Grrrls Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Vowels: A Curmudgeonly Rant about Modern Words

In his August 1, 2012, post in mental_floss, Lucas Reilly lists “35 Modern Words Recently Added to the Dictionary.” The dictionary in question is the British Oxford English Dictionary Online, and after looking over Reilly’s sampler of its newer members, I feel my rant powers stirring.

The Oxford word mavens appear caught in a tug-of-war between common sense and inadequate medication. Some of the words they have legitimized seem reasonable enough. Bling. Illiterati. Muffin top. Muggle. Good, I’ll buy those and a number of others. They are functional and colorful contributions to the language. I’ll even make room for droolworthy.

On the other hand, obvs (meaning obviously), totes (totally), and whatevs (whatever) are totally lowbrow. I mean, come on, we are talking about adverbs here, not plural nouns. Not to mention that obvs suffers from vowel-deprivation. I can’t even say it without feeling like something is wrong with my lips.

And what the hell’s with the apostrophe in d’oh? Is Bart Simpson secretly French? Why not just doh? Then I could embrace the word as a cousin of duh and a useful addition to the English lexicon. But not with the apostrophe. Good grief. B’ooger. F’art. C’rap. You can’t make the inelegant elegant by Frankifying it.

As for grrrl, is there some secret campaign afoot to do away with vowels? I won’t say that this word is the worst of the lot. I’ll just say that I loathe it to the point of foaming at the mouth. I don’t care how cleverly it blends grrr with girl, it is a far cry from a noble and deathless expression. It is a fad word, and not a very good one, either. It is an abomination, a juvenility, a gum-popping brat that needs to grow up into a word whose inner woman possesses brains to go with her brass bra. Other than those objections, I suppose it passes muster.

There. Did you enjoy my little rant? I just hope the wizards at Merriam-Webster are more discriminating than their British counterparts. I haven’t looked, and I don’t know if I can bear to find out. Though again, a lot of the words on Reilly’s list are decent and well-behaved. I just needed to let my inner curmudgeon stretch, that’s all. Given the topic, he had both reason to do so and plenty of room.

Posted in Funny and Weird Stuff, Style and Grammar, Writing and Copywriting | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Grrrls Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Vowels: A Curmudgeonly Rant about Modern Words

And They’re Called “‘Smart’ Phones” Because Why?

Yesterday morning I got a call from a client, only it wasn’t really her. It was her cell phone, which had taken it upon itself to make the call for her. Clearly it was thinking of me. It’s always nice to be thought of. But Laura was unaware of her phone’s friendly gesture until I asked her about the call.

It could have been worse, she replied in her email. Once her dog contacted a coworker at 2:00 a.m. “He stepped on my phone and catastrophe ensued,” Laura said.

I don’t think my phone has called anyone spontaneously–not yet, anyway–but I’m frequently annoyed by little beep-beeps emanating from my pocket when I sit in the wrong position or move in a way that jostles the keypad. I don’t have a smart phone, just a regular old cell phone that’s somewhat smart. But all mobile phones are probably on a par of dumbness given the right circumstances. Here’s a stunt that my phone loves to pull on me:

Me: (Using voice-call feature) Call Duane, mobile.

Phone: Did you say, “Call Linda, mobile”?

Me: No.

Ph: Did you say, “Call Linda, work”?

Me: Aaaarrrghh! No!

Ph: I’m sorry. I did not understand your reply. Did you say, “Call Linda, work”?

Me: NO!

Ph: Did you say, “Call Lynne”?

Me: (Hang up. I know this drill. I keep forgetting that my phone is of a sensitive, artistic nature and requires a particular nuance of pronunciation before it will connect me with Duane. Let’s try again. Clicking voice-call button … )

Ph: Please say a command.

Me: Call DUane, mobile.

Ph: Did you say, “Call DUane, mobile”?

Me: Yes, you electronic imbecile.

Ph: I’m sorry. I did not understand your reply. Did you say, “Call DUane, mobile”?

Me: (My controlled enunciation belying the fact that capillaries in my eyeballs are beginning to burst) Yes.

Ph: Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

Me: What? Listen closely, you moron: If you don’t connect me with DUane in the next ten seconds, I am going to boil you in acid and laugh wildly as I watch your stupid plastic body dissolve in agony.

Ph: Calling DUane, mobile. (Brrrrrt. Brrrrrt. Brrrrrt … click … )

Linda: Baaaaahhhb! Well, well, it’s good to hear from you!

Me: Linda?

Ph: Ha, ha! Sucker!

Me: You shall die.

Linda: Whaaat!

Me: Not you. My cell phone. It’s a long story.

(My cell phone snickers in the background.)

Posted in Funny and Weird Stuff | Tagged , | Comments Off on And They’re Called “‘Smart’ Phones” Because Why?

Writing Tip: In Praise of the Long Sentence

I confess that I’m predisposed toward short sentences. Snappy and concise, that’s how I like ’em. Fragments? Yes, please.

Blame it on my copywriting background, wherein I learned the virtues of brief-and-bouncy. Blame it on conditioning by today’s postmodern, sound-bite culture. Whatever its source, an inner voice tells me to keep my sentences concise for the sake of clarity.

Not that I always listen. Most of the writers whom I admire don’t constrain themselves with a brevity boundary, so why should I? Short sentences are just one tool in a writer’s toolkit, not a law with fines imposed if you break it. There are other tools as well, including the long sentence: the way-long, the breathtakingly long sentence; the sentence that stretches majestically like a Great Plains panorama across a vast landscape of clauses and punctuation marks until it arrives at last, dusty from its exertions but still vigorous, at its period. The sentence I just wrote is a piker compared to some.

“There’s not much to be said about the period except that most writers don’t reach it soon enough,” says William Zinsser in his classic book, On Writing Well. True enough. Yet in chapter seven of Writing Tools: 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer, Roy Peter Clark advises writers to “Fear Not the Long Sentence.”

“Everyone fears the long sentence,” writes Clark. “Write what you fear. Until the writer masters the long sentence, she is no writer at all, for while length makes a bad sentence worse, it can make a good sentence better.”

Garrison Keillor mastered the long sentence long ago. I marvel at some of the chewy constructions that weave through his books. Garrison writes the way he talks. If you want to enjoy his writing to the hilt, imagine him reading it to you in the manner of one of his Prairie Home Companion monologues. Much of Garrison’s writing is concise, but the man fears not the long sentence and uses it to brilliant effect.

Good writing, like good music, requires a sense of rhythm and space. Short and long sentences offset each other, providing tension and release. Too much of either bores, but the right balance galvanizes and allows writing to breathe. So don’t be afraid of the long sentence. Use it judiciously to produce an effect. Use it heedfully, with an awareness of its pitfalls. But do use it.

Posted in Style and Grammar, Writing and Copywriting | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments