The other day, I heard a reporter on NPR use “flaunt” when she meant “flout.”

“Flaunt” means: to show off; to display proudly; to exhibit ostentatiously.

Like:  “It was unseemly of him to flaunt his wealth as he traveled in the poverty-stricken areas of Africa.”

(We’ve all heard the expression, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it.”)

“Flout,” on the other hand, means something completely different:  to disregard contemptuously; to ignore a rule, convention or expectation of conduct.

You “flout” the rules, the law, the dress code or a social convention.

You cannot “flaunt” those things.

You might “flaunt” your engagement ring, your figure, your abs, your wardrobe or your wealth.

Like:  “She flouted the middle school’s dress code when she wore the skimpy top.”

Not, “The ambassador flaunted convention when he refused to shake the prime minister’s hand.”

It is, indeed, unfortunate that several online dictionaries have done what an Oxford University Press blog refers to as “thrown in the towel” on this one.  These dictionaries suggest that “flaunt,” since it has been used incorrectly so often, has now come to mean the same as “flout.”  (Granted, it is the second definition of “flaunt.”)

How is it that our reference works give up so easily?

From time to time, I hear someone say, “in lieu of” when the person means “in light of.”

I don’t hear this a lot, but it hit home last night when I was reading my favorite author, and he did it.  It was something like, “We decided that, in lieu of the deterioration of the relationship, it would be best if we stopped seeing so much of each other.”  I sure hope this was an editor’s mistake.

Clearly, what he meant was “in light of.”

“Lieu” is derived from French.  It means, “stead” or “place.”  When used in English with “in,” as in “in lieu of,” it means, “instead of” or “in place of,” or “as a substitute for.”  We see it used mostly in invitations, like, “in lieu of a gift, please make a donation to . . .”  One also sees it in funeral announcements, “in lieu of flowers, please make a donation to the favorite charity of the deceased.”  Occasionally, you see it in other contexts, like, “In lieu of paying his rent, the tenant left the landlord an IOU.”

Nothing all that complicated here.

“In light of,” on the other hand, means “considering,” “based on,” “due to,” or “taking into account.”  You might also say, “since this is the case . . .”

“In light of” is often seen in a sentence with words that refer to “recent events.”  Like, “In light of last night’s primary results, the Senator from Pennsylvania suspended his campaign for the presidency.”  Or, “In light of the weather forecast for the weekend, the company cancelled the picnic.”

Again, this is not a difficult concept.

So, we must ask, how do people mix up these two?

Several blogs I consulted suggest that there is some arrogance or pretention going on when someone uses “in lieu of” when he means “in light of.”  Alas, it is sad when someone looks stupid by trying to look smart.

“In lieu of” is so commonly used correctly, however, that I don’t see anything pretentious about using it to mean “instead of.”

On the local television news today, and on NPR this afternoon, I heard reporters say, in reference to the shooting at an Oakland, California college yesterday, that (I’m paraphrasing):

“The college is reporting that the shooting suspect was a former student of the college.”

Now, keep in mind that the suspect is under arrest and in jail.

Hence, wouldn’t it be correct to say that “he is a former student”?  Or, “he was a student”?

It’s simply incorrect to use was and former in the same sentence like that.

Do you wait “in line” or “on line”?

Like:  “I waited (or I stood) on line for two hours to buy concert tickets.”

Seems to me that this concept refers to “a line of people”:  “I waited in a long line of people” – you were in a line.

Hence, the correct usage just has to be “in line.”  Since you don’t wait “on a line of people,” “on line” is simply wrong.  (Although the incorrect user may claim he’s saying, “I’m waiting on a line of people to move up.”  But then, wouldn’t it be proper to say, “I’m waiting for the line to move up”?  And, one can’t use this excuse if one says, “I stood on line . . . .”)

It seems to me even more problematic that the use of “on line” in this context has become more popular since the advent of the internet.  I mean, if you are on the net, waiting to buy tickets or something, or if you say, “I stayed on the internet for an hour to see if you would respond to my post,” then you are waiting “online.”  But, unless you’re standing in a line where there’s a line painted that you’re standing on, you’re not waiting “on line.”  (And, if you’re waiting on an actual line, then you’re standing on a line, not on line, and certainly not online.

This becomes even more troublesome when a radio talk show host says, “We’d like to get to some listener calls, because we have a lot of people waiting on line.”  I don’t know if he’s trying to say, “We have a lot of people waiting in line (to talk to us),” or, “We  have a lot of people waiting on the (telephone) line.”  I honestly don’t know which.  Though, I’m pretty sure we know that the callers aren’t waiting “online.”

