Pet Peeves: Pretentious Pronunciations

Friends,

Most words in our beloved language have but one pronunciation. Most words are simple and straightforward enough-- solid, sturdy words like "solid" and "sturdy". But a few words have gone rogue and, whether from British/American differences or miscellaneous pretension-baggery, feature an alternate pronunciation. I'm not concerned with words that have 2 (more or less) equal options, like caramel or garage. What really grinds my gears are words with one normal, accepted, perfect pronunciation and one that is steeped in pretense, condescension, and superiority... and, more specifically, the people who choose the latter.

As with any human endeavor, I enter this one with some level of hypocrisy. When faced with a choice between a common word whose meaning I know and a rarer one whose meaning is only partially clear to me, I sometimes go with the schmancy one. But I feel that my pretension is a little more justifiable-- I'm trying to expand my (and my listeners') vocabulary horizons. The person who chooses an alternate pronunciation, though, broadens only my frown.


Pretentious Pocket Dictionary
That's not to say anyone's pocket is foppish


foyer [foi-EY]
noun

1. an entrance hall, especially one in which superior activities take place: Pray join me in the foi-EY for some scones and literary criticism.

mature [ma-TORE]
adjective

1. exhibiting more development, especially intellectually, than others: Don't I sound more ma-TORE than you?

schedule [SHEJ-oo-uhl]
noun

1. a series of things, especially intellectually superior ones, to be done: Sorry, my SHEJ-oo-uhl is full of things like monocle-wearing.

the (x+1)th century [instead of "the x hundreds"]
phrase

1. the years x-hundred to x-hundred-and-99, especially the superior events from those years: During the... (pause to convert "1200s" to a century)... 13th century... (pause for listener to convert "13th century" to hundreds)... there was a dramatic rise in the eating of crumpets.

Okay, it's a short dictionary
At least it will fit in your ornate pocket

What other words belong in the PPD?
What pronunciation really grinds your gears?

Jon

An Australian Tangent

Friends,

I have returned and the Tangent Space(s) hiatus (felt by all 3 of you readers) is finally over! As promised, I spent 6 weeks on a mission trip that took me to the wonderful city of Melbourne, Australia. For a serious look at some of the lessons I learned, check out this post from our team's blog. For a silly look at some cultural observations I made, you can stay right here.



The Blogger Down Under
It's like The Rescuers Down Under, but without the talking mice or golden eagle or murderous poacher

Something very simple dawned on me for the first time when I started talking to Australians: Hollywood is in America. 

You might be thinking, "Yeah I already knew that." [If you're mean, it might be, "Jon, you're an idiot." If you're me in 7th grade, somehow reading this by virtue of some time travel device, I bet it's "No crap, Sherlock." If you're a pre-teen or teenage girl (or, mysteriously, my 27-year-old girlfriend), the word 'obvs' or 'obvi' might come into play.]

Ok, so the location of Hollywood is nothing new to me. But I'd never before considered its implications for world travel. For instance, if you ask Australians about life in America, they have so many sources to pull from-- blockbuster movies, sitcoms, talk shows, trashy shows on E!, trashier shows on Bravo, etc. This entertaining tapestry may not provide the most accurate picture of American culture, but they have a picture nonetheless.

Conversely, if I ask you what life in Australia is like, what would you say? My guess [whether you're 7th-grade-me, a pre-teen girl, or my awesome girlfriend] is something like, "Um... they have pretty funny accents, right?" We just don't have any media exposure to Australian culture, real or fictional.

What do we have? Some pretty (hilariously) sad caricatures:

"It'll make you happier than a koala up a gum tree."

"Crikey!"

Throw in a Men At Work song and Claire from LOST and you have a pretty comprehensive list of Australian stuff in our media. So, to help inform you a tiny bit about actual Australian culture, I give you...

My Top 5 common Australian words and phrases

They'll make you happier than a koala up a gum tree.

5. 'a bit'

Meaning: a little, somewhat, sort of, kind of

Comments: Sure, you might hear this in America. But you hear it a ton over there. Like, you won't hear any of the above phrases that mean the same thing. It's a bit ridiculous.

