Tag Archives: Advertisements

Station(a) (e) ry

In an old joke, someone asks, “Do you have trouble making up your mind?” The reply: “Well, yes and no.” I thought of this exchange when I saw this sign on an awning:

StationAry

StationAry

 

I saw this sign on a board in front of the same store:

StationEry

StationEry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The store, which has, to put it mildly, an eclectic inventory, needs a new awning. It sells paper goods and office supplies (stationery), not an adjective meaning “fixed in one place” (stationary).   The sandwich board could use some revision, too, as you can sell  “beauty aids” (objects) but not  “aides” (people who assist).  Still, at “99 Cents Plus,” the price is right, even if the spelling isn’t. See you later. It’s time to go shopping.

 

 

 

 

Gate Keepers

After the last Super Bowl, “Deflate-gate” consumed football fans. Were the Patriots’ footballs too soft during the AFC championship game? If so, who let the air out? I am by no means interested in that scandal or that sport. Traditionally, I go to the movies during the Super Bowl in an attempt to ignore all the hoopla. But I am interested in the suffix -gate. It’s tacked onto various words to signal “scandal” or “wrongdoing plus a cover up” (which is, of course, a fine breeding ground for scandal).

I know the origin of the word, having lived through Watergate – the scandal about a break-in at a Democratic National Committee office that ultimately led to the resignation of Richard Nixon from the presidency. I know this because I am old. But many of those discussing squishy footballs or sitting in traffic (during “Bridgegate,”  the questionable closing of most lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge, a major commuter route to New York City) had not even been born when burglars snuck into Washington’s Watergate complex. So how did they learn the meaning of -gate? My guess is that so many scandals have occurred between 1972 and the present day that the term never had a chance to become history. It has remained in the language because it’s always in use. A quick search for –gate on the Internet turns up dozens alleged scandals on several continents. Some, like Watergate itself, involve serious constitutional issues. Others, like “Bibgate” (champion skier jumps without his assigned bib), do not.

So -gate is keeping up with the times (partly because the Times prints the term fairly often). Which got me to thinking about other words or expressions that have remained long past what I’d have imagined their “sell-by” date to be. This sign, for example, appears on nearly every construction fence in New York:

Did you pay your bill?

Did you pay your bill?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one sees these signs as banning public displays of electric bills or credit card statements. Nor is the sign interpreted as a demand that Congress keep its laws off our building sites. Despite the fact that this definition of bill – a public notice or advertisement – is old and uncommon, the signs persist. Maybe they need an update, given the number of “bills” plastered over them. I suspect, though, that blank fences will always tempt those searching for free advertising space, regardless of the language used. So why is post no bill still around? Because it’s short? Because it sounds firm – three single-syllable words? My working theory is that “post no bill” is a tradition. It persists because that’s what traditions do. I’m open to other theories, though. If you have one, feel free to comment here.

Just don’t expect me to bail you out if you post your ideas on a bill.

 

What they are really saying . . .

The human mind has a need for completion, which often tempts me to take a sign to its logical conclusion. Logical, by the way, does not mean “intended.” I’m fairly sure that the people who wrote these signs would be surprised where their words led me. Here are a few signs and my responses:

SIGN:

Note that the last two words are italicized.

Note that the last two words are italicized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: Loitering in front of someone else’s premises is fine.

SIGN:

Low? On Premises?

What kind of prices?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: How nice to pay low discount prices instead of high discount prices.

SIGN:

Accuracy above all.

Accuracy above all.

 

 

 

RESPONSE: If you lie about your age, this product reveals the truth.

SIGN:

No perc? No perc odor?

No perc? No perc odor?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSE: You can have perc odor without the perc? Good to know.

Take two adverbs and call me in the morning

Grammarians generally split into two camps, prescriptivists and descriptivists. A prescriptivist tells you to follow the rules, much as a physician urges you to exercise, stop smoking, and lose ten pounds. (Okay, twenty. But who’s counting?) A descriptivist explains how people actually speak and write. As a retired English teacher and the author of a number of grammar books, I have strong ties to prescriptive grammar. Without standards of expression, meaning often sails off the cliff of comprehensibility. Take a look at this sign:

Shop for free?

Shop for free?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get that the store wants to associate shop and save, though you could make the case that customers save more by declining to shop altogether. But how do you shop for free bakeware? This sign may be a promotion — buy a certain amount of food and the store will present you with the pan to cook it in — or it may be something else. The language is so mangled that the meaning is lost. Same thing here:

 

What does "natural" mean?

Are there unnatural springs somewhere?

 

When everything is up for grabs, words lose meaning. Sign- and ad-writers know this very well, as do politicians.

On the other hand, rigid rules kill creativity. Language can’t — and shouldn’t — be preserved in amber. I used to fume when I saw disinterested, which traditionally means “unbiased or neutral,” in a sentence where uninterested was clearly indicated. But I’ve given up. Just as the definition of nice evolved from “neat and exact” to “friendly and kind,” disinterested has come to mean “not interested.” That’s how people use the word, and most readers or listeners understand. Those who insist on uninterested have lost the battle. Time to move on.

