Think about it

I came across this little gem of wisdom today on a listserv I'm on.

The moon is more important than the sun. That's because the moon shines at night when it is needed.

What did you say?

I was working yesterday on an article about ruptured eardrums and came across this sentence in one of the references I was using. There's nothing wrong with it grammatically or syntactically, but I just hope no one takes it literally.

Teach your children about the damage that can be done by putting foreign objects in their ears.

Help, quick, can we get an editor over hear?

I'm just saying

S pointed out to me psychologist John Rosemond's parenting column in the paper this morning. I usually try not to read him, unless I need either a good laugh or a dose of "Oh my God, what's with this guy?" But today's column begs for someone to comment.

The gist of his column was that helping children develop self esteem is doing them a serious disservice. To prove it he cites unnamed evidence that people with high self-regard tend to anti-social behavior. In fact, our maximum security prisons are filled with people with very high self-regard. Well that may be true, but self-esteem and self-regard do not mean the same thing. Here's what Webster's has to say:

Self-esteem: a confidence and satisfaction in oneself; self-respect
Self-regard: regard for or consideration of oneself or one's own interests

Hardly the same. What Mr. Rosemond did was...well here's a quote from Mr. Rosemond's column:

The supposed merits of high self-esteem were sold on the basis of rhetoric.

Well if that's true (?) then I guess it's fair for Mr. Rosmond to discredit self-esteem with rhetoric. What Mr. Rosemond did was employ a rhetorical trope known as dysphemism. A dysphemism is the substitution of one term with a harsher, more offensive, or more disagreeable meaning for another term. Self-esteem and self-regard are not synonyms. And erroneously equating them does not prove Mr. Rosemond's argument that people with self esteem can't be humble or caring toward others.

But the question arises, who exactly put the focus on self-esteem in the first place? Well Mr. Rosemond does provide an answer to that one:

In the 1960s, American parents stopped going to their elders for advice and began going instead to mental health professionals--people like me. To create a devoted client base, we had to come up with something new. So we cut from whole cloth a nouveau philosophy...

In the next paragraph he says, "Mind you, we made this up."

People like me (?)...we had to come up with something new(?)...so we cut from whole cloth(?)...we made this up.

Okay. This is the man who wants us to believe what he's telling us now? I'm just saying....

Please watch and then share

I found this video posted by Electric Barbarella at Hooker with a Heart of Guile. It's one way the language should be used. I wanted to share it. I hope you do too.

I know that

I was editing an article and just got an interesting message from my computer. I needed to insert some text that's been saved as a separate file into the article I'm editing. So I clicked on insert, and then accidentally clicked on a file other than the one I was after. MS Word sent me this:

"Word cannot insert a file into itself."

Hmm. I wonder why not. Now I can't concentrate on my work.

(Perhaps I'll go have some fun playing with words at today's spotlighted post ==> over there in the sidebar)

Got fleas?

S and I saw this sign over the weekend:

"Humane Society Flea Market"

Hmm...

And the prize goes to

A few odds and ends this morning.

(1) Found this sentence yesterday in an article I'm editing:

Strattera is the first medication to receive an FDA indication for treatment of ADHD in adults.

I'm certain the source the writer consulted used the word "indication." The problem is the work the writer was doing is meant for a health consumer audience, not a medical or pharmaceutical audience. It's like the writer simply took the information in but didn't have time to digest it before spilling it back out. Had the writer taken the time to think about what the sentence meant in the day to day language of the audience she was writing for, then she would have at least used the word "approval."

But the problem with the sentence is actually more basic than that. The sentence appeared in a section about what medical treatment is used for adults with ADHD. Here's the sentence before the one in question:

If stimulant medications have bothersome side effects or are not effective, your doctor might recommend atomoxetine (Strattera), a non stimulant medication.

The real problem with the FDA sentence is that it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding. Since the reader is not going to be writing prescriptions, then it doesn't matter that Strattera is the first -- or only -- medication approved for this use. What question the reader probably will have is, "What is a non stimulant medication, and how is it different than the other medications?" And that's because the real question the reader is going to have is, "How will this medication affect me?"

(2) Speaking of digesting....When I was a young (er, relatively young) teacher, I had a freshman composition class and we were studying the use of figurative language. One of the students asked me what a mixed metaphor is. I stumbled through an answer and searched my brain frantically to come up with an example.

That afternoon, I went to an American literature seminar, and the professor, for some reason, wanted to discuss the value of seminars in a graduate program.

