Category Archives: Now trending

Observing and all too often criticizing language trends

Where?

3 Replies

Take the Q32 bus between Manhattan and Queens (two of New York’s five boroughs) and you see just how diverse this city is. On a single bus route you find an Irish pub, an Ecuadorean restaurant, a Nepalese shop, and countless other spots that celebrate the residents’ heritage. That makes sense to me. These signs do not:

It’s not that I want to see Brazil’s influence wane, but is there something wrong with American bees? I realize that “Brazilian Waxing” refers to hair removal, but surely most people, like me, don’t know exactly which areas are targeted by Brazilian Waxing as opposed to, say, Canadian Waxing (if that exists). I have glimpsed ads for “European Wax,” but once again I don’t know that continent’s hair-removal conventions. Nor would I like to find out.

Moving on to academics:  A young friend of mine studies, according to the cover of his  textbook, the “Japanese system” of math. Presumably his schoolwork is different from the lessons here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silly me. I thought numbers were the same everywhere. Then there’s this store:

 

 

My favorite French teacher, Jacqueline, would be the first to tell you that my verb conjugation could be cleaned up, but I doubt this store would help. I’ll be in Paris next month, where I’ll check for stains. If I don’t find any, I’ll consider bringing my garments here for French cleaning.

And what is this business selling? Stoves that do a great job on bratwurst? If so, sign me up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last but definitely not least is this exercise regimen, offered at a gym near my home:

I googled “Russian Kettlebells” and discovered that (a) they exist and (b) they’re handheld weights and (c) they’re the subject of much controversy. (Is anything connected with Russia not controversial these days?) Apparently some people swear by American Kettlebells, and others are faithful to the Russian version. I have no intention of trying either exercise, but I do wonder whether patriotism is part of the equation. Maybe if I’d studied Russian Mathematics I’d know.

How to Speak Real Estate

8 Replies

In a previous post, “(Truly Real) Real Estate”  (http://www.grammarianinthecity.com/?p=783),  I went over the basics of how to speak the NYC dialect of Real Estate. I explain, for example, that “cozy” means small, and  a “charming” apartment hasn’t been renovated in fifty years.

For anyone moving on to the intermediate level — perhaps members of Gen X, Y, or Z looking for a spot in one of the city’s boroughs, here’s lesson two. Similar dwellings move up the price-ladder in this order:  “apartments” are cheaper than “residences,” which in turn cost less than “homes.” My personal favorite, “boutique,” is the most expensive. In the commercial market, the price of “an opportunity” is much more than what you shell out monthly to the landlord of a “store for rent.” Furthermore, assume that deadlines are open to interpretation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cut off the right side of the photo because I don’t like to give real phone numbers. I do like to give real dates, unlike the sign, which promises that the “residences” (price alert!) will be “Available Fall 2017.” I took the picture three days ago, in the spring of 2018. Judging from the scaffolding and debris scattered around, not to mention the “mandatory hard hat” sign, spring of 2019 is more likely.

And count on hyperbole. If a building is advertised as being “steps from Central Park,” the statement may be true only if you take about a thousand steps and have fairly long legs. (I actually saw this phrase on an ad for a building on my block, which is a brisk fifteen-minute walk from the park.)  Another hyperbole: a “home” (price alert again) advertised as on the 20th floor may actually be much lower. If you’re in an elevator on the way to an open house, notice whether the buttons skip, say, floors seven through nineteen. Then do the math.

But those are minor quibbles. Anyone can be late or exaggerate, right? Redefinition, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Take a look at this ad:

For readers who have lived only in houses, I should explain that a “studio” is a one-room apartment. Except if it’s the studio advertised on this sign, which somehow has “2 room.” The hyphen, by the way, is missing in the compound adjective, “two-room” or, in this sign, “2-room.” (It’s probably hiding, too embarrassed to be part of this ad.)  The accompanying photo shows a large, bare room with no visible doors. Maybe they’re counting the bathroom as a room? Or they assume you can hang out in the basement with your bike, designating the storage area as a living room? Perhaps they believe you will pitch a tent in the “communal garden,” which, because we’re talking about New York City, could possibly have plants but may also be a patch of concrete without a roof.

Lesson for the NYC house hunter: learn to speak our real-estate dialect, and, as always, buyer beware.

Think Before You Name

12 Replies

I’ve been reading a lot about Generation Z recently. Also known as “post-Millennials,” Gen-Zers were born between the ’90s and the early ’00s.  Speaking of the ’00s, I remember debates about what to call those years (2000 — 2009). I rejected “the zeros” but liked “the oughts,” perhaps because I spent most of those years thinking about what I ought to do and then not doing it. Like staying on topic, which I always ought to do and just now did not. Anyway, back to Generation Z: I don’t care much about the traits and careers of Generation Z. I do care about the name. Generation Z came after Generations X and Y. Where do we go from here? Someone started us close to the end of the alphabet, undoubtedly rebelling against the parental generation, the Baby Boomers. (You notice that group had a sensible name. World War II ended and boom, a bunch of kids were born. A big bunch. Enough to make a boom.)

So what’s next? Maybe there will be a return to the beginning of the alphabet (Generation A, which will probably have too much self-esteem because of the label) or doubles (Generation ZZ, which will perceive a license to sleep wherever they please). I can also envision computer terminology creeping into the picture: Generation Z.2, anyone? They’ll all be wired, anyway.

Lack of foresight in assigning labels, by the way, isn’t confined to generation-naming. Art fell into the same trap with the term “modernism,” a movement that began in the late 19th century and continued through the early part of the 20th — not exactly antiquity but also not what I’d include in a statement about “modern times.” Ditto for post-modernism (mid-1980s onset). I guess everything after that is post-post-modern. Quick quiz: How many “posts” does it take to make autocorrect self-destruct?

My conclusion: Think before you name. Think before you do pretty much anything! Otherwise you end up with a mobile ballet studio

 

 

 

or a name that has no place to go.

Bus Woes

2 Replies

Aren’t buses annoying? First of all, there’s that plural. The usual phonetic rules call for a double “s” in the plural, and some people do indeed write “busses.” “Buses” is more common, yet for some reason I feel slightly wrong every time I write it. Then there’s the actual bus, which never comes on time because it’s waiting for a quorum. Passengers, that’s the real reason you see four buses pull up at the same time. Unless there’s a group of four, the bus-run can’t begin. Finally, there are the silly signs both inside and outside of the vehicles. For example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s worth noting that NYC city buses (except those on the airport route) don’t have luggage racks. But even if they did, are there people who need to be reminded not to climb the walls and sling a leg over a metal bar? Actually, scratch that question. This is NYC, so the answer is probably yes. I do wonder why “Luggage Rack” is capitalized. Normally, generic nouns are written in lower case. Perhaps adding capital letters makes the nonexistent item more real.

Moving on:

This one was on a tourist bus, so warning people not to slide the roof or throw packages is probably a good idea. People’s brains tend to hibernate when they’re on vacation. My favorite part of this sign is “frequencies.” I’d expect a singular there, because the time period between events varies, not the time periods. “Frequencies” makes me think of radio stations and, vaguely, astrophysics, which I can think about only vaguely because I have no actual knowledge of the subject. Also, why “approximately”? Isn’t that implied by “vary from 8 to 15 minutes”?

I used this photo in another post (http://www.grammarianinthecity.com/?p=2159) but I can’t resist repeating it because it’s such a good example of the “bizarre bus sign” genre:

 

 

 

 

 

 

DNA. Good to know. If you want to maintain your privacy, try not to shed any cells while riding. And if you wish to explore your genetic heritage, this bus is for you. Happy riding.

