the punctuation. The careless mispositioned words in this case implies that the person (nobody) is slathered in spicy mustard and topped with sauerkraut - which from personal experience, I must add, requires both goggles and an industrial strength gag reflex.

A simple means of avoiding such obstacles would be to make certain that the word which follows the comma applies directly to the idea in the previous sentence.

"When slathered in spicy mustard and topped with sauerkraut, a grilled hot dog is an item of the utmost sanctity that nobody can deny."

Not perfect, yet still exponentially better than the its first incarnation.

Let's have a look at another example;

"In addition to being affordable and lightweight, Michael claims that midgets are perfect for families of any size."

According to this sentence, the dangling modifier suggests that Michael is affordable and lightweight, which in my case, would be incorrect as only 1 of the 2 apply.

In order to have a decent understanding of dangling modifiers and the confusion that often arises from their usage, we must first acknowledge the exceptions. Several participle phrases perform the exact same function as a preposition or conjunction, including; concerning, generally speaking, judging and speaking of amongst others.

Many great writers have used sentences that feature dangling modifiers, not because they are poor at their craft, but because often the mispositioned participles reads better than the corrected version.

The purpose of this blog is not to lambaste those that use them or imply that they are novice writers, but to point out that often, sentences with dangling modifiers may suggest something the writer may have not have intended all together.

Ruminations 20.0

Greetings and salutations my friends - today I am in an inexplicably foul mood, where more often than not, I resort to ventilating all of the negativity buried deep within the bowels of my soul.

As it sit here, within the hallowed walls of my room, pondering my existence, staring at two boiled hot dogs adorned with Kraft singles, I wonder why some people are employed to butcher the english language, whilst I sit uncomfortably, plugging away at an existence that may prove to be as fruitful as placing my reproductive loins in a paper shredder.

Nonetheless, I continue in my plight, striving to be the best that I can be. On that note, why the fuck do some writers suck at their jobs so fucking much.

I read something yesterday in one of our city's major newspapers that made my blood boil into a delightful reduction. On more than one occasion, I have gone out of my way to call out this paper that will remain anonymous today, only because sometimes I even irritate myself with the grating soliloques spewed upon these pages.

The author was attempting to describe a person using a ladder for the purposes of a rescue.

Simply put, a person cannot climb down an object, as climbing implies only going upward. Because of this, saying that a person is 'climbing up' an object is equally as novice and infuriating as it would be to say that a person is 'climbing down a ladder'.

It's a rather simple error, that only a trained eye would catch, but it is an error nontheless. An error that went unnoticed by the writer, and even worse, flew below the radar of the copy editor.

Just wanted to share that with you, my beloved concubine of aspiring wordsmith, in hopes that we can all make an effort not to write stupid shit.

Ruminations 13.0

First things first - I had an unbelievably busy week which culminated with a visit from a friend from the UK - so excuse me if there hasn't been a post in a week's time. I know how upset you all must be and how this site plays such an integral role in your daily lives.

Accept my apology with the same sincerity and genuine tone that the above personal message is seasoned with.

In today's installment of Ruminations, I'd like to tackle, nay, lazily gloss over some things that have been ruffling my feathers of late. To remain consistent with one of the general themes of this blog, I like to emphasize variations of the English language and common colloquial that are assisting in the Death Of The English Language (click on the link on the right-side margin to familiarize yourselves.)

Because of my love of literature, my experiences with journalism and my penchant for the use of larger words to convey a veiled sense of pretentiousness, I am a very literal person. I fancy the usage of words to be as they were intended and scoff at the misinterpretation and bastardization of terms.

Since I am so literal, today's term/word of choice may seem ironic. But it is not irony, rather coincidence (again, please read The Death Of The English Language excerpt on Irony.) The over-usage of the word literally is killing me.

Qualifying a thought or notion by attaching the word literally is one of the most wasteful and unintelligent things a person can do. Sure, there is a purpose to the term and its proper usage.

