<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Libertine &#187; Language</title>
	<atom:link href="http://libertine.efx3.com/category/language/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://libertine.efx3.com</link>
	<description>Vidi, vici, veni -- I saw, I conquered, I came</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:04:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>2010 List of Banned Words</title>
		<link>http://libertine.efx3.com/2010/01/01/2010-list-of-banned-words/</link>
		<comments>http://libertine.efx3.com/2010/01/01/2010-list-of-banned-words/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>libertine</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Humor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trivia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertine.efx3.com/?p=411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lake Superior State University has released its annual list of &#8220;banished words&#8221;; words they consider trite, overused, annoying, or a combination of all three. Following below is the list, with my comments in italics: SHOVEL-READY &#8220;Apparently, the generally accepted definition of this phrase is to imply that a project has been completely designed and all [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lake Superior State University has released its annual list of &#8220;banished words&#8221;; words they consider trite, overused, annoying, or a combination of all three.  Following below is the list, with my comments in italics:</p>
<p>SHOVEL-READY</p>
<p>&#8220;Apparently, the generally accepted definition of this phrase is to imply that a project has been completely designed and all that is left to do is to implement it&#8230;however, when something dies, it, too, is shovel-ready for burial and so I get confused about the meaning. I would suggest that we just say the project is ready to implement.” – Jerry Redington, Keosauqua, Iowa.</p>
<p>&#8220;Stick a shovel in it. It&#8217;s done.&#8221; – Joe Grimm, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d like to take a shovel upside the head of the person who coined this obnoxious phrase.</p>
<p>TRANSPARENT/TRANSPARENCY</p>
<p>&#8220;In the lexicon of the political arena, this word is supposed to mean obvious or easily understood. In reality, political transparency is more invisible than obvious!&#8221; &#8212; Deb Larson, Bellaire, Mich.</p>
<p>Someone throw a blanket over &#8220;transparent&#8221;.</p>
<p>CZAR</p>
<p>Long used by the media as a metaphor for positions of high authority, including “baseball czar” Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, appointed by team owners as commissioner-for-life in 1919. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson had an “industry czar” during World War I. Lesser-known “czar” roles in government during the last 100 years include: censorship, housing and oil czars in 1941; rubber czar in 1942; patronage czar (1945); clean-up (1952); missile (1954); inflation (1971); e-commerce (1998); bioethics, faith-based and reading czars (2001); bird flu (2004); democracy (2005); abstinence and birth control czars (2006); and weatherization czar (2008).</p>
<p>I thought the Russians took care of &#8220;czars&#8221; in 1917.</p>
<p>TWEET</p>
<p>And all of its variations…tweetaholic, retweet, twitterhea, twitterature, twittersphere….</p>
<p>Jay Brazier of Williamston, Mich. says she supposes that tweeters might be &#8220;twits.&#8221;</p>
<p>Personally, I&#8217;d go for &#8220;twats&#8221;, myself.</p>
<p>APP</p>
<p>&#8220;Must we b sbjct to yt another abrv? Why does the English language have to fit on a two-inch screen? I hate the sound of it. I think I&#8217;ll listen to a symph on the rad.&#8221; &#8212; Edward R. Bolt, Grand Rapids, Mich.</p>
<p>Put &#8220;cr&#8221; in front of &#8220;app&#8221; and you get crapp!</p>
<p>SEXTING</p>
<p>Sending sexually explicit pictures and text messages through the cell phone.</p>
<p>&#8220;Any dangerous new trend that also happens to have a clever mash-up of words, involves teens, and gets television talk show hosts interested must be banished.&#8221; – Ishmael Daro, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada.</p>
<p>A &#8220;word&#8221; spoken by those who aren&#8217;t getting the real thing.</p>
<p>FRIEND AS A VERB</p>
<p>Came into popularity through social networking websites. You add someone to your network by &#8220;friending&#8221; them, or remove them by &#8220;unfriending&#8221; them.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8216;Befriend&#8217; is much more pleasant to the human ear and a perfectly useful word in the dictionary.&#8221; – Kevin K., Morris, Okla.</p>
