Business In Washington - Business Operations & Management Consulting

Some words make their way into the English language that absolutely should not. One of these is the unfortunate product of a crime, namely verbicide. The perpetrators took the noun “incentive” and twisted it into an awkward verb - “incentivize.” I have heard this abomination one time too many in recent days, so I decided to delve into my dictionaries. Naturally, as The Word Cop, I have lots of them.

I started with the largest, thickest dictionary on my shelf – Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. That’s “unabridged”, i.e. left alone, not shortened, nothing left out. Sounded like the right source to me.

What did I find? I found the venerable, and correct, noun – “incentive”. No reference to “incentivize”, or even “incent”, which is a shortened version that at least sounds better, if just as incorrect.

I moved on to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. This was the dictionary my mother gave me in the 1960’s. It made a big splash at the time because it included all the naughty words, the swear words, and the four-letter words. Mother, being an English teacher, got a kick out of handing out dictionaries to both of her kids and all of her nieces and nephews on Christmas Day. (To the dismay of her siblings and siblings-in-law, she also informed each child that they could look up swear words in that dictionary. To her delight – no dismay here - , they all dove right in.)

Any dictionary that includes four-letter words ought to include newer English creations, Americanisms and/or slang, right? Wrong. No “incentivize” and no “incent”. (It does include many other interesting words, however. I can still remember the day, shortly after the Christmas of the Dictionaries, when Mother called to me from the kitchen, “Margaret, look up chicken shit.” You can imagine the rest and, yes, it is there.)

I turned next to the World Wide Web. How did we ever exist without this resource? Here, I was more successful. They list newly created words, bastardized expressions, and illegitimate results of crimes such as verbicide. Dictionary.com defined it as a verb meaning “to give incentives to”. They added that it originated in 1965-70 and was an “Americanism”. (Is that good or bad? Maybe it depends on which side of the pond you are on.) They also quoted the World English Dictionary (their source being Collins English Dictionary), which defined it much the same, but spelled it “incentivise”.

Then I found www.onelook.com. Jackpot! They obligingly search multiple dictionaries and present the searcher with a handy list of links. I worked my way down the list. Most indicated that the word originated in the business world, that source of so many examples of bad English, and that it was created in the 1960’s or 1970’s, then shortened in the 80’s or 90’s to “incent”.

Beginning to get bored with the repetitious list, I worked my way down to the Urban Dictionary, www.urbandictionary.com. This one made my day, to quote Dirty Harry. They listed a couple of helpful definitions, along with examples of usage. Let me share at least one. You can surf over for more. First, their definition:

“A corporate-jargon non-word meaning “motivate,” coined in 1968. Some 10 years later, it was shortened to the equally annoying verb “incent.” Unfortunately, both are recognized by both Merriam-Webster and the OED. The only respectable form of the word is the noun “incentive.”

And now, the example:

“I would like to motivate him to never say “incentivize” again by telling him I will rip his windpipe out of his throat the next time I hear him say it.”

I roared with laughter! My husband entered my office for explanations and to share the laugh. My thanks to the Urban Dictionary! I will be surfing over there again, let me assure you. Of course, The Word Cop would never threaten such violence!

“Go ahead. Make my day……….”

I just received an email newsletter from a local business (who shall remain nameless, but not blameless) with this statement: “SMILE your on CAMERA!” I groaned and decided it was time for a blog entry. This was one time too many. Ignore the poor punctuation, with the badly needed but missing comma after the word “SMILE”. It’s the misuse of “your” that has caused me pain.

The last time I saw this blatant error was on a sewing show. I love to sew and am addicted to the Saturday morning quilting and sewing shows on PBS. The show in question was focused on a project combining quilting and embroidery. It used the following saying (with their spelling): “In the crazy quilt of life, I’m glad your in my block.” The mistake stuck out like a sore thumb to me, but apparently the show hostess and guest both missed it. This was not only printed, but machine embroidered on a detailed project - on silk, no less. I winced.