Let's start simple here. Literally is an adverb that comes from literal, as in the interpretation of things. It has 4 principle meanings and usages and they are each as simple to understand as the next.

1) In a literal or strict sense - What does a word mean? Literally. i.e. poo means shit, literally.

2) In a literal manner, word for word - Translate something literally.

3) Actually, as in without exaggeration or inaccuracy - i.e. I literally shit my pants. Not figuratively, where as Jay Cutler played like crap, boy did he shit his pants (see shit the bed.)

4) In effect, in substance or very nearly - In this sense, its interchangeable with 'Virtually".

Using the term literally has its purposes, this is clear. If used properly within the parameters of the aforementioned 4 means, it is an effective way of avoiding hyperbole and confusion. What bothers me is when ignorant teenagers use it as every 3rd word in a sentence.

I contemplated fabricating a conversation between two teenage girls where the misuse of the word literally would be borderline pandemic, but my readers are an intelligent lot and familiar with such blasphemy. In addition to this, I literally did not want to make your eyes bleed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One last thing. This is not as much for my readers as it is a reminder for myself if I should ever be faced with the possibilities of being a parent.

As a child, I was a bit of a pain in the ass (that would be figuratively, not literally - as a child, Elton John was a bit of a pain in the ass, literally.) I was constantly in trouble and in the midst of being lectured by my mother whilst eating ants and starting fires.

One of my mother's go-to lines was "How many times have I told you not..."

A day would not go by without having these words uttered in my direction. The point I am struggling to make is, did she really expect me to be keeping count? When I become a father, can I come-up with an alternative to getting my point across? Recalling how insolent I was as a child, I'm surprised I didn't keep count.

"Well mother, you have told me 1,296 times not to play with my food, but it is now, as it was the previous 1,295 times a moot point since I clearly do not tolerate listening to you."

Surely there are more efficient means of getting one's point across no? Perhaps I am just too literal for my own good. Regardless, there's your blog post guys, hope you're happy.

Ruminations 9.0

Greetings and salutations to my devoted readers and an extended hand to those who have the virtuoso-level supplies of patience necessary to tolerate me as a real person and not a clandestine character whose identity is neatly veiled by the insipid grays of the interweb.

Here's hoping that everyone had a safe and joyful Christmas time. In case you care, or in the event that you don't, I had a wonderful Holidays spent with family, and despite my thoughts of solitude that I shared with you all prior to the break, I have no complaints...

Especially when you consider the present that was delivered on a blustery night in North East London this past Tuesday.

Arsenal 3 - 0 Chelsea

Thanks Santa. For once, I actually got something that was on my list.

Theo Walcott looked like a man possessed, and despite some early heavy touches by he and captain Cesc Fabregas, the two managed to team-up on two occasions in a two-minute second-half span that cemented the much needed result. The top of the table is tighter than a newborn stuffed with an engorged yam, made even better by Lee Bowyer's late equalizer last-night against Man United that has United, cross-town poofters City and heroic talismen Arsenal within close proximity.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the spirit of the scatter-brain state of Ruminations, I wanted to take but a brief moment to identify something that really pisses me right off. Previously, I've done rather well by my lofty standards to point-out some massive violations of the English language, both spoken and written. As a writer, I take pride in the words I produce and on the maintenance of a high-standard of said writing.

Sure, every once and a while, I'll publish a "having said that" or a "be that as it may", but this is my site, and I don't receive a penny per word, only an enhanced self-esteem, now similar to that of an anorexic goth-chick from a flyover state with a history of childhood abuse and glue consumption.

Having said that (piss-off), in a past piece about titled "The Death of the English Language", I identify the problem with writer's usage of cliches. Like using a vibrator during sex, there's a time and there's a place for such things.

Cliches, proverbs, popular metaphors and analogies can all do a great deal towards helping to paint a picture for a reader, but like the flogging of a dead horse, there are invisible limits which should not be traversed.

What really angers me is the usage of the word 'proverbial', as in "you hit the proverbial nail on the head". In conversation, when a term such as the aforementioned is used, unless you are literally putting a finishing nail in a ninety-degree casing while framing a home, we mutually comprehend that you are not actually striking a nail with a hammer, but instead accurately depicting or answering a query.

There is never ever ever a need to say proverbial - it is sophomoric, novice and fucking stupid.

If you choose to resort to a proverbial statement, make a concerted effort to avoid saying the word. Your friends will appreciate it.

Things Done Changed: People Say The Dumbest Things

As previously mentioned in my piece "The Death of The English Language", we are going to great lengths to destroy our native tongue. Not only are we as a people depreciating the value of our language in text, but often with the use of pointless words and common colloquial.

I would like to request, rather implore my readers to cease the usage of the following terms when beginning a sentence:

> honestly

> truthfully

> 'real talk' (urban version of the above)

If you need to reinforce the honest nature of what you are about to say by prefacing it with one of the above words, than inversely you really need to stop uttering so many factually incorrect sentences.

There are also other terms used at the start of sentences that are wasteful, irrelevant and if anything, only show how sophmoric the speaker is:

> with all due respect

> "no offence"

Typically, when somebody begins a sentence by saying 'with all due respect', it is followed by something that completely lacks any respect, as if prefacing the statement can somehow absolve you of the guilt or ramnifications of being rude. The same applies to 'no offence'. It is just so wasteful. Have you no economy for the English language?

Finally, one that really gets under my acetate-like pale skin for the fact that it is just one of the stupidest things a person could say:

> "I'm just saying..."

Christ, yes we realize you are just saying, such is the process of opening your mouth and releasing a combination of understandable audible noises. Typically the above set of words is used when a person is saying something to another party that may be contrary to the listener's belief-system. Somehow, it has become quite common to say this, despite absolutely no evidence to why it is in any way beneficial.

Just be more mindful of the words you use, because you will be judged based on the way you speak. Real Talk.

The Death of the English Language

The decaying nature of the Earth and its environment is much like the English language; beautiful in its complexities and innocence. However, like our planet, the English language is gradually being destroyed, not only by the common user, but by those who make a living from their words.

When writers contribute to the decline of their money-maker, the English language, a knowledgeable reader can easily become nauseated with disgust by the sheer number of errors which find their way onto the pages of even the most heralded papers and periodicals.

The Manifesto of an Irritated Reader…

To state the obvious, with time, languages change. This is not just a phenomenon associated with the English language, but is a universal reality that has been studied for years. Unfortunately, because of a bevy of variables, it can be difficult to identify why exactly languages change over time, though sociolinguistic causes of change can be measured to a certain degree.

In some academic circles the study of language change is referred to as ‘historical linguistics.’ The study of such change concerns the deconstruction and reconstruction of languages to determine the reasons for change. In the past, changes that have occurred within a language have been attributed to a staggering variety of factors that range from most aspects of human life, physical, social, mental and environmental.

For example, it was once believed that consonant sounds began to change in mountainous regions due to the high altitude factor. The density of the air was believed to affect change in certain words because of the intensity of expiration in high altitudes.

Fact is, languages change. It is an inevitable aspect of linguistics that has affected far older tongues than English. My issue is not with change, because it is inexorable, but with examples of decay of the language that is easily avoidable.

If you’re keeping score, the aforementioned misuse is comparable to a Greenpeace activist stalking endangered whales off the Atlantic seaboard. It just doesn’t make much sense. Calling all writers - Don’t bite the hand that feeds.

I am easily enraged by most things, but nothing irritates me more than reading a poorly written article in the same magazine I would literally kill to work for.

Isn’t It Ironic That…

The one faux-pas that really infuriates me is the confusion between coincidence and irony. These terms are thrown about far too liberally to the point where their original meaning have very little meaning at all. (I.e. irony is a term that has been mistreated long enough; to the point were the word’s meaning and its common usage is two different things. For those still lost, check the definitions for irony and coincidence, then compare and figure it out for yourself please and thank you.) Never mind (two words!!!). I’ll make life easier for those who didn’t check-out of this rant at paragraph 1.

Coincidence is an act that occurs by accident and without planning.

“It was sheer coincidence that Sophia and I ran into each other at the market.” These incidents cannot be premeditated and usually occur when not expected. Sometimes I expect to see somebody at the mall that I haven’t seen in a while, simply because there are scores of people there and the chances are favourable. I may expect to see somebody in passing, but I certainly can’t plan it. How the hell could I?

Irony on the other hand is a far more convoluted concept, but by no means difficult to differentiate from coincidence. This is what makes my blood boil.

By definition it deals with things that are incongruent, with nothing at all to do with coincidence. This is where the term has been misused by many.

There are several applications for the term irony. One is based on opposites. Humor established on the use of words to suggest the opposite of their actual or literal meaning. The contradiction of something that has been written or said with terms that would suggest the opposite, often times evoking a humorous reaction of sorts. Sarcastic types are fueled by the existence of this form of irony. “I really love cleaning my bathroom” or “I enjoy nothing more than watching paint dry.”

The incongruity between what is expected and what occurs is also a form of irony. You may have expected that attending the Leafs game would be in exercise in containing one’s anger, but it turns out they won by a margin of four goals. Go figure.

The confusion between what exactly constitutes coincidence and irony is not the only abomination of the English language promoted by members of the print media. There is absolutely nothing in the postulates of the definition for irony that should have people confusing it with coincidence.

Most dictionaries will make an effort to point out the misuse of the term for its users. Irony must be associated with things or occurrences that are purely incongruent, and not those which are coincidental or improbable.

Running into an old classmate on the same day you looked at your gr. 11 yearbook is not ironic, it’s coincidental. Improbable as it may seem, missing the bus by a step only to meet a beautiful, uninhibited foreign exchange student on the next one is only coincidental and nothing more.

The confusion between irony and coincidence is only the beginning – the tip of the proverbial iceberg – which is also a faux pas, even in attaching the euphemistic adjective, but that’s a matter for later.

Regardless of Common Usage – Irregardless is Not a Word…

Another ir that irks many is irregardless. Let a moratorium begin on its usage, both in print and in conversation. When making a point, too often, and too easily this bastard-of-a word rolls of the most refined of tongues in place of its legitimate cousin.

That’s regardless. No ir = no err.

As a prefix, ir usually implies the inverse of an adverb or adjective, where irrelevant means the opposite or relevant and irresponsible the ying to the responsible yang.

The difference amongst these ‘real’ words and irregardless lies in the fact that regardless already is negative by definition. Since less is a suffix substituting for without, and ir is a prefix for ‘not’, the word irregardless would constitute a double-negative.

Dictionaries are made for a reason.

Those green and red lines that appear below most of your type are suggesting you make a correction. Please do so.

And if you fail to for whatever reason, and the error escapes your copy editor’s cobra-clutch, may God save our souls and strike you down with lightning from the heavens and a barrage of massive academic dictionaries that wallop with the force of a thousand bricks.

Having said that - another three words that are major waste of type - to imply that many writers are responsible is definitely an ironic statement, but it’s certainly not a coincidence that bad writer’s make bad mistakes.

For those writers, don’t fear – you have no idea who you are, but I want your gigs. With that said, make an effort, no matter how novice you may be to stay away from irregardless.

Dare I say there are others that continue to destroy everything they touch?

Many Writers are Very Average to Say the Least…

The abuses I speak of deal with the quantification of terms that, by definition, cannot be quantified or qualified. There are adjectives in the English language that should never be preceded by an adverb to describe or emphasize their meaning.

In a recent article from one of the major national newspapers, the author described a stage show as very mediocre. Mediocrity cannot be quantified, because by definition, it refers to something that is average; in other words adequate or acceptable, but altogether not outstanding.

