Words That Should Get a Divorce (One in an occasional series on words whose relationships have grown tired)

"seasoned" and "professional"

"Seasoned professional" is one of those terms I've long relied on. I use it in my own writing and I'm sure I've inserted it into articles I've edited.

But something happened yesterday. I must have seen the pairing one time too many and I just snapped. Suddenly, "seasoned professional" ceased to be a familiar, easy, informative term and became instead droning, meaningless noise in my ear.

I guess I just reached my limit for seasoning my professionals this way.

Yes, these two words have had a great run. But it's time they went their separate ways.

Copy Editing Conundrum du Jour

I'm still not sure what to make of this sentence I came across in my copy-editing work today:

Guests are given glowsticks to guide their way through the already freaky figures and dioramas—a gauntlet that’s pretty scary to run even with the lights on.

It's weird enough that it seems to be based on a metaphor mixing "run the gamut" (range, scale) and "throw down the gauntlet" (glove). But "a gauntlet that's scary to run"?

I changed it to "a course that's pretty scary to run." But it'll be a while before I'm confident about it ...

Copy Edit du Jour

Nurses are on hand to ensure patients stick to their treatment regimes.

Changed to "regimens."

I've never seen that mistake before. The word usually mistaken for "regimen" is "regiment."

Words I Love to Hate

satiate

If you don't see what's so horrible about this word, try copy editing marketing pieces for a couple of years. Right around the one-thousandth time you read "our menu will satiate your every culinary desire," you, too, will want to grab the copywriter by the shoulders and yell: "How about 'satisfy,' boy? What's wrong with 'satisfy'?"

Wonderings and Googlings (Wherein I wonder about words, then I Google them)

"it doesn't faze me" = 612,000 hits
"it doesn't phase me" = 1,740,000 hits

Some of the latter are, no doubt, people explaining how to use the word "faze." But one appears to be a bona fide error by an AP writer that got past an AP editor then past a Charleston Daily mail editor.

Either way, I'm shocked that the "phase" version occurs almost three times as often as the one with "faze."

Words I'm Looking Up (One in an occasional cleverly named series on words I'm looking up)

index

I could have sworn that, years ago, I learned that the proper plural was "indices" and that "indexes" was a less-preferred form that was slowly gaining dominance.

Nope.

Webster's New World, American Heritage, and Merriam-Webster all list "indexes" as the first choice for the plural. A Google search shows that users feel the same way, 75 million to 42 million in favor of "indexes."

So I pulled out my 1955 Oxford Universal Dictionary, certain I'd find evidence that the preference for "indexes" was a recent development. Nope again. This big dusty book also prefers "indexes."

Too bad. I like "indices." If it were preferred, it would be like a fun plot twist in the middle of written work -- something to keep you on your toes. But no.

Wonderings and Googlings (Wherein I wonder about words, then I Google them)

snicker = 1,480,000 hits
snigger = 409,000 hits

Dictionaries treat "snigger" as a secondary spelling of "snicker." I was just curious how secondary it was. It's more popular than I would have guessed.

(To control for the candy bar, the actual search terms were "snicker -snickers" and "snigger -sniggers. [Who knew that I would ever find occasion to use the term "control for the candy bar"?])

Cute Pun, But Only If Intended

Saw this headline on a Barron's blog:

Equities Rally As Fed Shows Its Meddle

That could be one of two things: a deliberate play on "mettle" -- or not. A pair of single quotation marks in that headline could have gone a long way.

Wonderings and Googlings (Wherein I wonder about words, then I Google them)

healthy diet = 4,390,000 hits
healthful diet = 144,000 hits

Traditionalists say that "healthy" means "in good health." They say that, if you mean "promoting good health," you need to use "healthful." That is, a healthy person eats a healthful diet.

That's no longer true. From Webster's New World College Dictionary:

healthy
adj.
1 having good health; well; sound
2 showing or resulting from good health -- "a healthy color"
3 healthful

This was on my mind today because the Los Angeles Times uses "healthful" this way most or all of the time. Or at least its Health section does. I'm sure that's a rule based on years of dealing with misinformed grammar-snob readers. Frankly, if I were them, I'd do the same. It's not worth the fight.

