Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

3 Comment(s)

Here we go with another look at language, words and all things related folks! So sit back this fine July morning and ponder these:

Errors etc.

It has not exactly been a good period 'round here when it comes to language errors that never should have made it to print. What can you say when a reader notes that a certain supplement produced here suggested the impossible when it described a photo that clearly shows Moncton in it as having been taken "looking east" from the Fox Creek Golf course? It's not in the cards, folks; you have to look directly opposite -- west -- to see Moncton from there, even if you're in the air!

The same reader, along with several others (and no wonder, since this one was in large headline type) noted the recent cover of Here magazine that said Moncton's new Mayor is "chopping at the bit" to get down to work. The reader asked: "Should he allow an axe anywhere near his mouth?" This error is even more embarrassing, if that's possible, because clearly both the reporter and at least one editor knew better: the story used a better spelling, as did the magazine's index inside the cover. This one does, however, raise another question.

Chomp or champ?

Is the phrase "chomping at the bit" or "champing at the bit"? Language experts and purists will tell you the correct phrase is "champing at the bit." It is certainly the original phrase. If you look it up you will find that it refers to a horse chewing on the "bit" that goes in his mouth and "champ" means to "munch or chew noisily. The phrase "champ at the bit" is a reference to this horse habit and means to be "restless, impatient." Yet many, perhaps most, today write "chomping at the bit" . . . and to say that is clearly the same thing. Can we logically say "chomping" is wrong? I don't think so. The definition in my Oxford for "chomp," in its entirety, is "v. = champ". Thus, there is no good reason to reject "chomp" when bits are involved.

Seen a scene?

I hate to say it, but something as basic as "seen" versus "scene" not long ago tripped up a journalist whose work appeared in this newspaper. The person wrote of somebody "surveying the seen". Is there any excuse for this? It is bad enough the writer got it wrong, but how did it get past the editor who put it on the page and the editor proofreading? I can't imagine any answer that is anywhere close to being an acceptable excuse!

Not alone

However small the consolation, this newspaper is not alone in having often embarrassing language errors. Neither in the newspaper world (more than one reader has told me how much poor spelling has crept into the Globe and Mail lately) or the wider world. This is surely at least partly a reflection of just how poorly schools have done teaching literacy skills in the past 40 years. But never mind. Here's another example. It comes from a June 6 Associated Press story out of Westlake, Ohio, a community near Cleveland. The story tells of the embarrassment of Westlake High School officials, including the principal, who misspelled "education" on the diplomas it gave out to graduates this spring! All 330 graduates were given diplomas that referred to their fine Westlake High "educaition." Impressive, eh?

Closer to home

Closer to home, a New Brunswick community a while ago sent out a news release to the media advising that there would be a "Commorative Sod Turning" at a certain time and place. I'll not embarrass the culprits, but by gosh I would bet a goodly sum that what they actually held was a "commemorative" ceremony. This error has all the hallmarks of somebody who just can't spell and doesn't know it. . . or does know and doesn't care enough to bother looking words up! But when working for a place that sends out public notices and news releases, sooner or later this failure is bound to embarrass the employer big time. Smart employees would try to avoid doing that!

Word fun

Not everything is errors today, nor does writing and using words have to be dull, boring and full of worries about nasty errors. Avoiding the kind of things cited above isn't all the hard; it primarily takes developing good work habits, none of which are particularly time consuming. Meanwhile, there is nothing quite as fun, or satisfying, as a headline that captures the essence of a story so well the story hardly even needs to be read, while at the same time giving the reader a good laugh. It isn't nearly as easy as it might sound! These are deliberate headlines, not bloopers. One of my all time favourites remains a Toronto Sun one at the time prostitute and author Xaviera Hollander was fighting a deportation order in Toronto's courts. It read: "Happy Hooker loses appeal".

The more recent one prompting this item, however, was perpetrated by an editor at the dailytech.com website. The story was about how the malfunctioning toilet on the International Space Station had been fixed. The headline used was classic: "ISS Toilet Fixed; Astronauts Relieved."

The last word

This isn't strictly a language quote, but it is about errors. . . and besides, I like it. Here is Robert Oppenheimer talking about Albert Einstein:

"Any man whose errors take 10 years to correct is quite a man."

* Lex Talk! is researched and written by Times & Transcript editorial page editor Norbert Cunningham. It appears in this space every Monday.