This isn’t that hard, folks! “Your” is a possessive. Your stuff. Your project. Your whatever. “You’re” is a contraction of “you are”. Very simple, right? It amazes me how often these two very different words are mistakenly interchanged. Perhaps it’s because spell checkers don’t catch this.

The Word Cop sympathizes with the challenge of correct word usage and spelling in a rich and complex language such as English. But she also deplores the sloppiness that allows so many errors, and in business documents! Lots of us do spot these errors, and what kind of impression are we likely to have of your business?

Business owners, take heed!

I get the biggest kick out of hearing new words, at least words that are new to me. The best part of Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News is his word of the day, always tied to sending him email. “When you write to us, don’t be _________!” There, he plugs in his latest favorite or new discovery.

Examples: Blatherskite. Pedantic. Lugubrious.

What’s not to love?

I also love to hear new definitions of words or word origins, usually spun for laughs rather than true facts. Take the word “politics”. I recently heard someone (maybe Dennis Miller? Not sure. My apologies for the shaky attribution!) break this down into “poli” meaning “many” and “tics”, meaning blood sucking nits. I roared.

Political commentary is rife with new words, distorted words and obscure words used by the more erudite speakers. I recently heard a political speech by someone in high political office described as “abstract, vapid, and self-absorbed”. Isn’t that wonderful? When did you last hear the word “vapid” in conversation? (I will leave this reference nameless, in the interest of avoiding offense. Some people are so sensitive and my interest is in the words, not the politics. My apologies to the brilliant commentator!)

Heard any interesting ones yourself lately? Please share them! The Word Cop looks forward to hearing from you.

Okay. Spelling is one thing. Grammar, punctuation, language usage - all of these are important facets of effective and sometimes eloquent communication. When the words move from page to lips, there is one more VERY important component - pronunciation. And today it is the topic emerging from my frustration!

I confess. I am an HGTV junkie. Since I would love to buy a new house myself, I revel vicariously in House Hunters, even House Hunters International, although I would never consider leaving my country to live elsewhere. HGTV has a wide variety of professionals gracing its programs. Designers, builders, contractors, subcontractors, agents and brokers all cross the HGTV stage to our TV screens. These people, and the announcers who promote them, are supposed to be professionals. Yet, the recent promo for some sort of competition begins dramatically with these words: “Twelve relators….”

Huh? What the heck is a relator? I haven’t a clue, but I think the HGTV pros should.

Of course I am kidding about not having a clue. I know very well what a “relator” is. It is the VERY common, and VERY annoying mispronunciation of “Realtor”, the title given to real estate professionals who belong to the National Association of Realtors. I used to be one, so I can attest to the fact that at least 90% of people mispronounce this title, including many who hold it!

This grates on my nerves. What is so difficult about this word? It begins with “real”, just like “real estate”. Duh. It isn’t “rela” estate, is it?

Try it. Practice. “Real - tor”. There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

English is our primary language in the United States. (Some among us wish it were our official language, but we’ll save that for another post.) It is a magnificent language, rich in its variety and vital in its continual expansion. As The Word Cop, I may decry some aspects of that expansion, but I still applaud the ability of the language to reflect the vitality and progress of the people who use it.

The process of change has certainly accelerated lately. The development of new expressions, new combinations of old words, pregnant with new meaning continues apace. (Now there’s a word I don’t get to use every day! According to the American Heritage Dictionary, apace means “at a rapid pace; swiftly” or “In such a way or at such a speed as to keep up the requisite momentum; abreast.”)

I was struck by one new combination of words I heard from a commentator on a national news network. Commenting on the 90% tax rate legislation pending to address the perceived bonus abuses at AIG, the man referred to “vigilante taxation”. I wrote it down immediately so I wouldn’t forget it. I wish I had also written down the man’s name and I apologize for quoting him without attribution.

I love the expression! Very creative. I am not so sure I love what it says about us and our government right now.

Greetings, gentle readers! The Word Cop was enjoying a peaceful lunch break just now, listening to the news and attempting to ignore the commercials. In spite of my best efforts, one commercial intruded on my reveries and the fighting Word Cop had to come out!