So I figured that, while a Google search showed a preference for "healthy diet," a Google News search was likely to show a preference for "healthful diet." I was wrong.

healthy diet = 735 hits
healthful diet = 28 hits

Interesting.

Some Words from Today's Headlines

This AOL headline today caught my eye and grated my ear.

Natalie Facing Ugly Allegations; Murdered Boy's Stepfather Sues Chick for Spreading Lies

It took me a while to realize why someone would use "Chick" here. The person in question is a member of the species known collectively as "Dixie Chicks." (Not my scene, man, which is why it took me a minute to piece it together.)

I've long had a spinal reaction to the word "chick." It's not just a feminist thing. I find it more icky when women use "chick" than when men do. A man's use of "chick" has a sort of Richie Cunningham connotation: a boy who likes girls. A woman's use of "chick" has the opposite ring in my ear: It sounds competitive and kind of hateful: a girl who hates other girls. Like, "There's this chick in school who's a total slut." Clearly, this is based on my limited experience (and also a glimpse into why I didn't find high school the most pleasant environment). But that's how it strikes my ear.

Of course, the band name the Dixie Chicks is self-referential, which in my mind means different rules apply. It's not a pretty sound, but it's not hateful, either. The K sound and the S sound in "Dixie" are a little harsh, and added to the K sound and the S sound in "chicks," it's rough on the ear. At least it's not dripping with high-school-girl contempt, though.

Here's another of today's headlines that caught my interest word-wise:

Stocks Rebound on Defensives and Banks

I hadn't heard "defensives" in a market context before. I wondered if it meant defense stocks. But no, the writers used it to mean a group of stocks including biotechs.

The first noun form of "defensive," according to my Webster's, is:

[Obs.] something that defends.

That "obs." means obsolete. So either the headline writers revived a basically dead word, or this dead word is not dead in the specialized lingo of the stock market and I'm just too much of an outsider (not my scene, man) to know it. (I'm chicky like that.)

Words I'm Looking Up (One in an occasional cleverly named series on words I'm looking up) (plus late addendum)

cheeky

This is by no means a new one for me. Strangely, it figured prominently in one of the philosophy texts I read in college. But I'm just so flabbergasted by an AOL news headline that I simply must bat it around a bit. The headline:

Cruise passengers describe "cheeky" pirate attack

From the story:

"We didn't think they would be cheeky enough to attack a cruise ship," Wendy Armitage, of Wellington, New Zealand, told The Associated Press.

Definition:

cheeky: impertinently bold; impudent and saucy — American Heritage Dictionary

Well done, Ms. Armitage. Weird, but well done. Ah, pirates. Cheeky, spunky, frisky, sassy, saucy, Disney-approved theiving raping murderers!

* * *

Late addendum we'll call "Words I'm Looking Up for Words I'm Looking Up."

In one of my trademark bouts of after-the-fact insecurity, I decided to look up "flabbergasted" to make sure I used it okay above. I saw this at Dictionary.com:

flabbergasted
adjective
as if struck dumb with astonishment and surprise; "a circle of policement stood dumbfounded by her denial of having seen the accident"; "the flabbergasted aldermen were speechless"; "was thunderstruck by the news of his promotion"-- WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

I love seeing "policement" in a dictionary entry affiliated with Princeton. Now I'm truly in a state of flabbergastment. (Yes, I looked up "policement." No entry.)

More Bad Wording from the World of Copy Editing and News Headline du Jour

I edited a rather problematic article the other day about a new music venue. It contained some good examples of the ways that wily words can mutiny. Here (disguised, as always) is one example:

“The Blues Room holds high stakes for its performers by having the reach of a global audience through onsite TV and radio production broadcasting facilities.”

One problem with this sentence is that the writer relied too heavily on a “by” phrase to introduce a lot of information. But MY biggest problem with this sentence is “the reach of a global audience.” Here, the writer just took a powder -- stopped paying attention to her own words.

What is “the reach of a global audience”? Sounds to me like the distance that audience can reach. That's not what she meant to say. She was talking not about the audience's ability to reach but the venue's ability to reach (an audience). So she should have written, “because it can reach a global audience” or something like that.

I see this type of thing a lot with novice feature writers. They let their words squirm out of their grasp and lose their meaning. This writer wanted to mention the venue’s “reach.” She had this word in her head as a noun and she just refused to abandon it even after it abandoned her.

* * * *

News headlines often crack me up. The dropping of "is" and other forms of "to be" along with the dropping of many articles and prepositions can sometimes dilute a headline to the point of meaninglessness. Add to that extreme space constraints headline writers face and you end up with stuff like this headline from yesterday's L.A. Times (with original line breaks intact).

'Hour of

Power'

Crux of

Schism

Ah, yes, the old "crux of schism" angle. What an attention-grabber.

Wait, it just got funnier. I searched the L.A. Times website for the article to link it here, and saw the same article with the headline, "Schullers' rift centers on 'Hour of Power.'" But that's not how it showed up in the print edition yesterday. I guess that proves the headline writer was actually competent and our "Crux of Schism" hed was truly the result of space constraints. I guess I should have titled this post:

Tight

Page

Space

Crux of

Stinker

Hed

Bad Wording from the World of Copy Editing

Came across this* in a story I was editing yesterday:

The American workforce is becoming more diverse. Experts project that next year ethnically diverse individuals and women will make up 70% of all new hires.

Set aside the logical problems with this passage. I reworded it, anyway, so some of the problems you see in it might be mine. But, that said, can you see the wording that I thought needed fixing?

The term that I changed was "ethnically diverse individuals." The writer was talking about the individuals that make up an ethnically diverse group. She did not mean that each individual has diverse ancestry.

(*As always, I did some rewording to disguise the passage.)

Wonderings and Googlings (Wherein I wonder about words, then I Google them)

“has lead him” = 58,100 hits
“has led him” = 453,000 hits

I gotta say, I find this kind of encouraging. It's so easy to accidentally replace "led" with "lead" (that is, to replace the past tense of the verb with the homophone that means a type of metal) that I would have expected even more boo-boos. (Just don't get me started on "metal"/"medal." Ah, what the heck ... ).

"he won the gold medal" = 37,700
"he won the gold metal" = 98

Again, pretty encouraging. Between that, a some encouraging news on the economic front, and the chance that today will bring an end to all this Joe the Plumber crap, we may be on a good-news roll! (Just don't get me started on "roll" / "role." ... Ah, what the heck ...)

"I'm on a roll" = 82,900
"I'm on a role" = 2,120

Yup, not a bad day at all.

Words I'm Looking Up (One in an occasional cleverly named series on words I'm looking up)

hurtle
hurdle

You’re running like the wind, hauling tail Indian Jones-style through some busy marketplace. You’re shoving things out of the way, colliding into people, and leaping over displays of merchandise with a single bound. So are you hurdling or hurtling?

Answer: both.

The running part can be called hurtling. The leaping part is hurdling.

Per American Heritage online.

hurtle: 1. to rush violently; move with great speed: ‘The car hurtled down the highway.’ 2. to move or go noisily or resoundingly

hurdle (the verb form): 1. to leap over (a barrier) in or as if in a race. 2. to
overcome or deal with successfully; surmount: ‘hurdle a problem.’

Wonderings and Googlings (Wherein I wonder about words, then I Google them)

Here are some sample hits from a search for the word atrocious.

The atrocious sequel to Are We There Yet?

We've been keeping tabs on the Associated Press's atrocious campaign
coverage this year.

$100 million private-equity buyout boosts (are) atrocious

Do you remember the atrocious and disappointing OECD report on
counterfeiting?

And here are some sample hits for this adjective's noun form, atrocity(ies).

Conditions of atrocity: The crimes at Abu Ghraib are a direct expression of
the kind of war we are waging in Iraq.

In the first months after 9/11, the administration's ruthless exploitation
of the atrocity was a choice, not a necessity.

All varieties of atrocity: battle deaths, civilian casualties of war,
democide, famine caused by the economic disruption.

Other hits for atrocity/atrocities referenced Nuremberg, the Nanjing Massacre, and "Bosnian Muslim atrocities in Srebrenica."

Okay, so now that I've thoroughly bummed you out, I hope you don't mind me pondering the question: How did these two words -- really the same word as different parts of speech -- come to have such very different connotations?