One of the women in the seminar, who had actually passed her generals and was working on her dissertation, said:

Oh, I love seminars. To me they're just like this huge, delicious smorgasbord where I can pick and choose and try things on for size.

It took me a week to get rid of the image of her walking down the street wearing a wardrobe made out of mashed potatoes and caviar.

(3) I got an email this morning with the subject line, "I hate to edit the Word mechanic. That being said...". It came from my son :

From a recent post:
"There are two questions you here all the time in certain circles in places like Birmingham: "Who's your mother?"

I fixed it. Now I'll have to have a conversation with him about the use of internal quotation marks.

More Words I Don't Like

Language should be organic. It should be allowed to evolve naturally without the imposition of artificial "rules of rightness." That being said, good language, like a good garden, is planned or laid out with an eye always toward healthy standards. Some people use phrases -- like others toss chemicals on plants -- without thinking of the harm they're doing. Having said that, I want to to point out that certain phrases have no real purpose in a sentence:

That being said; having said that; after saying that ...

I have several writers whose work I've been editing for a project who seem to use some variation of "that being said" in almost every article, and sometimes multiple times in the same article. I hear correspondents and analysts on TV use some variation of that phrase to help them move to the next point. It's verbage. It's used without thinking, and the way you teach student writers not to use cliches is to help them be aware that when there is no thought on the part of the writer, there is no thought in the reader.

Most of the time when I see the phrase, it doesn't add anything to the sentence it starts. When it does, what the writer really means is "but." I'm not interested in the writer proving to me that he or she is clever enough to be aware of a paradox or is so smart that he or she is about to show why the statement that was just made is not accurate (then why did you make it?). If you mean "but" say "but" and get on with your thought. That's what I want to know--what follows the "but." And if you aren't really contradicting or countering what came before, I don't even need the "but."

Redundancy Repeated

I just found this heading in an article I'm editing:

"Should pregnant women undergo testing during pregnancy?"

Well, no. Only if you are a pregnant woman who isn't pregnant should you undergo testing.

PANTHERs

Remember Sarah Haskins? She is definitely worth watching. This time she explains what a PANTHER is -- Proud American Needing Token Hillary Estrogen Replacement. Find out whether you're a panther or not at Target Women: Sarah Palin.

Interactivity

A long time ago, when computers and the Internet were still wedging themselves into our lives, I was amazed at how easy someone had made it for us to simply answer questions and upload information about ourselves online -- and how seemlessly we began doing it. Even just saying "yes" seemed ominous. I remarked to colleagues that somewhere in cyberspace someone was conditioning us to simply type in whatever we were asked to type in. Not that I heeded my own wariness. I was as eager as the next person to type in my name, place an order on line, answer a survey.

Now our Google toolbar will fill in forms for us and hand out credit card information without us even having to open our wallets. How many of us are paying a monthly $7.99 charge or $12.00 charge or. . . on our credit card statements that buys us some service we don't even remember we have? Who did we talk to when we ordered it, and who do we talk to to cancel it? And are we even sure all of those companies that are collecting the money are still in business?

We've given Microsoft free access to our hard drives because it's easier than trying to remember to download updates on our own. We let McAfee or Norton Utilities have free access. Who are they? And why can any of them simply shut down our computer at will to "reconfigure" the updates? Why does Dell want me to upload my hard drive to their server in cyberspace -- so I'll be protected when my system crashes? Do I know anybody at Dell? And why does Quicken check to see if I've got the latest financial tools and urge me to go to their website every time I start the program? For that matter, why do they want to pay my bills for me? Do I know anyone at Quicken?

What prompted this reflection was watching my local morning news today. The price of gas in Atlanta rose 11 cents overnight and another 4 cents in a half hour during the broadcast. It's because of Ike, and I just wish I had filled up yesterday. Wouldn't it be great if I could get some kind of warning? And then they said it. If you want instant alerts on what's happening with gas prices, all you have to do is sign up on 11alive.com and they'll send you an alert when there's going to be a change in the price of gas. I didn't sign up, but I assume they'd send it to my mobile phone if I asked. It seemed like it was the perfect solution to a serious problem. Thank God for the Matrix.

Would you buy a used car from these people?

I got an email this morning from a company called Books4mobiles.com. They said they wanted to publish my books on their Web site for free. Then they would sell the books to people who want to read it on their mobile phone and I would get a 40% royalty. Here's a blurb from the email:

"This exciting new website allows you the valuable opportunity to sell your books with ease. We do all the work and you recieve a new income stream direct to your pocket."

