It’s the last day of the regular season in the NFL.  I guess it’s the last chance for this season for some of the ex-players/commentators to trash the language (or just make up their own).

In a post a while back, I discussed the disturbing trend toward saying “based off” or “based off of” instead of “based on.”

Now I find that “on” has apparently come into disfavor when used in some similar situations.

Today I heard a guy on radio actually say that a certain football team’s hopes of making the playoffs were “centered off of” its success in the running game.

Wow.

Not to be outdone, some studio analyst (I think he’s a TV talk show host too) said that a team was “hyped up off of” its recent success on special teams.

Where is this stuff coming from?

OK.  Today I’m half asleep, listening to Morning Edition as usual.

It’s a story about China banning the importing of certain shellfish from Alaska and the state of Washington.  China claims it recently found two bad clams.

The action puts a strain on the shellfish industry up there.  And, there is belief in some quarters that China’s concern is not legitimate.

NPR went to an expert.  Here’s what she said (get ready).

“It is possible that it could be retaliation for something that has happened in the past.”

(I think highlighting the entire sentence is appropriate.)

The woman quoted is, according to the story on the NPR website, a post-doctoral research fellow at the Princeton-Harvard China and the World Program.  (Yes, that Princeton, and that Harvard.)

Let’s take closer look at her analysis:

“It is possible that it could be . . . “

OK, you don’t want to be too didactic.

“ . . . for something that has happened in the past.”

I’m thinkin’ that “has happened” probably already covers “the past.”

And, I can’t help but wonder what particular function “has” serves in this sentence.

This is a classic sentence.  It’s clear that the post-doctoral program in question doesn’t base its acceptance on clear expression.

I have heard these exact words three times in the last four days:

“It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

I’m trying to figure out where these people think the term “win-win” came from.

I guess this is just one of those things that the descriptivists will say we should ignore and let it happen:  “If most of the speaking population is ignorant on this one, don’t say anything, it’s just the evolution of the language.  Get comfortable and take it.”

I’m sorry, I just can’t do it.  I can’t let go.

Nucular

I mean, seriously, what century — what millennium — is this?

I heard a guy on the radio the other day.  Seemed to be quite erudite.  A writer, blogger, commentator, activist.  Well spoken.  Sounded intelligent on the subject . . .

. . . Yet, he pronounced it “nucular” over and over.  And, the host, who I’m quite sure was cringing, said nothing.

Dear Host,

It has to start somewhere.  Get in the game.

John

(I’m adding the following on September 26, 2013.)

I’ve decided that I need to change my approach on stuff like this.  Instead of acting like the cranky old man, I’m going to tell you what this is really about:  This is about my sincere failure to understand how this happens.  I honestly don’t get it.

Here’s what I’m talking about.  This morning, on Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep interviewed a former American Ambassador to Iraq.  The online edition said former Ambassador to Syria as well.  On air, Afghanistan was also mentioned.  His Wiki page mentions Lebanon, Pakistan and Kuwait too.  Holy crap!  This dude’s got some credentials.  Yet, he pronounced it “nucular” repeatedly.

My question is simply this.  How does a man like this not know how, or not bother, to pronounce this very simple word correctly?

Blows me away that his Wiki page also states that he has a Bachelor’s degree in English Literature.

Honest — I don’t understand.

Is anyone else getting tired of hearing the words, “boots on the ground”?

When did this become the only way to say “troops” or “soldiers”?

I read in a news story online today that, “(so and so) wanted to echo the same sentiment.”

I was thinking of looking up “echo” in the dictionary, but I decided I sort of didn’t really need to.  Could one echo a different sentiment?

“Express” is the word this guy was searching his keyboard for, eh?  “I want to express the same sentiment.”  But, I guess echo just sounded too cool to pass up.

It kinda cracks me up when someone tries so hard to sound smart by adhering to what he perceives to be some grammar convention, and then totally blows it.

Today’s example is:  “Don’t end a sentence with a preposition.”

Now, I think most will agree that this is certainly not a hard and fast rule, though it’s good to keep it in mind sometimes.

We can have fun with this one.  For instance, “This situation is one up with which I will not put.”