“Do you know who has rushed for more yards than Seattle has-been Shaun Alexander? Many people, including War-rick Dunn (3.1 yards per carry), Derrick Ward (largely anonymous), and Ron Dayne (extremely mediocre).” (Globe and Mail 12/14/07).

Now that’s taking it to the next level. Sentence fragment was a nice touch too.

Somebody whose profession it is to write should realize that you cannot place an adverb like very before such a word.

Along the same lines, an artist’s work cannot be called very unique because uniqueness cannot be quantified. One of a kind is, well, one of a kind.

The quantification and qualification of terms that by definition can only stand alone drives me absolutely ape-shit.

Unique is an absolute concept, and as such, cannot be used in accordance with a qualifying or quantifying term such as very. The same applies to the writer who called a film extremely average; something that is average cannot be so by varying degrees, it is simply average.

Qualifying words like mediocre with adverbs such as somewhat, more or less, fairly or reasonably is bad taste. More so, along the same lines, to say that something is quite or rather unique is to err in English.

Many dictionaries and usage guides argue that terms such as unique are an absolute concept and, as such, cannot be used in accordance with qualifying words such as very or rather, but in many cases this stricture seems like a pedantic objection to what is a linguistic rather than a philosophical convention.

All of this should come as no surprise. The English language was destined to destroy itself. The writing was on the wall and on the black-boards of classrooms throughout North America.

English is a sponge of a language, absorbing words from other languages, and more often then not, spitting in the face of proper phonetic pronunciation.

A Solution is Light Years Away – The Epidemic of Clichés…

The use of clichés, especially in print, is destroying the English language. Historical linguists would identify the use of clichés as the epitome of academic laziness. Even though employing a cliché may sometimes be the most economical means of making a complicated statement, more often than not, they are a sign inert unthinking in writing and editing.

The use of clichés should be discontinued retroactive yesterday.

Sometimes clichés can be the easiest way to describe a complex notion, but writers should avoid the temptation to take the high-road. Saying that concert tickets sold like hot cakes may convey a message quite succinctly, it sounds horrible and reads even worst.

The cliché disease is most often a full-blown plague in most sports pages. It seems as if each article features a headline describing the anticipation of a fat lady singing or how something is not over until it is over. No shit. Icebergs have tips and everything eventually hangs by a thread.

The one that stands out as the pinnacle of this pile of dialect dung is the use of the term light years.

“A week may be a long time in politics. But it’s a light year in the global economy.”

This quote is attempting to quantify time in terms of light years, describing the relative difference in time between the world of politics and the economy. Nice try, but any astrophysicist would be quick to point out that light years are a measure of distance, not time.

I think I can afford to repeat myself on this one; light years are a measure of distance, not time.

Clichés are bad enough, but to apply terms that make little to no sense is like throwing the English language under a bus. Sorry.

The Languagegate Controversy…

Another deviant of the English language that is often found in print is the use of the fake suffix gate as in the Super Bowl Halftime wardrobe ‘malfunction’ Nipplegate and the Spygate allegations that surrounded the New England Patriots coach.

This linguistic nightmare is a concocted cocktail of one parts verbal diarrhea, two parts laziness. I’ve had enough. Those who choose to both say and print such words should be found guilty of having absolutely no economy for the English language.

The whole gate phenomenon started with President Richard Nixon’s Watergate controversy that led to his eventual downfall. Watergate was the apartment complex in Washington D.C. where the events that led to this political scandal took place, despite adamant denial from the commander-in-chief himself.

Now the gate suffix is attached to terms where some dishonesty is suspected.

The press knew Nixon was full-of-shit, in the same way Janet Jackson’s explanation for her exposed breast was due to an unbelievable ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ The media could smell a rat, and in every case, they relish the opportunity to expose such inaccuracies in the story of a person in the spotlight.

In the late 1990’s, examples such as Zippergate , Peckergate and Fornigate were applied to President Bill Clinton and his sexual practices. These terms were used because like Nixon’s transgressions, these were rationalized with use of lies. Remember, Mr. Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. It was a cigar. A non-Cuban cigar to be specific.

This blending of words has given birth to terms such as Dianagate, Travelgate and Papergate.

These words are often referred to as portmanteaus, a term coined by Lewis Carroll to define lexical creations in his famous poem Jaberwocky. Portmanteau is a dated expression which refers to a suitcase with several compartments, which is an accurate analogy of the packing-up of multiple meanings into a single word.

The use of the gate suffix is by far my least favorite example of blending words, but there are others. Some of these examples are so prominently used that identifying them as portmanteaus may not be that fitting anymore. This includes terms such as edutainment and infotainment.

More so, the aholic affix has been attached to more words than can be recorded. How often does shopaholic or chocaholic appear in print? Far too often. Even if it’s once, that’s one time too many.

The blending of words must be abolished in order to retain the academic value of the English language. Before long, it could become a dialect of jargon and slang, where even a student qorking towards a Masters in English could be caught referring to terms like netiquette or spamouflage.

It’s far too easy to get caught-up in the allure of using blended words such as those mentioned above. Like clichés, they identify laziness on the part of the writer or speaker.

The solution is simple; stop using such words. Reach for your thesaurus, better yet hold the shift button and F7 simultaneously and prepare to discover an all-you-can-eat linguistic buffet. Refuse the urge to be lazy – and remember – the best writers are usually workaholics, so don’t be afraid to apply a little extra effort.

Tautology is the New Black…

Another aspect of language that can irritate speakers and readers alike is the usage of combinations of words that overlap each other in meaning. Tautology is essentially saying what you’ve already said. This includes examples such as the blatant faux-pas past experiences and invited guests.

This variety of linguistic overkill also occurs with word derivations. If you mean to say ironic, but would prefer to use ironical, please step away from the keyboard.

They both mean the exact same thing. This also applies to rhythmic versus rhythmical or problematic versus problematical.

In some cases, perhaps because of phonetic ease or just sheer confusion, some als have supplanted their original usages. With the example of rhetoric and rhetorical, the latter won out, making phrases such as rhetoric questions and rhetoric eloquences obsolete. On the other hand, in the battle between tragic and tragical, the shorter version triumphed.

Why use ironical when ironic has the same function? Maybe the ignorant enjoy adding an al to the end of such words to sound more educated, but the reality is that using such words only identifies somebody as sophomoric. Are we really just adding high-bred suffixes and classically inspired endings for the sake of sounding more profound? The answer is unfortunately a resounding yes.

Before you open your dust-covered dictionary to prove me wrong, the suffix al does have its uses.

In some cases, adding an al to the ending of an adjective can create a new adjective in itself. These new words have become accepted in academic circles and dictionaries. Where comic is an intent to be humourous, comical is humour found in something that was all together not intended to be funny at all.

For example, humour can be found in the most tragic of occurrences – this is where the al in comical is most useful. And that’s tragic, not tragical, another derived adjective that has no right to be printed.

Unfortunately, these aforementioned abuses of the English language will likely continue to mar formal writing. A solution must be identified.

Misuses of English have permeated every demographic and institution where it is spoken. A band-aid effect, such as hefty fines for public usage of words such as ‘irregardless’ or uttering notions like very mediocre might be an option. Perhaps in the United States, being found guilty of such infractions could result in the loss of a person’s right to the franchise of voting like it has for the incarcerated.

A more plausible remedy could be to have the writers and editors of the world take a more academic approach to their work.

Dissuade yourself from using clichés, as tempting as they can be. When trying to determine if something is coincidental, revert to the dictionary feature on your word processors, it will help. Stop using qualifying terms for words like unique and average, and steer away from words that aren’t even words at all. Blending words is novice and should be avoided at all costs.

If those who make a buck of the language can begin using it as it was intended, then hopefully with time these correct tendencies will begin to push the idioms of shit down the slippery slope and off the edge.

Only then will the dialect derelicts begin using the right words, irregardless of how difficult that may be.