Those Irritating Verbs-as-Nouns

From Opinionator—The New York Times:

“Do you have a solve for this problem?” “Let’s all focus on the build.” “That’s the take-away from today’s seminar.” Or, to quote a song that was recently a No. 1 hit in Britain, “Would you let me see beneath your beautiful?”

If you find these sentences annoying, you are not alone. Each contains an example of nominalization: a word we are used to encountering as a verb or adjective that has been transmuted into a noun. Many of us dislike reading or hearing clusters of such nouns, and associate them with legalese, bureaucracy, corporate jive, advertising or the more hollow kinds of academic prose. Writing packed with nominalizations is commonly regarded as slovenly, obfuscatory, pretentious or merely ugly.

The author of this piece, Henry Hitchings, apparently doesn’t like this writing style!

To be sure, journalists love cliches

From The Washington Post.

I particularly dislike “national conversation.” Those who claim to want it, don’t. It requires listening, not just endlessly repeating your point of view.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament

Why Do We Hate Certain Words?

From Slate: “The curious phenomenon of word aversion.” The word, “moist” is the example.

Goodness, I like the word “moist.” It’s quite descriptive; and I think I’ll use it in the novel I’m writing—working title: Lap Dance Bride.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament

15 websites to help with rhyming words

From kennymyers.com:

Rhyming words are fun, but some words will leave you tongue-tied trying to find a suitable partner. Anyone who has ever dabbled in poetry will tell you that meter is a refined art that requires the poet to have a comprehensive understanding of how the rhythmic structure of words, sentences and verses ebb and flow. A rookie mistake when dealing with rhyming words is assuming that every word has to be an exact match. A close match is often sufficient to convince the ear that it rhymes without breaking the rhythm of the verse of rhyme. These 15 websites are designed specifically to help you find rhyming words, synonyms and other forms of creative word play.

See the list at the link.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament

Uncreative Writing: Redefining Language and Authorship in the Digital Age

From brain pickings:—the opening paragraph:

“And your way, is it really YOUR way?,” Henry Miller famously asked“Substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources,” Mark Twain consoled Helen Keller when she was accused of plagiarism. Even our brains might be wired for the necessary forgettings of creativity. What, then, is the value of “originality” — or even its definition?

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament

Most of What You Think You Know About Grammar is Wrong

From Smithsonian Magazine—the introduction:

You’ve probably heard the old story about the pedant who dared to tinker with Winston Churchill’s writing because the great man had ended a sentence with a preposition. Churchill’s scribbled response: “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”

It’s a great story, but it’s a myth. And so is that so-called grammar rule about ending sentences with prepositions. If that previous sentence bugs you, by the way, you’ve bought into another myth. No, there’s nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction, either. But perhaps the biggest grammar myth of all is the infamous taboo against splitting an infinitive, as in “to boldly go.” The truth is that you can’t split an infinitive: Since “to” isn’t part of the infinitive, there’s nothing to split. Great writers—including Chaucer, Shakespeare, Donne and Wordsworth—have been inserting adverbs between “to” and infinitives since the 1200s.

Where did these phony rules originate, and why do they persist?

 

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament

Mrs. Byrne’s Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words

Fifteen colorful entries via mental_floss, none of which would I likely use:

If you’re looking to give your vocabulary a little more pop and pizzazz, Mrs. Byrne’s Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words has you covered. Every entry, however ludicrous, has been accepted as a legitimate English word by at least one major dictionary at some point in time. Here are a few of the wackiest, most intriguing words to liven up your conversations.

Continue reading

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament

The Comma Wars

From mental_floss

The Oxford comma, so-called because the Oxford University Press style guidelines require it, is the comma before the conjunction at the end of a list. If your preferred style is to omit the second comma in “red, white, and blue,” you are aligned with the anti-Oxford comma faction. The pro-Oxford comma faction is more vocal and numerous in the US, while in the UK, anti-Oxford comma reigns. (Oxford University is an outsider, style-wise, in its own land.) In the US, book and magazine publishers are generally pro, while newspapers are anti, but both styles can be found in both media.

The two main rationales for choosing one style over the other are clarity and economy. Each side has invoked both rationales in its favor….

One would think that there are more important things to worry about. Apparently not among the grammar police.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2013 James Ament

“Well-chosen words”

The guardians of English may be unable to resist linguistic change but they do have the power to influence it.

A reference to books on grammar and spelling…and a poem:

I have a spelling checker,

It came with my PC.

It plane lee marks four my revue

Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 James Ament

Is it who or whom?

From The Chronicle of Higher Education:

[The] one thing that the nitpicking grammar Nazis hate most: diversity. Variation within Standard English. There seems to be no agreed unitary rule governing the inflection of who where it functions as subject of a clause to which it is not adjacent.

And why should there be? Nobody ordained or guaranteed that English would be uniquely fixed at all points. I’m sorry if you wanted it to be otherwise, but no Dark Lord has dominion over English grammar, with one rule to ring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

 

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012 James Ament