Anyway, today, I heard an esteemed U.S. legislator, discussing Ed Snowden, say:

He clearly has committed some offenses for which the government is ready to prosecute him for.

Oooops.

This is what I heard on “All Things Considered” tonight:

“Israelis and Palestinians disagree on many things, but both have this in common: They’ve been closely watching events in Egypt.”

Seriously, “both have this in common”?

I mean, that’s not even close.

I will not give up.  I’m on a mission.  And, here is what my mission is:  find out if a single friggin’ high school English class is a requirement for a writer at NPR.

Not long ago, I heard a story on NPR about more tragic injuries in Afghanistan.

Heres what the reporter had to say:  “Improvised explosive devices have become the favorite weapon of choice for terrorists.”

OK, one more.  El Dodo said the other day, while doing a spot, “When I get an email with a reagan.com address, I know that we share a special kinship.”

OK, one more.  I actually heard a reporter say recently, “They both share a common bond.”  Funny, I have used that exact quotation as a mythical example of really bad usage.

I refuse to give up.

OK.  Which is it?  “Supremist” or “supremacist.”

Most of the sites I’ve checked are pretty clear, the word is “supremacist.”  (Does my heart good to know that the spell check on my word processing program highlights “supremist” as incorrect.)

Let’s take a look at this.

“ist.”  Isn’t that a suffix that means something like “someone who believes in”?

So, if you’re a white supremacist, you believe in white supremacy.  OK.

And, if you’re a white supremist, you believe in, uh, white supreme?   (Sounds like some kind of creamy dessert.)

But, as one site puts it, it seems as though so many of the talking heads think that “supremacist” is too much of a mouthful.  Might as well shorten the word, huh?  What could it hurt?

Of course, some of the radio talk show hosts — those will remain nameless here – say it both ways, on the same show.  What should we make of that?

I’m waiting for Rush to start saying “LOL.”

Caveat is a noun.  From Latin.

It’s a warning, a red flag, an admonition, a caution, a forewarning (which is, I believe, darn similar to a warning).  Caveat communicates “beware.”

It is NOT a “condition” placed upon something, although it may be a warning regarding the “condition” of something:  “Watch out.  I don’t think that ladder is strong enough to support you.”  You know, it’s like “Let the buyer beware”:  That caveat emptor thing.

In other words, it’s not a requirement (see below).  It’s not something that must occur before something else occurs.

Here’s what I’m getting at.  Due to our great need to sound erudite, we like to use words that sound cool, apparently without regard to whether we are using the words correctly.  Like this:  “The EEC agreed to contribute to Cypress seven billion dollars, with the caveat that it must first institute economic austerity measures.”

Yeah, I heard a radio talk show host say that the other day.

Well, here we have a radio talk show host.  He sees himself as extremely learned.

This is the guy who thinks “tarot” rhymes with “carrot.”

Anyway, today he was going on and on about this book his father wrote.  It’s a book about a battle of the Revolutionary War.

He was talking about how much his parents love this country.  I was touched.

Then, out of nowhere, he mentioned his father again, and this:

“He is a deeply patriotic man, as is my mother.”

I was driving in my car at the time.  I almost had an accident.

Now we get to show how fair and balanced this blog really is.

On Friday’s show, a different “big” radio talk show host, who also has a daily television show, said (I’m paraphrasing):

“Due to political climate, it sounds to me like the school district felt it needed to error on the side of caution.”

I was aghast.  I must have heard him wrong.

Then he said it again.

I’m thinking, if you don’t know how to pronounce a word properly or, if you don’t know the meaning of a word, perhaps you should err on the side of caution, and come up with some words you do know.

Pet peeve:  Corporate Speak — especially when it spills over into the non-corporate vernacular.

Current favorite:  “reach out to.”

Like, “Have you reached out to Kevin to discuss his progress on the Smith project?”

What the heck is wrong with “Have you discussed the Smith project with Kevin?”

Or, “Have you talked to Kevin about the Smith project?”

Or, “Did you contact Kevin regarding the Smith project?”

Or, “Did you call Kevin for a review around the deadlines on the Smith project?”

