Archive for February, 2014

Less captions

February 28, 2014

Recently from mild-mannered editor John McIntyre (as he describes himself on the net), this captioned page (which he got from Chris Green on Facebook), entitled “Pedants’ Revolt” — a play on “Peasants’ Revolt” —  from an illuminated manuscript, captioned with usage advice:

There is a considerable literature, in the handbooks, on Language Log, and this blog, on the choice between less and fewer. The usual story is that less is to be used for mass nouns (less shrubbery) and fewer for count nouns (fewer shrubs) — for the opposite concept, more is used in both situations — but there is variation, even for educated and careful writers, and some circumstances where less is clearly impinging on fewer; I myself see no point in objecting to the grocery store usage ten items or less. The case above is not so clear.

(I don’t know the source of the manuscript page, or the identity of the captioner.)

Remarkable whom

February 28, 2014

From the 21st, this posting by a woman looking for a home for her two daughters:

My name is Sarah and I live in Edmonton, Alberta. I have two extra-ordinary daughters (aged 8 and 9) whom have been handed a rough time due to life’s unpredictable circumstances.

Notable whom. There are circumstances (examined on Language Log and this blog) when for structural reasons the choice between who and whom is complex and debatable. This is not one of them; the prescriptive standard here is who. But we can speculate as to where the whom might have come from.

(more…)

Two compounds

February 28, 2014

Two N-N compounds that came by me recently, one silly, one serious. Both are subsective: the referent of the compound as a whole is a subtype of the referent of the second (head) noun. But in neither case is the relationship between the two nouns straightforward.

First, today’s Bizarro:

Then there’s the N-N compound hope chest, heard dimly on some tv show as I was wakening from a nap.

(more…)

Women in comics

February 26, 2014

The Dork Tower cartoon (by John Kovalic) from the 24th (a bit fuzzy from being blown up):

xx

Two Wednesday cartoons

February 26, 2014

A Zippy on lexical semantics, and a wry Zits on watching your language:

(#1)

Define sup, and distinguish the referent from slurp. The proper names are, as usual for Zippy, entertaining, and the title is a separate bit of language play.

(#2)

The joke here, of course, is that Jeremy censors not just his speech — that would be routine — but also his thoughts.

Party on, Darth

February 25, 2014

[edited later on 2/25, to move the Batman theme from a comment (by Dave Kathman) to the body of the posting]

From Victor Steinbok, who found it on George Takei’s site, this cartoon:

A festival of pop-cutural allusions in the speech balloons, plus some language play.

(more…)

Two Peanuts

February 25, 2014

(Or maybe Peanutses.) On Facebook, Jeff Bowles has been posting old Peanuts cartoons. Here are two with some linguistic interest, having to do with writing.

From 3/13/86, on narrative:

(#1)

From 3/14/86, on literary rejection:

(#2)

An earlier, gentler, rejection strip here.

More Recency Illusion

February 24, 2014

From Tom Grano, a CBS News report from yesterday, from Bill Flanagan, representing the “grammar police”:

Time now for a public service announcement from our contributor and first-person-singular-pronoun policeman Bill Flanagan of VH1:

I know it sounds snobby to point this out, but in the last 10 or 15 years, millions of intelligent English-speaking people have become flummoxed by when to use “I,” and when to use “me.” You hear it all the time:

Are you coming to the movie with Madonna and I?
Won’t you join Oprah and I for dinner?
The Trumps are throwing a party for Barack and I.

It’s embarrassing!

At least people who mess up the other way — “Goober and me are going to town” — sound folksy, colloquial, down-to-Earth. But people who say “I” when they should say “me” sound like they are trying to be sophisticated and they’re getting it wrong.

There’s a lot to criticize here. But I’ll start with the phenomenon, known in the syntax business as the Nominative Conjoined Object (NomConjObj for short) and the claim that it’s arisen only recently.

(more…)

Formatting

February 23, 2014

Another item from Elizabeth Daingerfield Zwicky: the formatting on the English Language and Usage Stack Exchange:

(#1)

Beige background on the title, conservative, somewhat old-fashioned typeface; English Language and Usage is dull stuff.

(more…)

Guessing at meaning

February 23, 2014

Passed on by Elizabeth Daingerfield Zwicky, this entry from Failblog:

The writer has guessed at the meaning of suffrage, taking it to be related to the verb suffer.

(more…)