<p>I pretty much hate any noun that is made into a verb and vice versa. </p>
<p>TEACHABLE MOMENT</p>
<p>What might otherwise be known as &#8216;a lesson.&#8217;</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s a condescending substitute for &#8216;opportunity to make a point,&#8217;&#8221; says Eric Rosenquist of College Station, Tex.</p>
<p>So, portions of time are now capable of being taught, hmm?</p>
<p>IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES….</p>
<p>&#8220;Overused and redundant. Aren&#8217;t ALL times &#8216;these economic times&#8217;?&#8221; &#8212; Barb Stutesman, Three Rivers, Mich.</p>
<p>I think this stuffy phrase has outlived its fifteen minutes of overuse.</p>
<p>STIMULUS</p>
<p>&#8220;Everything in the news is about the stimulus packages&#8230;it is no longer a grant, it&#8217;s stimulus money, stimulus checks, etc. I think it is just being over-used.&#8221; Teri Heikkila, Rudyard, Mich.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve got your &#8220;stimulus package&#8221; right here! </p>
<p>TOXIC ASSETS</p>
<p>&#8220;Whatever happened to simply &#8216;bad stocks,&#8217; &#8216;debts,&#8217; or &#8216;loans&#8217;?&#8221; &#8212; Monty Heidenreich, Homewood, Ill.</p>
<p>This list wouldn&#8217;t be complete without an oxymoron.</p>
<p>TOO BIG TO FAIL</p>
<p>&#8220;Just for the record, nothing&#8217;s too big to fail unless the government lets it.&#8221; Claire Shefchik, Brooklyn, NY.</p>
<p>Tell this to the owners of the Titanic!.</p>
<p>BROMANCE</p>
<p>&#8220;I am sick of combined words the media creates to make them sound catchier. Frenemies? Bromances? Blogorrhea? I&#8217;m going to scream!&#8221; – Kaylynn, Alberta, Canada.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been lucky to have never heard this one before.</p>
<p>CHILLAXIN&#8217;</p>
<p>&#8220;Heard everywhere from MTV to ESPN to CNN. A bothersome term that seeks to combine chillin&#8217; with relaxin&#8217; makes me want to be &#8216;axin&#8217; this word.&#8221; – Tammy, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.</p>
<p>What?  Does this mean to put an axe into the refrigerator?</p>
<p>OBAMA-prefix or roots?</p>
<p>The LSSU Word Banishment Committee held out hope that folks would want to Obama-ban Obama-structions, but were surprised that no one Obama-nominated any, such as these compiled by the Oxford Dictionary in 2009: Obamanomics, Obamanation, Obamafication, Obamacare, Obamalicious, Obamaland….We say Obamanough already.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s bomb all the Obama coinages.</p>
<p>My personal contribution to this year&#8217;s list would be:</p>
<p>FAIL used as a noun.</p>
<p>For example, a football team loses big in a game and it&#8217;s dubbed &#8220;an epic fail&#8221;.  This one made me grind my teeth the first time I heard it.  It may be an &#8220;epic failure&#8221;, but it&#8217;s NOT an &#8220;epic fail&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertine.efx3.com/2010/01/01/2010-list-of-banned-words/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I Hate &#8220;Alot&#8221; A Lot</title>
		<link>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/10/07/328/</link>
		<comments>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/10/07/328/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:10:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>libertine</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertine.efx3.com/?p=328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I haven&#8217;t done a language rant in awhile, so here goes. The offense of the day is: &#8220;Alot&#8221; This spelling abomination is used by people to mean &#8220;a lot&#8221;. It&#8217;s a mistake I didn&#8217;t see years ago, even by people with generally atrocious spelling and grammar. It apparently is a fairly &#8220;new&#8221; mistake, that I&#8217;m [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t done a language rant in awhile, so here goes.</p>
<p>The offense of the day is:</p>
