Word Wise

Only Qualified Applicants Need Apply

I’ve been rather surprised recently at the noticeably large number of times I’ve seen words like “rather,” “recently,” and "noticeably" used in copy. Wait, let me be even more unclear and vague so you kind of know exactly where I may or may not be coming from so you can intuit how I probably and quite possibly feel: I’ve not only been rather surprised, and occasionally keenly surprised, I’ve been, I've been – hang on, here it comes – moderately surprised, too. Woo, I’m glad I got that off my chest. “A recent research report demonstrates…” “Tourism increased considerably…” “Tests scores improved somewhat …” All these phrases tell me is that a) the writers were too lazy to find out the details or, 2) they know the details but the details are less than riveting so they’re hedging their bets by, if not quite lying, at least by hiding the truth considerably: the “recent” research is less recent than Hall & Oates’ last top-10 hit the “considerable” increase in tourism was only .75 percent more than last year but it's considerably more than the .00075 percent predicted (but why go into all that messiness?) while tests scores improved “somewhat,” 95 percent of ninth graders still can’t point to Kuala Lumpur on a map As the current President Bush once said, “There's an old saying in Tennessee … that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Got that? Qualifiers like “rather,” “quite,” "probably," "possibly,” “really,” “a bit,” and the rest signal to readers that what’s ahead isn’t going to add anything concrete to their understanding of the issue at hand – these words are so empty that they take up more space on a page than they add information to a sentence. They imply something fishy’s going on. Instead of telling it like it is, by using qualifiers like these we’re telling it like it isn’t. Be precise in word choice, do your research and know the details, be honest in your reporting, tell the truth, don’t fudge it, be respectful of your readers and their time and indulgence. And for Pete's sake, learn where Kuala Lumpur is.

The Wednesday Word Wise Roundup

• Monday (two days ago) was National Punctuation Day, a holiday that for some reason  employers have yet to recognize with a day off from work so people can contemplate, meditate, ruminate and conjugate. (Some corporations – and elementary schools – have at least recognized it and acknowledge it with a variety of activities.) According to a nicely punctuated press release, the holiday is meant to remind America that, among other things, a “semicolon is not a surgical procedure.” Check out the Web site for links to information on all the best punctuation marks. 

• Coincidentally, the day before National Punctuation Day, Reuters ran a story, datelined London, about the disappearing hyphen, noting that in the newly published Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 16,000 words that previously had hyphens no longer do. (That’ll put a damper, no doubt, on next year’s National Punctuation Day celebration.) According to Reuters, “Bumble-bee is now bumblebee, ice-cream is ice cream and pot-belly is pot belly.” Ugh. "People are not confident about using hyphens anymore, they're not really sure what they are for," Angus Stevenson, editor of the Shorter OED, told Reuters. Well, if that’s the logic on which this hyphen debasement is based, then we might as well do away with a lot of other things people aren’t confident with, like algebra, putting on makeup, and lemon soufflés. The new hyphen-free words were either split into two (test tube) or smooshed into one (logjam).

Say No to Capital Punishment*

“As a member of the Ironic Postmodern Generation, I have a tendency to capitalize Grand Concepts, which usually translates to Concepts That Aren't Really Grand but Pretend to Be. This habit, annoying as it may be, has Nothing to Do with arbitrary capitalization.” – Bill Walsh, copy chief, The Washington Post It’s bad out there and getting worse – the whatever attitude toward capitalization. Capital letters – aside from starting sentences, titles, headlines, and so forth – are reserved for proper nouns. ‘Nuff said. End of story. Finis. Now go buy yourself something nice. Among other things, proper nouns are the names of: people (Miguel, Sanjay, Yoda) places (Santiago, Hogsmeade, Tuxedo Park) events  (Bastille Day, the Ides of March) publications (Teen Vogue, Foreign Affairs) monuments (Taj Mahal, Jefferson Memorial) brand names (Dove, Nissan, Hermès) There’s nothing capricious about the rule and no place for randomness when applying it. It’s not a matter of judgment or merely a guide. It's not about aesthetics ("But I think it looks better that way.") It is simply incorrect to capitalize nouns (or any other words) just because You Consider Them Important (“The client’s passion is Service”). If you’ve mentioned a press conference and you refer to it in the following sentence, it’s not “the Event” but “the event.” If you’ve mentioned your client's name once, on second reference it’s not “the Company” but “the company.” If you’ve referred to a speaker by name, later on she’s not “the Speaker” but “the speaker.” Just because there’s only one of something, or that something is muy importante, doesn’t mean that it should be capitalized.

* Say no to real capital punishment, too.

The Wednesday Word Wise Roundup

• I’ve tried several times over the years to write about the difference between American English and British English but have never been able to do it in a way I found useful to readers. I’m not British, don’t live there, don’t travel to England often, and don’t have too many friends from there who live here (ok, I only have one friend who’s from London who lives here, and by “here" I mean New York, which isn’t where I live day to day). Yes, I have a lot of colleagues in London but not regular contact with them. My only regular contact with British English comes from the telly (haha) via Hyacinth Bucket ("I cannot abide people who run around making a meal out of their little social triumphs"). So I was pleased to find separated by a common language, "observations on British and American English written by an American linguist in the UK." I especially like that the tags on her most recent post were “humo(u), sex, spelling.”

• Where I work we have a strong mentor program and I’m fortunate that a younger colleague asked me to be her mentor. I suppose she’s my "mentee," though that word – mentee – sounds like it exists because there wasn’t a better alternative. Dictionary Evangelist agrees and has some interesting things to say about it and where words come from more generally.

Don't Dis "Agree"

I hate to bring up geeky grammar lingo like "subject" and "verb" (really, I do) but I want to talk about subject-verb agreement and I can't for the life of me figure out how without using the words "subject" and "verb" (and "noun" and "pronoun"). Sure, we all know that when the subject (sorry) is a singular noun (so sorry) or pronoun (sorrysorrysorry) the verb (sorry) is singular, too - "He is hot." And if the noun or pronoun is plural or there's more than one connected by "and," the verb is plural - "The Zac Posen and Proenza Schouler spring 2008 collections are f-a-b-u-l-o-u-s, fabulous." Lastly, if the connector between two things is "or," the verb is singular, not plural - "A pizza or an enchilada is on the menu." (Forget thinking about these rules; if you graduated second grade, you know them instinctively.) But the whole you-know-what-you-know-what agreement thing does have lots of tricky rules. The three I see most often confused are: Tricky rule #1: When you've got a single noun and a plural noun in one sentence separated by "or." What to do about it: Match the verb to the noun closest to it. "The paraglider or the parachutists are going first." But "the parachutists or the paraglider is going first."  Tricky rule #2: When stuff comes between the subject and the verb (this is where people mess up a lot). What to do about it: Make sure the verb agrees with the subject, not with a noun in the in-between stuff. "One of the iPods is pink." ("Of the iPods" - the stuff in between - has a plural noun but it doesn't impact the verb choice.) "The iPods in the store are pink." (Ditto, but the other way around.) Tricky rule #3: When you're using words like "somebody," "each," and "anything." What to do about it: Use a singular verb even in cases where the thing the words are referring to is plural. "Each of the donkeys is going," not "each of the donkeys are going," because "each" is singular, and each is going, as, right now, am I.

Note: This is another one of those grammar 101 things that no one notices when you get right (so you get no credit) but lots of people notice when you get wrong (so you get dissed). Similar to the whole me-myself-I rules, when it's wrong it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. 

Strike Up the And

I'm oddly happy to tell you that Word Wise has been named "one of the 5 best blogs for PR students" by Karen Russell, a professor of mass communications at the University of Georgia. The others are Common Sense PR, Communication Overtones, Scatterbox, and Greenbanana Views of Public Relations and More. None are for students per se, and all are worth reading for anyone who works in communications.

Ok, enough about me; no, really, stop. Oh, you. You shouldn't have. Ok, here's this week's tip...

The word "ampersand" (&) comes from the phrase & per se and, which means (the character) & by itself is the word "and." The symbol is a stylized version of the Latin word et, which means, shockingly, "and." However, though an ampersand is the symbol form of the word "and," it is not a substitute for the written-out word except in these very specific cases: •    where it is part of a company name (Abercrombie & Fitch) •    if space is very limited (such as in a small advertisement or headline) •    for artistic reasons (such as in a logo) •    in some computer languages (such as in JavaScript) •    in some academic references (Burke & Edison, 2002) Other than for the reasons above, always write out the word "and."

Note: Think about it this way: you wouldn't use the equal sign (=) instead of the word "equal" or the plus sign (+) in lieu of the word "plus," so nor should you use an ampersand instead of the perfectly good word "and."

The Wednesday Word Wise Roundup

• I’ll admit that in the almost five years I’ve worked in public relations I’ve used exclamation points more than I had in my previous 42 years on earth. Seriously! Maybe it’s because I work in PR and we PR practitioners are a shiny, happy people, but maybe it’s also because I entered PR around the same time electronic communications became ubiquitous. This pro-exclamation-point article in the Aug. 30 slate.com by New York writer Jacob Rubin notes that “the exclamation [point] is no mere crutch for the lazy writer but an essential tonic against the grayness of electronic communication.” I agree and, without even thinking about it, I started using it (and emoticons sometimes) to convey tone, wonderment, excitement, and other emotions that might not otherwise come across. I also started using the word “awesome” but that’s another post for another time.

• I might completely embarrass myself by admitting this, but I’m a huge fan of Real Simple magazine (though it amazes me how complicated that magazine makes it to lead a simple life). (Darling, I love you but give me Park Avenue!) And while this isn’t about writing exactly, there is a terrific article in last month’s issue (and online here) about what it calls “bad speaking habits” (e.g., using speech tics like er and um, letting your pitch rise at the end of sentences) and how to correct them. It’s important to read, however, because, like, we all have them, and they creep into our writing, too. I know there are completely inarticulate writers and incredibly smooth-talking illiterates, but more often speaking well and writing well go hand in hand.

Trademarks® the® Spot®

Some clients are trademark-crazy, insisting every mention of their brand attributes be followed by ™ or ®. Although they may require we follow suit, the rules regarding trademark use do not. In fact, when it comes to readability, trademark-o-mania makes copy appear choppy, difficult to read, and inelegant to the ear. A trademark is any word (Pull-Ups®), name (Gillette®), symbol or device (the Pillsbury® Doughboy), slogan (Just Do It®), product name (Frappuccino®) or package design (Coca-Cola® bottle) that serves to identify and distinguish one product from another. The ™ symbol represents an unregistered trademark and is a notification that there is a public claim as a trademark. The ® tells the public that what is marked is federally registered and protected. Trademarks are adjectives and should be followed by a noun (a Bose® stereo, a Kleenex ® tissue). According to the New York-based International Trademark Association, the ™ or ® symbol need only appear “in the first or most prominent mention of the mark.” Omission of the symbol, however, “does not invalidate or compromise a trademark owner’s rights in a trademark. Its purpose is to alert the public to the ownership of the mark, and it is one of the primary ways to affirmatively protect a mark.” The easiest way to create trademarks is by typing the characters (R), (TM), and (C), which will autocorrect to the proper symbols.

Note: I realize this isn’t a burning issue among writers but trademarks do mar copy and anything that gets in the way is a disservice to clients, who should be counseled to take a Valium® when it comes to trademarking their every mention.