The ad was for Guaranteed Tax Relief. First off, let me state categorically that my comments here are not intended to insult or otherwise disparage this company. I know nothing about them. They may very well have a heck of a fine service. I will leave potential customers on their own to make that judgment.

My only issue here is with their grammar. Their URL, that primary tool of branding and communicating on the internet, is www.lesstaxes.com. AAARRRRGGGHHH, to quote Charlie Brown. You can pay “less tax” or “fewer taxes”, never “less taxes”. Got it? It’s a simple concept. “Less” goes with a single item and “fewer” goes with a multiple of something. So, for example, to prevent cavities, eat less candy or fewer candies.

Now, I realize that the owners and employees of a company like Guaranteed Tax Relief are financial professionals, not grammarians, so I would like to cut them some slack. However, if you are going to spend money advertising and branding, wouldn’t you like to create an impression of professionalism? Poor grammar won’t help with that.

This company is stuck with a URL that declares to all and sundry on the web, and watching television since it was on their ad, that they have an English problem. Their own knowledge of proper English is lacking, they are too cheap to hire skilled editorial help, or they simply don’t care.

It is my fervent hope that this is just a simple oversight, soon to be corrected. As promised, slack from the Word Cop!

As we move into a New Year, I keep hoping I can lay down the mantel of The Word Cop. Then I see a title such as this one:

“How to Standout in a Shrinking Economy - Publish or Perish!”

Now, you can be a “standout” or you can “stand out”. Verbicide, the act of creating a verb by plugging in any convenient noun, continues unabated. The Word Cop sighs sadly.

To make this one worse, the writer is talking about publishing! Wouldn’t it help the credibility of a so-called writer’s works to be grammatically correct? Call me crazy, but I can’t help but think quality writing is even better when it includes the high quality application of the English language.

I lift that heavy mantel back onto my shoulders and resume my trudge into the New Year…..

Hope yours was a Happy New Year celebration at the very least.

People tend to be political animals.  I confess to being something of a political and news junkie, especially during an election year.  However, I am reaching the saturation point this time, and I suspect I am not alone.  Too many ads and most of them are awful.  They contain platitudes and falsehoods most of the time.  The news reports, most on the horse race and not on anything of useful substance, are worse.  Enough already!

To add insult to injury, the language is deteriorating.  I tried to look at the brighter side in my last blog entry, which focused on political slogans.  This time, I move to the Dark Side.  I must protest the recurring, deadly crime of verbicide.  That crime is the deliberate slaying of nouns by turning them into very bad verbs.  The worst offenders are the so-called language professionals - broadcasters.

Two recent examples set me groaning, then writhing in pain.  Have you heard all those news reports on early voting?  I heard a TV news reporter discussing citizens going out to “early vote”.  Ouch!  How about having them vote early?  It doesn’t even cost you extra words!

Then there is the non-stop effort to build up the coffers with election cash, otherwise known as fundraising.  No longer do party stalwarts get out there to raise funds.  No!  They get out there to “fundraise”.  Fundraise?  When did that verb make it into Webster’s?  Or the venerable Oxford dictionary?

At least there are some really wonderful commentators out there, literate and blessed with the ability to communicate in clear, educated, even erudite sentences.  I actually heard one of them use the word “obstreperous” in conversation.  Now there’s a word!  The sound of the word, with all of those interesting consonants, actually enhances the meaning of the word itself.  And you don’t hear it every day.

The Word Cop (that’s me!) pleads for mercy!  We have lots of wonderful words - verbs and nouns alike.  Let’s use them, dare I say (Dare! Dare!), correctly.

I love the English language, its richness and variety, and its vitality.  Although I generally decry many of the recent abuses and misuses of popular vernacular, it is still fascinating to watch the language grow in such creative ways.  (Granted, some of that creativity yields results that are downright painful to the ears, but you have to take the rough with the smooth.)

