PARVUM OPUS

Number 39

AVOID USING COMMON LANGUAGE ERRORS

This was the headline of a newspaper article on, you know, language errors. I need not tell you that one is more likely to make an error than to use one; they seldom are useful. But I have found the following language errors for you, some more common than others (indexed under Language, Errors, To Avoid).

• Center around: The center is smack dab in the middle of something and cannot visually, physically, logically, or otherwise go around the thing it's in the middle of. You may center on or in something, but not around. Go ahead and revolve around something if you like.
• She read vociferously: Maybe she did, but chances are the writer or speaker meant "voraciously," which has become a cliché.
• His Irish drawl: Southerners have a drawl and the Irish have a brogue. "Drawl" means to speak slowly, which is not necessarily characteristic of the Irish. Obviously someone thought "drawl" meant "accent".
• Exorcising for exercising: Some time ago a reader sent this: "I found another tasty typo this morning where the writer said Sen. Santorum should be allowed to 'exorcise' his right to his opinions . . . not a bad idea, perhaps, considering how putrid some of his opinions appear to be!" Shortly afterward I found the same error elsewhere: "Countries should not be punished for exorcising their right to voice their opinions." (Of course, some countries should.)
• More and greater enormity: Had to include this anecdote from a reader: "I remember well back before you were born listening to a speech by Al Smith in which he referred to 'the enormity of a million dollars.' I remember it because my parents hooted, and then lectured me on the difference between enormousness and enormity. They didn't turn him off, though." My reply: "I don't know what Al Smith's politics were, but to some people a million dollars in almost any context is an enormity. In my case, I just think a million dollars that I don't have is an enormity."
• Each and every: A reader says this has a meaning that has been lost, and wants us to avoid using it for at least twenty years. But I don't know what meaning it might have beyond the obvious, and forgot to ask. (The mail accumulates and I let things get away from me.) Any ideas? Is it merely redundant?

GOT LEVERAGE?

A reader sends this, with an anguished question about what "leverage" and "brand" mean here:

"The new division will also work to develop new opportunities to leverage U.S. *** sport resources and partnerships in order to build a more coherent vision and brand for U.S. *** through its events." (Words deleted to conceal the identity and protect the reputation of the sport.)

I've read these horrible usages a lot when editing business writing. "Leverage" can mean to invest with borrowed money, and there is such a thing as a "leveraged buyout", which can't be good. But the word has slithered into a sloppier meaning as a verb meaning something like "to increase advantages". And lots of things have brands now that you'd never expect, not just your pop and your jeans. Public relations people want all sorts of things and even people to have brands, or to be brands; they sell stuff that way. Try to put it out of your mind.

DISCRETE / DISCREET

After sending out last week's query on a mnemonic for remembering the difference between "discrete" and "discreet", I ran across a book in the library titled The Discrete Charm of Charlie Monk by David Ambrose. I'm not planning to read it, but it's possible that Ambrose chose what seems to be the wrong "discrete" intentionally. Charlie Monk's charm could be somehow detached from something else, rather than subtle, as in the movie, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. If anyone reads the book, let me know. Ambrose has a web site; perhaps I should ask him.

PO 38 ERRATA

". . . other languages have consonant sequences that we don't, but I think that's why many of them immigrated." This should have been, ". . . other languages have consonant sequences that we don't, but I think that's why many people immigrated."

". . .is a real word but lesson commonly used." Obviously "lesson" should be "less".

Copyright Rhonda Keith 2003. Parvum Opus or part of it may be reproduced only with permission, but it is permissible to forward the entire newsletter as long as the copyright remains.

Parvum Opus is a publication of KeithOps / Opus Publishing Services. Feel free to comment in the Guestbook, linked below the back issue links.

Feel free to e-mail me with comments or queries. If you don’t want to receive Parvum Opus, please reply with “unsubscribe,” “quit,” “enough,” or something like that in the subject line, and I’ll take you off the mailing list.

Return to KeithOps.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws