Today’s theme is zero, with a short excursion into negative territory. First up is this sign, which I spotted while watching the New York City Marathon around mile 17:
I have to admit the statement is catchy. Who wouldn’t want to travel 0 MILES to reach a destination? But the emphatic O MILES obscures a different problem: 2.6 carbs and 95 cals (calories) in . . . well, in what, exactly? A thimble, a jug, or a barrel of BEER? The sign is akin to boasting of something’s being voted “the best” without specifying who cast ballots — perhaps the general public, experts in the field, or the owner’s two best friends. Context matters.
So does clarity:
Performing Arts for All Ages is clear, but the age range is puzzling. How does a 0-year-old engage in performing arts? Also, for how long is someone 0 Years old? Does enrollment take place during labor or at the moment of delivery?
Here’s a sign I saw in Madrid, Spain:
Translation: GROUP ZERO / POETRY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS. I won’t speculate why the group named itself ZERO or what happens in the illustrated room, with its flat couch and rather authoritative-looking chair. Feel free to send me your thoughts on how GROUP CERO might be combining POESIA and PSICOANALISIS.
Worse than zero problems are negative ones, as in this sign in a clothing store:
I understand, but object to, the labels attached to floors 2 and 1, partly because clothing doesn’t have to be sorted into rigid gender categories but mostly because the sign indicates two individuals: a Man and a Woman. (Otherwise the terms would be Men and Women.) The real problem, for me, is Kids -1. Having shopped with kids, I understand the temptation to drop one, but that temptation should be resisted, not codified. Or perhaps this is where you outfit kids who are 0 years old for their performing arts classes? But wouldn’t the floor be 0 in that case? Perhaps they sell maternity clothes there?
I welcome your theories about any of these signs and wish you zero problems in formulating them.
These are hilarious, Gerri – the signs and your comments!
“Zero” age is analogous to – I suppose – the “time” of the so-called Big Bang. I don’t if that’s a zap of wisdom, what I just said there, or if strange brain fizzles are taking place. Must… go… have… supper! xox
Strange brain fizzles sound like fun! May I have some?
Wondering about one of the zero problems, I’ve come up with the following:
Expressing age as integer amounts only, saying a person is 0 year old would make sense. Thus, a 4-month child, for example, is 0 or .25 (not an integer, as we all know) year old.
What do you think about it?
It makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t match the way people think and talk about age. My preference would be to substitute “infancy” for zero.
The typical mom and pop store is primarily concerned with how they will compete with government subsidies that enrich MNC’s and centralize industry. I am fairly confident that grammar is the least of their concerns.
In my view, this is the type of excessive hubris, and elitist thuggery, that is so despised by the provincial. Without truckers and farmers, and small business owners, you wouldn’t have time to write books. You’d be out in the woods with your Wellingtons trying to hunt game.
I think you should have more respect for those who are not as passionate about English grammar. Saying things like “is it really so hard”, and “why can’t these fools just understand” shows an appalling lack of social etiquette.
Thank you for your comment. The signs in the post you commented on were from major chains, not small businesses. None of my comments in that post were about grammar but rather about logic. I have also never said “why can’t these fools just understand,” nor is it my stance. All that said, I will try to be more mindful of my tone. My intention is to poke fun, not to harm. May I suggest to you that “the provincial” you refer to does not exist, but rather a multitude of individual human beings, each unique, each with a unique point of view that is diminished by an attempt to generalize?