I was reading the latest online copy of “Michigan Today”, an alumnae publication from the University of Michigan, of which I am a proud alumna.  (Go Blue!)  There was an article by Professor Emeritus Richard W. Bailey.  His topic was “Campaigns and slogans”.  Certainly an appropriate topic at this particular point in history. 

I don’t know about you, but regardless of political persuasion, many if not most of us are heartily sick of this endless campaign.  So I thought it would be a good time to have some fun with words and join Professor Bailey in looking at some campaign slogans.  In his article, he states, “Political words with semantic heft have the power to endure.”  Unfortunately, he doesn’t see much hope for many of the inventions coming out of the current campaign.  As an example of a good slogan that will live on, he goes back to the Eisenhower campaign of the 1950’s with its slogan I Like Ike.  Eisenhower was already well known by the nickname “Ike”, the slogan embraced him with the word “like”, it happened to rhyme, and fit conveniently on a button.  What’s not to “like”?

Ignoring the current campaign for a moment (Whew! What a relief!), let’s look back a bit.  How about 1948’s “Give ‘Em Hell, Harry!”  I like that one.  It appeals to the feisty, everyday American psyche and offers a sense of a spirited fight. 

Looking further back, there is 1928’s slogan, “A chicken in every pot.  A car in every garage.”  It speaks of a promise of prosperity offered, if not realized, by Herbert Hoover.

In 1964, it was, “All the way with LBJ.”  Another catchy little rhyme.  Of course, the young people responded with, “Make love, not war.”  In 1992, it was, “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Maybe we should be using this Clinton cliche now!

Our language can be fun!  It can also utilize that entertaining fun to offer powerful, persuasive communication.  We will have to see in the years to come if any of the words being used in the 2008 election have the staying power Professor Bailey discusses.

I will indulge myself and close with a non-political, partisan University of Michigan slogan that came out of my years as a student, a time when Bo Schembechler was our coach and Woody Hayes still led the Ohio State Buckeyes (the enemy!!).  I was walking from central campus to the “Big House”, as the stadium is still known, one football Saturday in the early ’70s.  It was the annual Big Game at the Big House - Michigan versus Ohio State.  I walked surrounded by other students, alumnae and football fans, all excited and enjoying the chilly, late fall day.  There were many vendors on hand.  I stopped and purchased the following irreverent button, which I have kept all these years:  “Give Woody a Bo Job”

Go Blue!

The Word Cop is back and shaking her head in despair.  This time she despairs over the fact that current popular vernacular appears to contain only 2 verbs.  Those two are “go” and “I’m like”.  That second one isn’t even a real verb, but a made up one.  It makes me cringe every time I hear it.

Come on, folks!  The English language is incredibly rich, allowing such precision and beauty of expression.  It’s fine to use simpler language for casual conversation, but aren’t we going a bit too far here?

Listen to the conversation of our young people to be guaranteed a quick example.  Even more appalling, these speech patterns have crept into adult conversation, both at home and (gulp!) at work.  That’s bad enough.  Then, I started hearing this more and more from people who make their living by speaking - media professionals.  One slip during a casual moment on the air is one thing, but when I start hearing people like Bill O’Reilly using such speech on a fairly regularly basis, I am left to wonder what the world is coming to!

Listen to the conversations around you and consider carefully what you hear.  The general flow will go something like this:

“He said (fill in whatever comment).  I go (fill in whatever reply).”

“She said (fill in another inane, but emotion-producing comment).  I was like (fill in whatever emotion was aroused).”

Whatever happened to “I said” or “I exclaimed” or “I opined”.  (Just trying to keep it pithy, since I mention Bill O’Reilly.)

How about “I felt” or “I was (something else besides “like”).  Try “I was angry” or “I was surprised” or “I was happy”.

Any of my suggestions is far more descriptive and useful in conveying real meaning to the listener.  Think about it and maybe try a different pattern of speech the next time you catch yourself overdoing it with “I go” or “I’m like”.  The Word Cop will be incredibly grateful!

What do you think?