I was in the car for a couple hours this morning.  I listened to the satellite radio feed of one of the cable “news” networks.

The major topics continue to be the presidential nomination campaigns and the situation in Flint, Michigan.

It was fun.

One commentator referred to “a recent poll that just came out.”

Another commentator, talking about Bernie Sanders, said, “He’s ahead in some polls; neck and neck in others.”*

But, my favorite of the morning was when the anchor, during an interview regarding the water situation in Flint, said, “The problems now seem apparently obvious.”

___________

*While I was putting together this post, I consulted a dictionary site.  I was wondering about the usage of “neck and neck.”  I saw the following as an example of how “neck and neck” might be used:

“Both the parties were in a neck and neck tussle for the trophy.”

Now I have to go look up “ironic.”

I’m continuing to make my way through the Continuing Education Webinars.

And, I’m continuing to be amazed by these attorneys’ usage.

Today it was:

“(This is the type of provision, for instance in a severance agreement) that might prevent the employer from saying something bad against a former employee.”

I think “bad” conveys the negative aspect of this thought.  Let’s go with “bad about,” or “bad concerning,” or “bad regarding.”

I’ve been watching some videos for my Continuing Legal Education requirement.

For the most part, they have been enlightening. I figure that, if I can learn a few things from each presentation, the time spent has been worth it.

There have been some usage issues though.

Here’s my favorite so far:

The lawyer/presenter was segueing from his introduction to the meat of the program. He said:

“With no more further ado . . .”

Priceless.*

____________

*Well, he just said it again, in a different presentation.  I guess it wasn’t a “talko.”  (I just made up that word.)

A few minutes later . . .  I love this guy.  He just said, “This Board has not made wholescale changes in the law.”

He’s actually a pretty good presenter.

I’m hearing more delightful usage in the football bowl games. One of the commentators, who’s usually pretty good, choked at the end of the game this afternoon. I guess he was overcome with emotion.

“In spite of injuries, the team gave it their all. You certainly can’t say they slept-walked through this one.”

I don’t know — I think you have to suck it up and make a hard choice. “Sleep-walked” or “slept-walk,” eh?

Just now, on the local L.A. news show, the on-location reporter said:

“If it hasn’t been said, it bears repeating. . . “

A couple gems from the last few days.

Sports commentators are a goldmine.

“Both of these coaches have mutual respect for each other.”

I love triples.

My recent favorite:

A reporter or analyst for one of the cable “news” stations was commenting on the Republican race for the presidential nomination:

“I thought that (the candidate) could go no lower. Then he did.”

Did what?

Ads, ads, ads.

Are there no English majors in advertising agencies?

“All of our wines are on sale. Save 30% off when you buy six or more.”

I hear this one all the time.

Do we need to say “off”? I mean, isn’t “save” covering that concept? It would be better to say, “Save 30% on purchases of six or more.” Or even, “You’ll get 30% off when you buy six or more.” But, you simply can’t save 30% off.

Emphasis clearly trumps correct usage and leads to stupidity — panders to stupidity.

Another one: “Apply for your loan by calling us today. Not all applicants may qualify.”

Just what is this company trying to say? How about, “Some applicants may not qualify.” I guess I’m assuming these folks want to be extra polite, and not discourage people from applying. Hence they feel the need to use the word “may” and avoid the word “will.”

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say, “Not all applicants will qualify.”

For the first couple years of Twitter’s existence, when someone posted a message on Twitter, they were said to have “tweeted.” I’ve never been a huge fan. But, that verb worked for me.

It is amazing how fast things change in this new world. It is amazing how new terms get adopted. Finally, it is amazing that the adoption of new terms starts with media folks who are lazy, misinformed, uninformed, stupid, and in spite of their livelihoods, think little about language.

Here’s the beef: Seems few are saying “tweeted” these days. The new term for “tweeted” is “tweeted OUT.” It sounds stupid. It is unnecessary. But, it is the thing now. What does appending the word “out” to this term add?

It seems that the end of the year, with all the football games, is a great time for this one.

“Unchartered waters.”

If a team is going into a playoff game with a quarterback who has never played in one, it’s said the team is heading into “unchartered waters.”

Or, perhaps, it’s the first time a team has played an overtime in a bowl game. Well then, it’s entering “unchartered territory.”

While dictionaries work harder than they should to come up with an actual definition of “unchartered” (i.e., “not having a charter or constitution”), the word we want to be using here is “uncharted – as in, “not previously mapped,” “unexplored,” “unfamiliar,” or “unknown.”

And yes, I’m sure I’m not just hearing it wrong. They are, almost without exception, saying “unchartered.”

Here is one of my favorites.

A radio and TV ad for a senior living referral service:

“Hi, I’m (celebrity spokesperson), and if you’re worried about your parent or a loved one living alone, like I was, and you want reliable senior care information, then call (the referral service) . . .”

When I heard this, I was concerned, and immediately googled the celebrity spokesperson to see if she had experienced some financial, or other, problems that lead to her living alone.  I couldn’t find any reference to any such problems or living situation.

I have found a new source of really bad usage:  internet ads.

On the site for a camera dealer today I was greeted with:

“Our Santa Barbara store has moved to a new location!”  (This information was followed by the address.)

Maybe the guy who wrote it gets paid by the word.

The other day, I was watching ESPN.  I believe it was the college football show.  The sports pundits were discussing the new crop of tight ends.  As background, one guy was talking about the great John Mackey.

Here’s what he said:

“He evolutionized the position.”

Just think, had it been Fox Sports, someone may have gone with, “He creationized the position.”

A television commercial I saw yesterday reminded me of the current usage of the word “literally.”  I looked over my posts and realized I haven’t thoroughly addressed this topic.

Seems “literally” now also means its essential opposite – “figuratively.”

I don’t have to beat on this one.   It’s simply outrageous.  And lazy.  And, well, ignorant.  Demeaning to the language.

(I here also resist the urge to whack another irksome phrase:  “Such and such is the new such and such.”  Thanks a lot, “Orange is the New Black.”  Nice glomming.)

In any case, the commercial I’m referring to is for an airline.  It goes like this:

“Its a revelation — fewer seats.  Infinitely more room.”

Now, frankly, I don’t think the reduction in the number of seats on an airplane is much of a “revelation.”  Nor could it possibly result in infinitely more room.  However, the last place I want “infinitely more room” is in/on a plane.  I can’t help but visualize flying along after the removal of the top and sides of the fuselage.

But, I guess “infinitely is the new literally.”

I guess this is what it’s come to.

I was listening to a local radio show this morning.  It was one of those Sunday morning public service things.  A woman was being interviewed about being a “mentor” (whatever the heck that is).  I was hoping that she doesn’t mentor anyone in the use of the language.

Here is what she said:

“I literally took a leap off that proverbial cliff.”

I’d analyze how truly awful that sentence is, but I don’t know where to start.

Can we just assume that we shouldn’t use the words “share” and “same” in reference to a single concept in a single sentence?

Below is a quotation from a lawyer for Shelly Sterling with regard to the ownership situation of the Los Angeles Clippers.  It appeared in the L.A. Daily News today.

According to the biographical information on the webpage of his current law firm, this well-known Los Angeles attorney has an undergraduate degree from Georgetown and law degrees from both Georgetown and Yale. The bio also says he is the author of over 200 articles (including “scholarly” articles) and five books.

“Mrs. Sterling has made it clear that she abhors the attitudes reflected in her estranged husband’s recent remarks and that she supports the NBA’s decision to ban him for life.  They may share the same name, but they don’t share the same values on race.”

 One wonders if Mrs. Sterling could share different names or different values.  I mean really, how difficult is it to say “They may have the same name, but they don’t have the same values”?

At least he didn’t say that they may both share the same name.

Looks like the tech revolution has twisted the use of a term that used to actually have a specific meaning.  Seems one current use is completely different from what the term actually means.

“Live.”

When used in reference to television, when a show is referred to as “live,” it used to mean that it was being broadcast at the same time it was being produced.  The Ed Sullivan Show used to be broadcast live.  Saturday Night Live is still being broadcast live in the eastern and central time zones.  Many sports events are broadcast “live.”

Now the term is frequently used for something else, something different – something that is not “live” at all.

For instance, I’ve recently heard promos for television shows that urge one to view some program “live.” For instance: “Watch ‘The Fosters’ ‘live’ this Monday night at 8 o’clock.” Or, “(such and such show) is live this Wednesday.”

These requests from advertisers are not suggestions that the show will be shown at the same time that it’s produced. Rather, they are subtle pleas to potential viewers to watch the show when it is broadcast, in its normal time slot, instead of recording it via DVR for later viewing at a more convenient time.

While I understand the harm that recording shows for later viewing does to the value of the advertising — as viewers may now simply fast forward through, and skip, the commercials — the suggestion that a show will be “live” seems more than a little misleading.  At the least, it is confusing.  It is certainly not the correct use of the word.

It is not too much to ask that the broadcast entities come up with another word.

I’ve been spending some time lately thinking about diagramming sentences. Not much time. I’m not a total freak.

My children tell me they didn’t much like diagramming sentences in their classes at school. Funny, I remember being the only person in my junior high class that enjoyed the activity. I found diagramming a refreshingly mathematical aspect of English class in eighth grade. A couple years ago, I bought a book on the subject and read it cover to cover. Thank you to my teacher, Miss Langston. (I think that was her name.)

Today, more of this waxing nostalgic was brought on by something I heard on Morning Edition:

“Here in Afghanistan last Saturday millions of Afghans braved threats by the Taliban to vote in record numbers for their next president.”

Now, I’m not going to diagram this sentence, as I don’t think this software supports the lines and diagonals I’d need (alas, another thing that the overuse of word processing programs might put out to pasture), but I think the order of the words deserves some examination.

Although I was half asleep when I heard it, I immediately asked myself, “Why is it that the Afghan people took as a threat the suggestion that the Taliban might vote in record numbers for their next president?” Were the members of the Taliban not properly registered to vote?

One might also ask, “What exactly did the Afghans do to demonstrate their bravery in the face of the Taliban threat to vote?”

But, these things are probably not what the NPR co-host was getting at, eh?

I suspect that what she was saying was that the Afghans demonstrated bravery by voting for their next president (and, some, very possibly, that candidate’s opponents), despite some threats by the Taliban.

And again, I assume that the person who reported this story — presumably the co-host herself — actually wrote down what she was going to say, and read it, before she said it on the air. One must question, I think, whether there was an editor involved; and ask why that editor didn’t do his/her job and change the copy to reflect what the co-host was actually trying to get across.

Perhaps: “Despite Taliban threats (of violence, revenge, retribution?), last Saturday millions of Afghans bravely voted in record numbers in an election to decide the next president of Afghanistan.”

That was easy.

NPR reported yesterday that (paraphrasing):  “Authorities have determined that the suspect was a ‘nineteen-year-old teenager’.”