4. 'cheers' (or, even better, 'cheers mate')

Meaning: thanks

Comments: If you hold a door for someone, they will almost surely say 'cheers' to you. It's a bit weird to hear the word without mugs of ale being knocked together, but I guess it would also be a bit weird for people to carry around mugs of ale everywhere they went.

3. 'no worries'

Meaning: you're welcome, my pleasure, no problem, I forgive you

Comments: You can hear this in America too, but in Aussieland it's more versatile-- it's the default response to both 'thank you' and 'I'm sorry'.

2. 'good on ya'

Meaning: good job, well done

Comments: As with 'well done' or 'way to go', this can also be used effectively for sarcastic purposes.

1. 'it's my shout' (or 'I'll shout')

Meaning: I'll pay for you this time

Comments: Not only is this just a cool and unfamiliar phrase, but it's obvs one that you always like to hear.

What's your favorite appearance of Australia in our pop culture?

Which of the above phrases do you want to start using?

I'm out of questions, but it would really make me happy and ready to return to blogging if you would leave a comment!

Jon

Semantics and religion

Friends,

For some reason, back in November I thought I would get back into the rhythm of regular blogging.  I apparently wasn't looking at my calendar when I said that.  Three holidays and two conferences later, I think I'm finally ready to make good on that intention.


Semantics
"What's in a name?", it turns out, is a pretty huge question

I'm not sure what your background is with the idea or word "semantics".  Sometime in my past, probably in high school when I was at an all-time high in smarminess, I learned the word had something to do with splitting hairs over the meaning of a word. 

So, whenever I found myself in an argument with someone about the meaning of a word or phrase, I would go through this quick mental flowchart:

[Tangent-within-a-tangent: Whenever I cringe about how annoying or mean I was as a kid, my mom says I'm being hard on my former self and that all little boys are annoying and mean.  This may be true; the only evidence of boy-me I really have is family videos, and little boys do seem generally monstrous.  But when it comes to High School Jonathan, my memory still serves pretty well.  Trust me when I say I cared more about being right than I did about your feelings.  Praise God for transformation.]

And with that backdrop, let's proceed to a discussion in which I actually do want to argue semantics, whether I "win" or not.


Christianity: religion or relationship?
Is it either/or? Can we just say "religionship"?

A popular mantra for commending Christianity is that "it's not a religion, it's a relationship."  I get why people say it, I know what they're trying to communicate, but...

...is it true?

Google's awesome definition feature defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods".  Most longer dictionaries add further definitions to include the rituals and practices that align with those beliefs.

Sounds a lot like Christianity to me.

I think rather than saying the above cliche, or other variations of it (e.g. "religion is about what we can do to get to God, while the gospel is about what God has done to get to us"), we should communicate in a way that is semantically true.  For example:

Christianity is unique among religions in that, while the others are about doing enough rituals or good deeds to please God, Christianity merely calls us to respond to what God has already done to initiate a relationship with us.

You might think that I'm communicating the exactly same thing as the thousands of relationship-mongers, but A. I'm not sure I am, and B. at least I'm doing it in a way that respects the actual meaning of the word "religion".  You might also think that said respect to a word is unimportant, but I think respecting the word "religion" is important for a few reasons:

1. It's hard not to sound super-condescending to adherents of other religions if they overhear you laugh and say, "Oh no, I'm not part of a religion!! Those are for unevolved pagans.  I'm part of a relationship. Huge difference.  Way better."

2. It's not full of integrity.  The reason we shy away from the word "religion" is that we don't want people to write us off due to their preconceived notions of religion -- that they'll have to be burdened by going to church, reading the Bible, avoiding pleasurable sins, etc.  And it's true that they don't have to do these things to earn God's love or forgiveness.  But come on -- as soon as the person converts, we're teaching them to go to church, read the Bible, and avoid sin.

3. It sets a weird precedent for casting off unpleasant words.  For almost 2000 years, Christianity has been known to everyone as a religion.  Suddenly that word gains a negative stigma, and we're kicking it to the curb.  I know these aren't the same, but will we one day be saying, "Jesus wasn't a deity, he was a superevolved being; the Bible isn't authoritative, it's directive; heaven isn't future and literal and eternal, it's now and progressive and mystical." 

Now, I understand that the meanings and connotations of words change over time, but I don't think the meaning of religion has changed appreciably.  If the connotation has changed, I think we only have ourselves to blame for letting Christianity become a parody of itself.  The solution has to be to change Christianity, not the word we use to label it.


Join the peaceful, non-argumentative discussion
Please, don't be mean.  Or smarmy.

Religion? Relationship?

Or am I just splitting hairs?

Your religious friend,
Jon

July 2011 Grammar Tip

Friends,
It's a new month.  After just 6 days, July 2011 is already replete with grammatical errors.  Everywhere you turn, there's a misused apostrophe or a dangling modifier.  But, as with most nationwide endemic problems, we can't win the war in a day.  And so, at the clip of one tip per month, Tangent Space(s) continues to do its part...

Using the correct pronoun

Few ideas seem as polarizing as "political correctness."  I won't go into that now.  I only bring it up because political correctness is in some sense the reason we use an incorrect pronoun when a subject's gender is unknown.

I'll give an example sentence, and take you on a historical journey of how people of different eras might have chosen their pronouns:

I think a person should try to befriend [possessive pronoun] neighbors.

1. The good old days: he/him/his

(I don't actually know if these days were good, but they're somewhat old.)  It was once universally accepted to use the masculine in the case of an unknown gender, so that whether a sentence was about an athlete, doctor, homeless person, or convicted felon, we just went with the masculine pronoun and made a mental note that we didn't really know the sex of the person.

The above sentence, then, would suggest that a person should befriend his neighbors.

2. The unwieldy alternative: he or she / him or her / his or her

With the advent of widespread political correctness, this new bulky option became the norm.  The obvious drawback is that it's triple the word count.  This isn't terrible when you need to use it once, but if you have 4 or 5 unknown-gender situations in a row in speech or writing, these added words are agonizingly cumbersome.

Back to neighbors: a person should befriend his or her neighbors.

3. The current answer to the bulky "his or her": mixing up "her" and "his"

In modern books, authors refuse to pay the price of repeated "his or her"s.  So the current trend is to get a good mix of the sexes in the pronouns.  Usually a male author will use "her" the first couple times -- just to ensure, presumably, that he's not sexist -- then go to an alternating system of "his" and "her".

Ex. A person should try to befriend her neighbors... A doctor must cultivate healthy relationships with her nurses... A politician must listen closely to his constituents... her... his... her... his...

4. The grating, terribly incorrect solution in speech: they/them/their

And this, English-speaking friends, is why I wrote this grammar tip.  In casual speech, people will handle the unknown-gender problem by using a plural pronoun, since plurals aren't gender-specific.  Unfortunately for the many people who do this, it sounds (to at least a few of us) like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Returning to the example of Mr. Rogers... A person should try to befriend their neighbors.

Do you see how catastrophic that is?!?  "Person" is singular.  "Their" is plural.  "I" am irate.


I leave you with no hope

Just kidding.  There's always hope.  But in this dilemma, I don't know what to tell you.  Here goes:  When speaking, just say "his or her", or pick a winner.  When writing something serious, go with option 3 above.  When writing on Tangent Space(s) or an equivalently silly project, go with shis every time.

Thoughts?  Questions?  Ideas for future grammar tips?

Jon

June 2011 Grammar Tip

Thanks to everyone who responded to last month's tip and gave ideas for future months.  This month's grammar tip goes out to apostrophes everywhere.

The right and wrong ways to use an apostrophe

There are 3 (and only 3) correct uses for apostrophes in the English language.  They are...

1. Possession
Ex.:
This is Jon's calculator.
This is Jon's extended edition DVD of The Two Towers.
No, she is not Jon's girlfriend.

2. Contraction
Ex.:
It's not like I'd betray those who've misused apostrophes, because I'm sure I've done it (haven't we all?), and if I don't stay careful, I'll hurt someone and he'll say he'd never do a thing like that and it wasn't his fault and it isn't my business and this won't be the last I hear from him.

3. Outlandish first names
Ex.:
Da'Quan
D'Sean
D'Mario
Mone't
D'asia
(These were ones I found quickly on google. Sadly, D'Luigi returned no results.)