Calling All Creatives

6 Replies

Words slide from one part of speech to another all the time. How else could I meet some Yankees (noun) or watch Yankees baseball (adjective)? Nor is it rare for words to pick up new and fanciful definitions, though I confess that the first time I see the unexpected, I tend to assume the writer is wrong. Alas, pride does indeed go before a fall, because often I am wrong and what I thought was an error turns out to be a creative expression or a specialized usage.

Are these sign-writers visionary, knowledgeable, or grammatically inept? I’ll let you decide.

Man shirt?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The usual expression is “men’s shirt” or, in an apostrophe-stricken way, “mens shirt.” “Men’s” with the apostrophe is a possessive noun. Without the apostrophe it’s a mistake.  “Man shirt” turns “man” into an adjective. The dictionary allows for “man” as a noun (the man at the counter), a verb (to man the barricades) or an interjection (Man! That was awesome!) True, I don’t flinch at “man cave” (not at the wording, anyway). Perhaps the sign-writer didn’t want the correct but trite “men’s shirt.” But how to change it? “Male shirt” endows the clothing itself with gender.  “Shirts belonging to men” is too long and often inaccurate, as lots of people who aren’t men like the button-down look. “Masculine shirt”? That seems to rely on outdated stereotypes. Maybe “man shirt” isn’t so bad after all.

Moving on:

In my ignorance I was ready to impose an “unauthorized part of speech” penalty — until I looked up “creative” in the dictionary, which enlightened me to the fact that “creative” can be a noun applied to people who, well, create for a living: writers, artists, composers, and so forth. Apparently I’ve been a “creative” for decades and never knew it.

Last one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Availability” as a noun is pretty common, but usually in the abstract sense: “Her immediate availability makes her the ideal candidate for Fire Warden, because two million acres are aflame and another million at risk.” But every dictionary definition of “availability” begins with “the quality of” or “the state of,” not “the place where.” On the sign, “availabilities” is a stand-in for “property you can rent if you have enough money.” (A little research into real estate prices showed me that “availabilities” are more expensive than “space for rent.”) Before I leave this sign, I have to address the meaning of “RSF.” I found a site listing 53 meanings for this acronym. I scrolled past “Royal Scots Fusiliers,” “Resource Selection Function,” “Rivista di Studi Fenici” (Journal of Phoenician Studies) until I arrived at “Rental Square Feet,” which seemed more apt than Scots, ecologists, and Phoenicians.

This whole post, by the way, arose from a New York Times article that quoted the phrase “negative effectives” from a judge’s decision.  Given that an “effective” is a “soldier ready for battle” and the ruling was about the military, the phrase might have made sense. Sort of. Then I checked other papers, all of which referred to “negative effects.” Sometimes a “new usage” isn’t creative or specialized. It’s just a typo.

Moral of the story (and note to self): Check before you scoff.

Sspeling Erorrs

8 Replies

I don’t usually bother with spelling mistakes, but when they appear on expensively produced ads, it seems to me that someone should have proofread before printing. Or before handing the finished product over to the customer. Or, at the very least, before hanging the sign on a store window, truck, or sandwich board.

Whether to double a letter or not seems to attract (atract?) errors like iron filings to a magnet (fillings to a magnett?):

 

Does this shop offer feline treats (mice, catnip, permission to snooze on a sofa that’s usually off-limits)? Or does the store host gossip fests, where guests can be as catty as they please?

Maybe the shop that does “cattering” should lend one of its Ts to this food cart:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I leave aside the issue of eating lunch at 10 AM or 4 PM, given that New York is the city that never sleeps and meals roam around the clock dial like sleepwalkers in a kitchen. Nor will I focus on the random capital letters, though I can’t help wondering whether lunch Time is supposed to reflect the eternal nature and importance of Time or whether the expression refers to a magazine. Instead I’ll confine myself to the meaning of the first line. Is the food cart offering to have the employee in charge of placing rice on the plate accompany you while you eat? And is Free Can Soda a call to action? I do like that sm matches content to form. The abbreviation sm is indeed small.

I don’t want you to think that whether to double the letter T is the only problem out there. S comes with stress in these signs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Had I a marker and not an aversion to graffiti, I’d remove the extra S from “tresspassing” in the second sign and add it to kind in the first. While wondering whether the second sign banned a hair-exchange app, I’d also delete the extra f from proffessional  or get rid of the word entirely. I mean, who else works in a tailor shop? Amateurs? Hobbyists? Not for those prices they don’t.

Now if only these stores would shell out a little cash for some proffessionnall prooffrreadding.

.9 Children

6 Replies

No, the title is not a typo. The US Census reports that the average American family has .9 children. When you remove childless families from the calculation, the average number jumps to 1.86. I know at least some math, so I’m not questioning the silliness of .9 or 1.86 kids. Statistics and real life don’t always mesh well, though I do wonder what a .9 kid would look like.

I am questioning absurd signs, such as this poster advertising acting classes:

 

 

 

 

 

“Classes for 0 – 18 years.” How, exactly, do you teach a zero-year-old? Have the mother give birth on stage? I thought I was in favor of arts education for all, but now I realize that I’m in favor of arts classes for most. I draw the line a teensy bit higher than zero years.

Another interpretation of this sign revolves around how long the classes run. If you’ve been in class for 18 years, I assume you have an Oscar, Emmy, Tony, and every other performing arts trophy. I also hope that somewhere during those 18 years, you had a coffee break and a restroom excursion or two. The question arises: Who would sign up for a class that meets for O years? Probably someone who wants to say “I studied acting” but doesn’t want to go to class. In my teaching career, I met a fair number of kids in that category.

The next population statement is from a clothing store:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One wonders if this is a sociological statement. One also wonders why the adults are singular (“Man,” even though there are 2, and “Woman”). For the sake of parallelism, the English-teacher term for balance and uniformity in a list, shouldn’t it be “Kid”?

Same store, different aisle:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The parallelism problem is still present, but the numbers make more sense. If the average family has .9 children, the “-1” could work, unless you’re addressing the average number of children in families that actually have them (the most likely buyers of kids’ clothing), in which case the sign-writers should reference the 1.86 average and maybe go with “1+” or “I-ish.”

I’m not going to analyze the “2 Man, 1 Woman” issue presented in both signs. Seriously, I’m not even going to mention it. But I will show you this sign:

Aside from parallelism — you shop for gear for “kids” (plural) and “baby” (singular) — it’s a relief to know that the kids and baby are inside, not in the middle of Third Avenue’s perpetual traffic jam.

I’m off to look at photos of my two (a whole and completely logical number, I must point out) granddaughters. Have fun with your .9 (or 1.86 or however many) kids. Or just enjoy this autumn day.

Another Inconvenient Truth

3 Replies

There are lots of “inconvenient truths” out there these days, one of which is this: “Convenience” and “convenient” are like the dinosaurs ten days after the asteroid hit. They’re still around, but they’re wobbling, as you see in these signs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So much to love here: “The Inconvenient,” for one, plus the capitalization. Also, the sign doesn’t tell where “The Other Location” is. I guess it’s in the “if you have to ask, you can’t afford to shop here” category.

Round two:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m trying to decide whether “sorry for inconvenient” is better than “The Inconvenient.” Also, the dash over the letter i is a nice touch.. But this one is the best:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Points in favor include the fact that it’s not “inconvenient store.” But this is a backlit, permanent, glass sign. Nobody thought to spellcheck “convenience”?

I’d write more, but it’s an inconvinience time.

Misteaks Were Made

4 Replies

NYU, not you too! I took a noncredit course there recently, but the quality of the content and discussion sadly did not match this letter sent from New York University’s administration. Take a look:

If I “continuously check” my schedule, I’m on the ALBERT website 24/7. Is that what you demand of me, NYU? I’m interested in learning, but I have to protect my eyeballs. Now if you’d asked me to check my schedule “continually,” I could log on from time to time to see what’s new.

If I didn’t find proper usage at a university, why was I expecting correct spelling in a sign? Usually I resign myself to four or five errors per walk, and I normally don’t bother posting misspelled words. But this one’s an exception:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seen in a paint store so high-end that its rear touches the sky, the sign attempts to match vocabulary level to price. Notice “formulation” instead of “formula,” “master craftsman” (just one guy does it all), and “curated collection.” I’ve already written about the trend toward “curation” instead of, say, “selection” in a post entitled “Curation Nation” at http://www.grammarianinthecity.com/?p=1576, so I won’t bother snarking about that part of the sign. But if you’re paying top dollar for small batches in formulations by a master craftsman in a curated collection, shouldn’t somebody spell “intricately” right? Indeed, as I tried to type “intracately” just now, autocorrect kicked in. It’s actually hard to make a mistake with that word, but I guess if you’re on the “master” level, you can manage.

Next one is a sentence from a mystery novel:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m assuming the author meant “preyed.” As a writer myself, I know that errors endure no matter how many times I proofread. I also know that a few make it past the editor’s scrutiny. I’m posting this as a reminder to myself to be more careful. Which brings me to this headline in the NY Times:

 

 

I wanted to mock the Times for the circle of logic represented by “Failing to Succeed.” After all, what else could you fail at? But on the fourth or fifth reading (yes, I’m a little slow sometimes), I grasped the point. You can’t win outright, so you may as well compromise. This one is clever, not wrong. So in the spirit of compromise, I’ll continuously try to fail at success, pray on all wildlife (who could use a little help from heaven), and consider repainting the living room with a curated color.

Well, maybe not the curated paint. I have to have some standards, and I’m drawing the line at “intracate.”

Personal Attention

2 Replies

Are you a “people person”? That’s slang for an extrovert, someone who delights in the company of others. (Which brings up this question: If you like one-on-one interactions, does that make you a “person person”?)  The noun “person,” used this way, refers to someone who is extremely interested in whatever descriptive word is attached to it. In this sign, though, “phone person” probably doesn’t refer to someone whose views on the latest iPhone resemble the way the rest of us feel about air. Instead, it’s the easiest way to avoid gender-specific terms. Take a look:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Write “phone man” or “phone woman” and you’re implying the gender of the preferred job- applicant. Top marks to this signmaker for non-sexist language! Not so top marks for communication. What does a “phone person” do? Call or answer or both? People doing those tasks used to be called “operators” or “secretaries.” But back to “person”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: On some devices the image appears small, so I’ll reproduce its message here:

Help wanted

Experienced

  • Deli Man
  • Delivery Person

According to this sign, anyone can deliver, but only men can work in the deli. Really? I doubt that’s the meaning, if only because the ratio of men to women zooming around with bags of dinner is approximately a zillion to one, judging from my experience dodging delivery bicyclists on the sidewalks of New York. I checked “deli man” in various dictionaries, to find out whether this was a traditional term, like “businessman.” Nope. I’m still scratching my head over the mixed usage — gender nonspecific “person” v. masculine “deli man.” I can imagine a few scenarios: (1) two people worked on the sign or (2) someone cut-and-pasted part of an old sign into a new one or (3) the signwriter was on automatic pilot for the first half of the sign and then remembered that these days, discriminatory hiring is illegal. Other theories welcome.

To be fair, it’s not always easy to come up with an inclusive term. Here’s one effort:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, “fishermen” would be sexist, and “fishermen/women” is way too long. But “fishers” sounds strange, at least to my ears.  And so does, I’m sad to admit, “fisherperson.”  I can’t think of another term that works, though. “Marine-life procurement specialist”? “Seafood harvester”? Nope and nope.

I’ll let you, the “blog person,” figure it out. I’m off to see the deli man for some tuna, caught by fishers.