I heard a reporter on the radio the other day say that, “if you want to get some work done outside this weekend, you’d better do it on Saturday, as a big rainstorm is eminent.”

Set me to wondering how something can be “noteworthy,” “known to be outstanding,” “prominent,” or “high in station” before it happens.

So, I guess the guy meant “imminent,” as in “likely to occur soon” or “impending.”

(I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean “immanent,” which is “inherent” or “taking place within the mind.”)

There seems to be some confusion regarding whether it’s OK to end a sentence with a preposition.

Rather than getting into that one too deep, let’s talk a bit about an easy solution to a common, and irritating, preposition problem.

Specifically, how about we all agree that we shouldn’t end a question or sentence with, or even use at all, a preposition we don’t need?

Here’s what I’m talking about:

“Where did you buy that radio at?”

“What day were you born on?”

“Where does she get all her money from?”

“The team is without both their scorers.  Where will it get its points from?”

(This mistake is just as bad if we goof with the order while trying to sound erudite:

“On what day were you born?”

“From where does she get all her money?”)

This stuff happens with non-questions too:

“I found out where we take the test at.”

“I know where she got the chair from.”

Let’s just drop the extra prepositions.  OK?

Just to eliminate any confusion, “am” means “in the morning,” and “pm” means “afternoon/evening.”  OK?

With that in mind, one doesn’t need to use “am” and “in the morning” in the same sentence.  And, one doesn’t need to use “pm” and “night” in the same sentence.

Like:  “I’ll pick you up at 6 am tomorrow morning.”

Or:  “The show starts at 8 pm Wednesday night.”

This might help:  There is nothing wrong with saying “o’clock”:  “See you at 6 o’clock tomorrow morning.”  Or just, “I woke up at 4 this morning.”  Or:  “Meet me at the theater at 8 o’clock tonight.”  Give it a try.

What makes people use so many words when few suffice?

Here are a couple favorites:

“As of yet,” and “as yet.”

Like this:  “As of yet, the package hasn’t arrived.”

“The results have not been posted as yet.”

(Even better:  “The results still have not been posted as of yet.”

Here’s a suggestion:  Let “yet” do its simple job.

“It hasn’t arrived yet.”

“They haven’t been posted yet.”

Wasn’t that easy?

There is a newspaper in the Los Angeles area that is well-known for mistakes.  Part of the fun of reading it is looking for typos in the headlines and story titles.  One wonders if anyone reads the thing before it’s printed – you know, like an editor or someone like that.  This week, one story about the night sky was titled “Venus and Jupitar. . .”

In any case, one of the better sports writers in this paper today contributed a story about last night’s basketball game.  The writer referred to a player who had just been traded to our team:

(I paraphrase here)  “Joe Dokes (the new player), Bob Smith’s (the departing player) erstwhile replacement, made his debut . . .”

“Erstwhile.”

I have to seriously wonder exactly what our writer meant by “erstwhile” here.  Did he mean “new” or “recent”?  Perhaps he meant “serious,” confusing “erstwhile” with “earnest.”  What did he mean?  Read it again.  I honestly can not figure out what he was going for.

Of one thing I am sure:  He didn’t mean “erstwhile.”

“Erstwhile” is an adverb or an adjective.  As an adverb, it means “at a former time,” or “formerly,” or “once.”  As an adjective, it’s “former,” or “onetime.”

It does not mean “new.”  It does not mean “earnest” (as in “serious” or “sincere,” which I suspect the writer was thinking of here), or “hard-working” or “well-intentioned.”  I’ve heard people use it incorrectly, intending it, I believe, to mean “esteemed,” “respectable,” “dependable,” “worthy,” and even “excellent.”

It does not mean “ersatz” (which is “artificial,” or “fake,” or “inferior substitute”).

I don’t know if this one is pretension, sarcasm or simple ignorance.  (Perhaps it’s all three.  It’s certainly the last.)

(Oh, and just for fun, here are a couple of synonyms for “erstwhile”:  “quondam” and “whilom.”  I’ve never heard either of them used incorrectly.)

OK.  Here’s one.  I was listening to a talk radio show the other day.  The subject was some person who had become an internet sensation based on her restaurant reviews.  The person the host was interviewing mentioned that, in one of this person’s reviews, the reviewer had spent most of her time on the décor of the restaurant — basically ignoring the quality of the food.

The host suggested, “Maybe that means she didn’t like the food all that well.”

When I heard this, I realized that I’ve heard well used like that a lot.

This usage is clearly incorrect.  And again, it seems like the use of a few extra words got the speaker all confused.  I suspect he would never say, “She didn’t like the food well.”  (Although, one never knows.)

I mean, if you like something well, doesn’t that mean you’re darn good at likin’ stuff?

How about, “Maybe that means she didn’t like the food all that much,” or “very much.”

I have to ask myself again, is this just some guy trying to sound smart?  God forbid one should use “much” when one can say “well.”

And, at least he didn’t say, “She didn’t like it all that good.”

(Of course, none of what I write here addresses the issue of why it’s colloquially OK to say, “I liked the play well enough.”)

Forewarn

In this season of elections and so many basketball games, I have been hearing things like, “He won a hard-fought victory in Michigan today,” and “The victory was a grueling win over their long-time opponents.”

Using “win” and “victory” in the same sentence is overdoing it.  They mean the same thing, don’t they?

It’s pretty clear (I hope) that almost no one would say, “He won a victory in Michigan today.”  Why then does simply inserting an adjective (like “hard-fought”) make it OK?  What the heck is wrong with “He won the hard-fought Michigan primary today”?  Or, “They won a close game today”?

There are so many non-pleonastic options.

“The Michigan returns revealed a close win for (the candidate).”  (Not, “The win was a close victory. . . .”

Or:

“The pitcher’s performance led to a decisive victory.”  (Not, “They won a close victory because Smith pitched so well.”)  Or, “The team got a tough win today,” or “they earned a tough victory.”

I have no idea where this fits in.

I have no idea what to do with this.

This isn’t grammar.  I’m not sure it’s usage.  Maybe it’s just a note about how people really don’t think clearly about what they say.

Yesterday, I was listening to a talk show on one of the local NPR stations.  The topic was the availability of vegan menu choices in Las Vegas.  It was actually kind of interesting.

The host was interviewing a chef, taking calls from listeners, and reading questions and comments from a website related to the show.

Here’s where it gets good.

The host read a question from the website that started out like this:

“I’m not a full-time vegan, but I lean in that direction.”

(OK.  I’m not going to address one obvious question:  “Does this guy lean in the direction of not being a full-time vegan?”)

But, I can’t help:

If you’re not a full-time vegan, are you a part-time vegan?  (I suspect that, if one is not a full-time vegan, one is simply not a vegan.  No?)

Maybe you’re a vegetarian.  Or, maybe you eat fish or eggs or meat, or have a glass of milk, once in a while.

I mean, isn’t everyone a vegan at least some of the time?  (If you have an apple for lunch, do you say you’ve had a vegan meal?  Does that make you a part-time vegan?  Maybe just until you order that down jacket online, or break down and have popcorn with butter at the movies?)  In other words, when one says, “I’m not a full-time vegan,” does that distinguish him from 99% of the people listening to the show?  How about, “I’m not a vegan, but I’d like to be.”  Or, “I’m trying really hard to get to a place where I don’t consume or use animal products.”

I’m getting tired.

Was he saying, “I’m not a full-time vegan, but I’m a vegan most of the time?”  (Is it even possible to be a vegan most of the time?)  One can just imagine this guy telling his friends, “I’m a vegan most of the time.”  (“But, sometimes, I just can’t avoid a juicy steak, or a leather belt.”)  When he goes out to eat with friends, does he make a point of avoiding the fried chicken, have a salad, and then grab a Whopper on the way home?  (Or, does he wait until the next day to have his scrambled eggs just to make his “part-time vegan” status official?)  This dude must be a real piece of work.

I give up.

While I applaud this person wanting to become a vegan, I wonder about the way he thinks.

I have long wondered why so many smart people use “I” incorrectly as the object when the sentence involves something happening to two people, and one is the speaker.

Like:  “Karen told Tim and I about the concert.”

This is interesting stuff indeed.

Look:

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say, “Karen told I and Tom about the concert.”  So, we can assume that most people understand that, when referring to oneself and another person, or persons, as objects, courtesy dictates that one should put oneself second, if there are two objects, and last, if more than two.  (Though, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear, “Karen told Tom, I and Sam about the concert.”  So, who knows, eh?)  Yet, this seems like a more difficult concept than the nominative/objective pronoun issue.

(I don’t know what to make of those folks who totally foul it up:  “Karen told he and I about the concert.”)

And, no one ever says, “Karen told I about the concert.”  So, when the speaker is the only object, everyone seems to understand the objective form must be used:  “Karen told me about the concert.”

So, why do so many smart people lose their minds when the object is two or more people?

Frankly, I think it may be that people just outsmart themselves by trying to sound smart and end up sounding dumb.

I just realized something.

On the radio tonight, I heard someone pronounce “prepare” as “per-pair’.”

So, of course, off to the internet I went.