Oooops.  Now I’m doing it.

Today, one of the political talk show hosts – OK, the “biggest” talk show host – said on his show, and I’m paraphrasing (except for the material parts):  “Most of the low-information voters . . . not most . . .(correcting himself) . . . the majority of the low-information voters believe that . . .”

Can someone help me with this?  Does this guy really believe “the majority” means something different from “most” in this context?  Should I assume there was some reason, other than not understanding the language, for him to correct himself?

This stuff drives me nuts.

Perhaps I should change the name of this blog to “Pleonasm Today,” or something similar.

I’m becoming disenchanted with NPR.

I admit, I listen to Morning Edition most days.  I guess that means that, if I listen critically, I’m bound to hear more mistakes from those folks than from things I listen to less.

Yet, I can’t help feeling that NPR should be the flagship for grammar and usage.  I hope for — I look for — erudition.  It is unfortunate that NPR comes up short so often.

During a story about Aaron Neville this morning, I heard:  “At 72, the prince of R&B has reverted back to his childhood.”

It is interesting indeed that NPR edited the written story on its website:  “At 72, the prince of R&B has reverted to childhood.”  Yet, NPR is a radio network, de facto specializing in the written word.  I wonder how many folks get information from the website.  Hence, NPR should be editing its stories before they air.  It is sad that this is often not the case.

———-

thefreedictionary.com tells us:

revert

vb [rɪˈvɜːt] (intr; foll by to)

1. to go back to a former practice, condition, belief, etc. she reverted to her old wicked ways

***

Usage: Since back is part of the meaning of revert, one should not say that someone reverts back to a certain type of behavior.

———-

That seems pretty simple.

Let us call for NPR to put itself in a position of leadership on usage issues and get out in front of the mistakes.

When I listen to people speak on radio and television, perhaps the thing that affects me the most, in terms of use and abuse of our language, is pleonasm.

The “dictionary.reference.com” definition:

ple·o·nasm [plee–uh-naz-uh m]

noun

1.  the use of more words than are necessary to express an idea; redundancy.

2.  an instance of this, as free gift  or true fact.

3.  a redundant word or expression.

Again, I wonder if these days anyone in the media edits copy before it is aired.

Even at my favorite television show, CBS Sunday Morning, there seems to be an apparent lack of concern about how we express even the simplest ideas.

I found this at the CBS Sunday Morning site from today’s show – in a story about the Chevrolet Corvette:

“That Corvette idea though, had a champion:  its legendary chief engineer, Zora Duntov.  He persuaded Chevy to replace its standard inline six with a V-8 instead, and the Corvette was soon tearing up the track.”

I cannot imagine why anyone would feel it is appropriate to use the words “replace” and “instead” to express the same idea.

Then, on the same show, in a subsequent story about Notre Dame linebacker, Manti Te’o, the reporter stated that (I’m paraphrasing), “his grandmother and his girlfriend both died on the same day.

The use of “both” and “same” is a longtime favorite of mine.

Maybe we should take up a collection to fund the hiring of some editors.

Mining NPR this morning, I heard a reporter use the word “unwieldly.”

Granted, I was half asleep, so I don’t know if this person used it as an adjective or an adverb but, frankly, it didn’t matter to me at the time.

“Unwieldy.”  What a wonderful word.  You know, when you’re moving something, and someone is helping you, and he/she invariably says, “It’s not heavy, it’s just awkward.”  (Translation:  “This sucker is heavy.”)  And you always think to yourself, “unwieldy.”

Somehow, I never think to myself, “unwieldly.”

So, I looked it up.

Voila.

Two online dictionaries actually have the word, “unwieldly.”

What does it mean?  Well, the same as “unwieldy.”

Adj.

1. too heavy, large, or awkwardly shaped to be handled easily.

2.  ungainly, clumsy

Each source also shows “unwieldly” as an adverb.

Today, my I assign myself the duty of using the word “unwieldly” in conversation.

Wish me luck.

This is inconceivable to me.

Rush Limbaugh has a segment on his radio show he calls “Audio Sound Bites.”

That has to be a joke, right?