What you can't do with an apostrophe is pluralize common words.  So if you see a sign in a grocery store that says "Banana's" or "Apple's", you know you're not in a grammar store.

I will now say something that, if you're a seasoned grammarian, might blow your mind.  According to p. 985 of Greenbaum and Svartvik's A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (according to wikipedia, of course), it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to pluralize written items that aren't actual English words.

Thus, it would be grammatically ok to write that such-and-such global war happened in the 1940's or that you learned your ABC's.

[There's no compelling reason for me to argue for this pluralization opinion, but I thought it might shock a few of my highbrow friends, and highbrow people need to chill out.  And I do realize that, grammatically, I'm typically the highest brow.]


Thanks for reading!

As always, I'm accepting feedback, questions, praise, disagreement, relevant prose or poetry, and ideas for future posts in the Comments section.

Jon

May 2011 Grammar Tip

I have decided that Tangent Space(s), by merely providing entertainment to its small but loyal group of readers, doesn't make much of an impact on the world.  I am an impact junkie, so this is unacceptable.  Thus, I introduce to you a new feature: grammar tip of the month.  We will be improving our communication, one act of grammar policing at a time.

In case you missed the one from March -- and you probably did since it only occurred as a tweet -- something piques (not peaks) your curiosity.  What I find interesting about this is that there is some false intuition that lends itself to "peaks": if there were a chart of your curiosity level over time, then something intriguing would perhaps "peak" it.  But alas, there is no such chart (at least not for me), and "piques" is correct.

There was no grammar tip for April, since I just decided to implement this plan today.  But had there been, it probably would have been about how you need to replace splicing commas with semicolons (or add more words).  This would have been hypocrisy at its finest, since I'm a prolific comma splicer. (And yet, notice how the word "since" makes that comma appropriate... but picture the horror of that sentence without "since"!)


Grammar tip of the month

The word mischievous is a three-syllable word pronounced MISS-chuh-vus.

Yeah, I sense the wheels are turning.  It's not miss-CHEE-vee-us.  That is always wrong.  If you look closely at the word (and where the second i is located), I'm sure you'll realize how untenable that popular but incorrect pronunciation is.


Join the Tangent Space(s) Grammar Police Academy

Please send me ideas for future posts or future grammar tips, volunteer to guest- or co-author, etc.

Jon

Wikipedia: the mother of all tangents

As much as I like to write, I like to write for me (and you), not "the man."  So when I was in college, I (somewhat subconsciously) scheduled classes that would force me to write as few papers as possible.  This was made easier by the facts that I was a math major and that WVU gave me like 400 hours of credit for AP tests in fields that would have made me write a lot of papers.

But when, O reader, I was forced to write a paper that required even the slightest amount of research, the first thing I did was consult with wikipedia.  You might think this was shoddy scholarship, maybe even an affront to educators everywhere.  I would defend myself with how that was only the first step in a lengthy, rigorous research process, but A. that's outside the scope of this blog entry, and B. I'm not sure it's true.

I mention all this merely to say that I've had plenty of experience reading wikipedia.  And not just for "fun."  As I was recently using the site (more on that in a second), I realized it is the greatest generator of tangents of all time.  And since tangents are sort of our business here, I decided this blog needed to pay homage to the free online encyclopedia.

An example of wikipedia's awe-inspiring tangent production

Recently Kmech -- a friend of mine and faithful reader of Tangent Space(s) -- suggested I write something interesting about language and/or words (still working on it).  My first thought was that I could write about "auto-antonyms"; an auto-antonym "is a word with multiple meanings, one of which is defined as the reverse of one of its other meanings."  This deals with words, and I'll be darned if it's not riveting.

So I went to the wikipedia page (feel free to follow along if you like).  And look how many tangents wikipedia presented me with, primarily via links to other wikipedia pages:

1. First of all, right off the bat, I'm told that auto-antonym is just one of many items on a wikipedia page called "English words with uncommon properties."  Gotta go there.
2. Secondly, while this doesn't give an actual tangential link to follow, I'm given a list of other names for auto-antonym.  Here it is: autantonym, contranym, contronym, antagonym, Janus word, self-antonym, and enantiodrome.  How can I not ponder how there could be so many names for the same thing?
3. The last name there, enantiodrome, should not be confused with a link they provide to me -- enantiodromia, which is "the Jungian principle of equilibrium."  If you are on that page and don't click that link, you lack basic human curiosity.
4. Then, in what is a relatively short article on this word type, there are over 35 links to other wikipedia articles.  Over 35!  And I don't know who can pass up such obvious clicks as "crossbows", "co-opetition", and "Queen Ann."
5. Tangent-within-a-tangent, but still a number on this list: One of the 35+ links is for "neologism."  It's a term for a word that is new and in the process of being added to common use in a language.  When I saw it, it rang a bell, but I couldn't remember why.  And then it came to me: wikipedia uses this word all the time.  As proof of this, I submit to you the webcomic xkcd.com making fun of wikipedia.

What's my point?  Well, I couldn't possibly focus on auto-antonyms when Queen Ann is shooting crossbows at me and there are huge words like enantiodromia.  Tangent overload.


Wikipedia and you

I offer a suggestion and a question(s):

• If you're ever in the mood for a tangent and I haven't updated this blog since your last read, head over to the free online encyclopedia and travel down whatever rabbit holes catch your attention.
• What has been your experience with wikipedia?  Have you ever used it for school?

Jon

Can't read my, can't read my, can't read my poker face

I'm going to a bachelor party this weekend, and we're going to be playing Texas Hold 'Em.  If you've never played this game,

1. I recommend it.
2. What hole have you been living in for the last 8 years?

Anyway, in anticipation of losing money, my mind has begun to toss around some phrases from the game as I go about everyday tasks and conversations.  It got me to thinking that Texas Hold 'Em has a lot of great phrases that can carry over into non-poker life.  Here are some of the most prominent/cool examples:


Already used outside poker

All in
Meaning in poker:  Having put all one's chips into the pot for the current round.
Meaning outside poker:  Having put all one's hope or trust into something.
Examples: 
(in football)
The Bengals went all in on that blitz, allowing Mike Wallace to burn the single coverage deep.
(in dating)
My heart was broken because I was all in on that relationship.

Bad beat
Meaning in poker:  When a player has bet well, but loses the hand anyway, often because the river card is one of the very few cards that would cause the opponent to win.
Meaning outside poker:  When a person does something well, but loses anyway due to an unlikely scenario playing out that causes the defeat.

• [Tangent-within-a-tangent: Game Theory is a branch of mathematics that I know very little about, but it's so fascinating that I talk a lot about it anyway.  One of the central statements of this field is that games with "perfect knowledge" always have a winning strategy (or, if a tie is possible, a non-losing strategy).  Perfect knowledge means that each player can see all the factors influencing the game (pieces, cards, dice rolls, etc.); so in chess, Connect Four, and tic-tac-toe, players have perfect knowledge, but in Stratego, Risk, poker, and Monopoly, players do not.  Using our poker terminology, this statement could be rephrased to "Games with perfect knowledge do not have bad beats."  This is probably clear if you've been able to follow this embedded tangent; if the game features a winning strategy, you can't blame a "bad beat" for your loss... just your inferior strategy.]

Examples: 
(football)
We won the field position battle and got into position for a game-winning field goal when a torrential downpour suddenly overtook the field.  What a bad beat.
(dating)
Despite all my charm, humor, and rugged good looks, and the fact that what Juliet and I shared was real and beautiful, it turned out to be a bad beat as Romeo opened up a bottle of Love Potion Number 9.


Ready to crack into the real world

Pay to see the flop
Meaning in poker:  To match the bet of the player in the "big blind" seat in order to be a part of the hand.
Meaning outside poker:  To satisfy one's curiosity by paying some price to be a part of something that's about to happen.
Examples:
(football)
"Yeah, so why did the Lions draft 3 WRs in the first round in a 4-year span?"  "Great question.  They always pay to see the flop."
(futility)
After being badgered so long by my neighbor to go out with her single female friend, I finally paid to see the flop and gave her a call.


I'm sure I've forgotten some great ones, since the game seems to be filled with awesome jargon.  Let me know your ideas!

Jon