The first thing I did was google “perpare.”

Millions of hits.  Millions.  There are, apparently, millions of people out there who think the word is not only pronounced like that – but spelled like that.

So, what we have here is a really good reason to be concerned about proper pronunciation – if one pronounces a word incorrectly, one is more likely to spell it incorrectly.

(I was relieved to find that neither of my online dictionaries offers “per-pair’ “ as an alternative pronunciation.  Whew!)

Now, all I have to do is figure out what to do about so many people pronouncing “create” as “ker-ate’. “  (See, below, Friday, February 17, 2012; “Petty Pet Peeve.”)

OK, discretion prevents me from identifying the specific school.

However, I have an urgent need to mention this one.  I mean, when you see L.A.–area public institution administrators abusing English like this, you just have to bring it to the attention of people who give a darn about language usage.

(The following quotation is culled directly from a transcript on a sports behemoth website.  It is taken from a statement made February 29, 2012, in a conference call.  The speaker is an official who is [at press time, at least, still] near the top of a college sports program that was once well regarded.)

“Federal privacy laws prevent any (school) official from addressing any specific charges concerning former or current student athletes and therefore I’m unable to provide specific context around a number of the alleged incidences in the article.”

(Emphases supplied.)

This is amazing — I mean, two of my favorites in the same sentence.  (See, below, posts from Friday, February 24, 2012; “ ‘Incidences’ is Epidemic,” and Monday, February 27, 2012; “I’ve About Had It.”)  The really funny thing is that the guy actually used “concerning” (why not “around”?) in the sentence too.  (I guess he was concerned regarding using the wrong word twice in one sentence.)

What is really sad is that this school — at least in the very recent past — had one of the best English departments in the country.

I’m starting to doubt myself.

On February 20, 2012, I posted some impressions regarding what I believed was the improper use of the plural “Alumni” on license plate frames.  (“Lame Frame.”)

Today, I was shocked to see the same use on another frame:

ALUMNI

HARVARD

Hmmmmm.

I have struggled with this one for about a decade.

I wonder when it started – the use of “around” to mean “concerning” (or simply, “about”).  Thus – “During the meeting this morning, we had a discussion around the proposed merger,” or, “I really did not understand the candidate’s comments around contraception.”

Ack.

I am grateful that this usage has not seeped into my two online, frequently unreliable, dictionary sources.  In fact, I cannot find an entry in either of them that suggests that it is proper to use “around” to mean “about,” as in “concerning” or “regarding.”

Yet, I hear this usage frequently in the media and in corporate contexts.

“About” can clearly properly mean “concerning” or “regarding.”  “I am reading a book about modern warfare,” or, “I’m so glad we could express our feelings about what is going on in class.”

Several usage websites refer to this improper usage as “irritating jargon.”  I’m with them.

Perhaps “about” sounds too colloquial.  It’s not.

If one needs to sound educated or professional or cool, and just can’t say “about,” one should try “concerning.”

A reporter on NPR yesterday said “plethora.”  He pronounced it “pleth-OR’-uh.”

Ouch.

I was pleased to find that my two online dictionary sources pronounce it “pleth’-er-uh.”  (Middle syllable rhymes with “her” — with the emphasis on the first.)  “Plethora” is “an overabundance or excess of something.”  (“Plethora” is followed by the word “of.”)

So, let’s go with that pronunciation.  Please.

I was, however, troubled by the sources’ inclusion of the words “plethoric,” the adjective form, and “plethorically,” the adverb.  I was not troubled by the pronunciation of these two, which both pronounce the second syllable as “or,” and place the emphasis on that second syllable.  I guess that makes sense.

What concerns me, however, is that anyone would ever attempt to use either of these two forms.

What?  “Mispronunciations of the word ‘plethora’ are ‘plethoric’.”?  (I shudder here:  “Mispronunciation of the word ‘plethora’ is ‘plethoric’.”  Boggles the mind.)

I’ll go with “Many people mispronounce ‘plethora’.”

In how many “man on the street” interviews must we hear something like:

“We’ve had a lot of incidences of violence in our neighborhood lately.”

No. No. No.

I think you mean “incidents.”  Or, maybe you mean “instances.”  Or, “occurrences.”  (You’d be better off saying, “A lot of crime has occurred around here lately.”)

The word “incidence” is seldom used (properly).  For the sake of simplicity, it refers to “the degree or extent of the occurrence of some phenomenon.”  Like:  “The incidence of disease in that area is increasing.”  Or, it may refer to “the angle at which a beam or ray strikes a surface.”

“Incidence” never means “incident.”  Coincidently, “incidences” is never the plural of “incident.”