Atrocity, it seems, is used to mean slaughter and bloodshed and torture, while atrocious is often used to ridicule bad sitcoms, bad hair days, and other non-brutal bad choices.

Why? I don't know. But I have a theory. It's a conspiracy theory pointing to a 6-foot-tall English-speaking mouse. A tyrant whose atrocities include forcing innocent children to wear plastic ears and those "Escape from Witch Mountain" movies of the '70s.

My evidence: "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious. ..."

Yes, methinks mesmells Mickey brand sanitizer.

'Ambience'/'Ambiance' and Let's Hear It for the Weasels

I was thinking the other day about the animals that we refer to as the very embodiment of certain types of people. (It was a slow news day.) You know, like, "He/she is a real ..." Here are some that came to mind:

chameleon
weasel
pig
jackass
gnat
dog
snake
skunk
bear
fox
dinosaur

And that's all I have to say about that.

On an unrelated topic, I was typing out my backside yesterday about "ambience" versus "ambiance" -- trying to say from memory which is right/wrong/preferred. So today I figured it was time to look it up:

Webster's New World College Dictionary says it's "ambience," but notes "ambiance" as an alternate spelling.

Merriam-Webster agrees. It prefers "ambience" but allows "ambiance."

American Heritage's fourth edition disagrees, preferring "ambiance" but allowing "ambience."

In the French, my Harrap's Mini French Dictionnaire, much to my surprise, spells it "ambiance" (I thought the French used the "e.")

And that's all I have to say about that.

Copy-editing Arcana and Advertising-related Irony

I’ve come across variations of this twice in the last week:

“Working together, they honed in on the problem.”

It’s “homed in.”

The verb “hone” means to sharpen or make more acute.

The verb “home” means, according to American Heritage:

1. To go or return to one's residence or base of operations.
2. To be guided to a target automatically, as by means of radio waves.
3. To move or lead toward a goal: The investigators were homing in on the truth.

And now for something completely different ... A funny note about my attempt on Friday to trick Google’s ad-assigning computer.

That blog post hasn’t attracted any of the ads I thought it would – male enhancement, etc. But the next-day's post brought a surprise. The post about “relieve/relive stress” attracted a “comment” from a “reader” named Samantha. It said, “I enjoyed reading your post. Read about stress relief at my website …” and a link to a business site.

Somehow I doubt that Samantha enjoyed reading my post. But I suspect that, somewhere in the non-osphere, Google AdSense demons are laughing at me.

Wonderings and Googlings (Wherein I wonder about words, then I Google them)

relieve stress = 1,890,000 hits
relive stress = 17,000 hits

(More fun: The first hit for "relive stress" says, "Physical contact is a great way to relive stress," and appears to be from an article that appeared in some publication of Caltech.)

Words I'm Looking Up (One in an occasional, cleverly named series on words I'm looking up)

muster

Recently, a New York Times editor named David Shipley rejected an opinion piece written by presidential candidate John McCain not long after running one by rival Barack Obama. A July 22 Los Angeles Times article asked why and then reported:

For a parallel piece to pass his muster, Shipley added, it "would have to
articulate, in concrete terms, how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq."

Normal people reading this may find their thoughts turning to issues of media bias and perceptions of media bias. Me, I'm stuck at: "Pass his muster"? What the hell is a muster and how do they know if Shipley really has one?

According to American Heritage and other dictionaries, muster is primarily a verb meaning "to call (troops) together, as for inspection" and variations also about calling things together or summoning (think "I mustered up the courage").

Muster does have a noun form that means, most often, a gathering -- usually of people.

So obviously, the well-known expression "pass muster" isn't literal. If so, it would mean to get something past a gathering of troops or other people. Clearly, "pass muster" is an idiom and a reference to the inspection of the troops that form into one of these muster things. And, yes, the dictionaries acknowledge the idiom.

Idiom. pass muster: To be judged as acceptable. -- American Heritage

But they don't mention any variation that uses a possessive determiner like "his." So "pass his muster" is not an idiom, nor is it completely logical as a straightforward construction.

Could you make a case for "pass his muster"? Probably. If you really wanted to. But if I were a copy editor in the Los Angeles Times editorial department and I had a muster, this usage would not have passed it.