So I went to take a look at the Web site. I took these quotes at random from multiple pages where they were telling me about this great opportunity:

• Million of people have a mobile phones, why carry your favourite book,when you can read the book on your mobile phone.
• When submitting your work for publishing either for the mobile phone or print, they are a few checks to be done.
• The cost of publishing your work costs is Free.
• Please contact of sales team if you are interest.

To be fair, they said the books that people submit need to be free of grammatical errors because they do not have a service that can check grammar.

Did you say Books4mobiles? Or was it Books4illiterates? Either way, please keep your stream out of my pocket.

Tofu and spring rolls

Her name is Susan Haskins, and the Web cast is called Target Women. It's about close-reading of the rhetoric that defines the way we're "supposed to be." It's well worth a look.

How is that fair?

S broke her wrist a while back. She fell off the stool at her mother's house and spent the night at the emergency room. That was Saturday night, so we couldn't get in to see the hand doctor until Monday. When we did, he said she needed surgery in order to put a plate in, which happened late Monday evening. She was supposed to go home afterward, but due to some complications they admitted her to the hospital Monday night. They released her mid afternoon on Tuesday. All that's preliminary to the real topic.

We got the bill from the hospital about a week after she came home. It was a copy of the bill that was sent to the insurance company. The total bill for the surgery and one night in the hospital was $20,476.50.

Yesterday we got the final bill. Our "account balance" that is now due is $170. Now that's not bad. Insurance is a good thing. But as I looked at the bill, I saw that the insurance company had paid a total of $6,931.25. Because the hospital and insurance company have a contractual arrangement, the total adjustment in the bill was $13,375.25. The hospital wrote it off, or at least I'm assuming they did.

On the original bill there was a statement that said if the insurance company did not pay the claim, we would be responsible for the full 20+k. Health care reform anyone?

Order is important

Just found this in an article I'm editing.

--With a doctor’s help, you can find ways to treat vision problems at night.--

Then you can have your days free.

One-a-day

I just got back from a week in California and have lots of words to fix. So I'll catch up later. But I have to share this sign we saw at a fruit farm stand.

Fresh Sweet Strawberry. Picked Daily.

I'm guessing you have to get there early if you want a chance at it.

Well that's not very nice.

We got our water bill from the City of Smyrna Utilities Department. I've never thought of city utilities departments as being particularly friendly. In fact, my experience with them has been just the opposite. But I was reading through the whole bill, just curious about its tone. In the summary section at the top, there is an explanation of what happens if you don't pay the bill.

"Non-Payment within 30 days of the due date will result in disconnection of services."

Now that's an interesting statement in a lot of ways, but let's just focus on the language. They could have made it a little clearer if they had said "by 30 days after the due date." But I'm assuming they wanted to sound officious. That way you'll certainly believe their threat to cut off your water. But as bad as that sentence is, it's not that one that caught my attention. Immediately after that sentence is an explanation of what happens next:

"Service will be reconnected within 1 working day for non payment of bill after bill is paid in full and payment of reconnection fees is made."

Excuse me. What was that again? Sounds like verbage to me. I'm sorry. I'm just being kind. Because I think to be verbage, it actually has to be translatable. But we're still not to the part that caught my attention. The paragraph goes on to talk about the late fee and then says:

"Failure to receive a bill does not relieve obligation to pay bill by due date."

Okay. Say that one more time. No wait. Forget it. If I don't get a bill, it's my fault? That's the "failure" part. But then within 30 days of some due date on that bill I failed to receive I'd better pay the bill I don't know I have or they will cut off my water.

Whom do these people work for? Oh, yeah. It's you and I, isn't it?

Don't go near the water

S heard this on a TV news tease this morning:

"Skin cancer is dramatically on the rise, and your risk is even greater if you enjoy the water."

Okay. I'll go to the beach with you, but I won't enjoy it. On the other hand, as S points out, it's good news for people who work on the water because everyone knows work's no fun.

I think yesterday I drank more fluid than I did yesterday.

I have to share this one with someone. It's in an article I'm editing.

"[If you] are excessively thirsty and drinking more than your daily amount of fluids, talk with your doctor."

Okay. Now I'm confused.

Could have been what?

I heard this on a rebroadcast of a football game from last November.

"Wow, that ball could have been almost intercepted."

You have to love sports announcers.