But I can’t give up completely on prescriptive grammar, and not just because I sell grammar books. Standard English — language that follows currently accepted rules — opens doors to careers that require formal expression. To tell someone trying to wedge a toe on a higher rung of the socio-economic ladder that prescriptive grammar is a totalitarian invention is not helpful. Citizens of the reality-based community know that “me and him are working on that case” is not something an attorney should say — well, not an attorney hoping to keep the job.

Yet I love this sign, despite the fact that it breaks the rules:

And mingle?

And mingle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thought of patrons of this bar enjoying mingle is just too much fun to edit out. Not to mention the image of a couple dancing to the beat of a football pass or a smartly executed bunt down the third-base line.

So I’ll play for both teams, and console myself with Ralph Waldo Emerson’s idea that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” What grammarian could oppose a principle containing the word hobgoblin? Not this one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where beauty lies

I’m no stranger to the silliness of advertising. I came of age in the Sixties, when beauty product companies sold a “no-makeup look” that required about a pound of cosmetics to achieve. But lately, those same companies or their descendants have been marketing their wares using some strange appeals. I wager that the average consumer has no idea what’s in these products. Take a look at this ad:

Organic? Wild-crafted?

Wild-crafted?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand the definition of organic, but seriously — wild-crafted? Are these products mixed in a small clearing overhung with oaks or whatever trees grow in the Black Forest? And of course it has to be a “complete system,” not just a jar.

If forests aren’t your thing, how do you feel about the Dead Sea? Read this one and weep, because you missed the deadline (or the Dead Sea-line) for a session with a haircare expert, who came, as the sign says

Which 26 minerals?

Which 26 minerals?

 

I don’t know how many minerals are in my shampoo. Twenty six sounds like a lot. But the more the merrier – or the shinier.

Maybe your hair is in good shape, but what about the skin underneath it? Better be sure, with this service:

 

The ultimate selfie

The ultimate selfie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope your scalp is photogenic! If it isn’t, move south a bit, to your eyes. They may be hungry:

 

How do eyes eat?
How do eyes eat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus in on the cream, which appears on the window above the “nourish” tagline:

So glad the treatment doesn't migrate!

So glad the treatment doesn’t migrate!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as long as you’re nourishing, consider this last sign:

 

Watch your diet.
Vegetarian cosmetics?

 

This sign would make sense if it appeared on the window of a food shop, but it’s advertising cosmetics. So what is a vegetarian cosmetic? One not tested on animals? One not made from animal products? One that doesn’t eat animals? All three categories are fine with me, but the signage is not.

These stores are selling beauty, which certainly lies in the eye of the beholder. The ads, though, simply lie.

 

Hallucinations for sale

I’ve been “collecting” signs for a while. This post is a mix of old and new sightings in the category labeled “Huh?” that I add to nearly every day.  First up is a store that specializes in hallucinations. Does the DEA know?

Top quality visions only.

Top quality visions only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next is something my friend Michael sent me, with the email subject line “Word Crime.” Isn’t it wonderful to hydrate yourself for your entire lifetime for only $1.95? Quite a bargain.

free water

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below is another puzzle. We buy cash in exchange for cash?  And then there are the “old boyfriends.” (Young boyfriends, I guess, don’t count.)  Also, even if you insert an apostrophe and exchange your “old boyfriend’s jewelry” (singular) or “old boyfriends’ jewelry” (plural), aren’t you stealing the old guy’s jewelry? In the face of larceny, I won’t mention the missing comma after “gold” or the period that should follow “diamonds.” Should I be surprised that the store went out of business?

Turn your cash into cash? Not to mention your old boyfriends.

Turn your cash into cash? Not to mention your old boyfriends.

 

A Name Too Far

Some years ago I called for a moratorium on ‘n, the pseudo-contraction that’s supposed to take the place of and in expressions such as burgers’ n beer, wings ‘n fries, and other cholesterol-laden linguistic and culinary crimes. Nobody heard me and nothing changed in the public arena, perhaps because the only people present when I called for this were a bunch of English teachers who wouldn’t dream of substituting a grunt for a conjunction.

Allowing hope to triumph over experience, I’m now asking for another moratorium, this time on the invention of cutesy names for beer. Now, I don’t drink beer. I do, however, hang out at times in bars where good draught beer is served. I like watching people enjoy a glass of amber liquid that reflects the sunlight and casts a warm glow. At first, it was fun to read the bar menu and savor names that hadn’t been derived from corporations. Out with Miller, Pabst, Budweiser, and the like, I thought. In with Victory Hop Devil, London Pride, and other creative terms.

Melange a Trois with 3 Philosophers?

Melange a Trois with 3 Philosophers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But things have gone too far. The unusual has become commonplace and thereby lost its luster. Moreover, the contrived names increasingly leave consumers scratching their heads. When the name column on the beer menu expands to accommodate three inches of letters, it’s time to pull back. Let Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hops Club Brand alone, please. Instead, describe what’s actually in the beer – wheat, blueberries (and by the way, who on earth would ever want blueberries with beer?), bitters, whatever.

I assume that this post will lead to a new trend in beer names, or, at the very least, a batch of Extra Grouchy Grammarian Stout.