<p><strong>&#8220;Alot&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>This spelling abomination is used by people to mean &#8220;a lot&#8221;.  It&#8217;s a mistake I didn&#8217;t see years ago, even by people with generally atrocious spelling and grammar.  It apparently is a fairly &#8220;new&#8221; mistake, that I&#8217;m seeing more and more.  And what makes &#8220;alot&#8221; different from other language errors, is that I&#8217;m seeing it used more often by people who generally don&#8217;t make frequent spelling and grammar mistakes.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve often wondered why people in increasing numbers have started to run the two words &#8220;a lot&#8221; together.  First, let&#8217;s look at the definition of the phrase &#8220;a lot&#8221;.</p>
<p style="text-align: center"><strong>A lot</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>Very many, a large number; also, very much. For example, A lot of people think the economy is declining, or Sad movies always made her cry a lot. It is sometimes put as a whole lot for greater emphasis, as in I learned a whole lot in his class. It may also emphasize a comparative indication of amount, as in We need a whole lot more pizza to feed everyone, or Mary had a lot less nerve than I expected. [Colloquial; early 1800s]</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.<br />
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin.</em></p>
<p>Is it that they don&#8217;t understand what a word &#8220;lot&#8221; means?  Here&#8217;s a couple of definitions of the word &#8220;lot&#8221; that relate to the phrase &#8220;a lot&#8221;:</p>
<p style="text-align: center"><strong>Lot</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>a piece of land having the use specified by the attributive noun or adjective: a parking lot; a used-car lot.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>a distinct portion or parcel of anything, as of merchandise: The furniture was to be auctioned off in 20 lots.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>a number of things or persons collectively: There&#8217;s one more, and that&#8217;s the lot.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>Often, lots. a great many or a great deal: a lot of books; lots of money.<br />
</em></p>
<p>I&#8217;m guessing that they&#8217;re confusing &#8220;a lot&#8221; with the bona fide word, &#8220;allot&#8221;, which is a verb that has an entirely different meaning from &#8220;a lot&#8221;:</p>
<p style="text-align: center"><strong>Allot</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center"><em>to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.</em></p>
<p>Personally, I think the rise of &#8220;alot&#8221; has quite a bit to do with the fact that increasingly fewer people read regularly, so they are spelling &#8220;by ear&#8221;, rather than imitating what they&#8217;ve seen in print.</p>
<p>So ends the spelling lesson of the day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/10/07/328/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Advertising Rant</title>
		<link>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/07/02/advertising-rant/</link>
		<comments>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/07/02/advertising-rant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>libertine</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Humor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertine.efx3.com/?p=201</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve not picked on the advertising industry in awhile, so here goes. I&#8217;ve been hearing different ads lately that talk about &#8220;that guy&#8221;.   &#8220;That guy&#8221; is usually a bumbling, figure of universal scorn; someone who isn&#8217;t quite all man, somehow.  Naturally, use of the product being advertised will save the men from the shame of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve not picked on the advertising industry in awhile, so here goes.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been hearing different ads lately that talk about &#8220;that guy&#8221;.   &#8220;That guy&#8221; is usually a bumbling, figure of universal scorn; someone who isn&#8217;t quite all man, somehow.  Naturally, use of the product being advertised will save the men from the shame of being &#8220;that guy&#8221;.</p>
<p>For instance, there&#8217;s a radio spot for STP oil treatment with Richard Petty telling us not to be &#8220;that guy&#8221;.  In this instance, &#8220;that guy&#8221; doesn&#8217;t know a thing about cars, barely knows how to raise the hood of the car, calls parts of the engine &#8220;doohickeys&#8221; and &#8220;thingamajigs&#8221;, and so on.  You get the picture.</p>
<p>The next buzz word I&#8217;m hearing, though not limited exclusively to the realm of actual commercials is &#8220;rebrand&#8221;.   From what I can gather from context, &#8220;rebrand&#8221; means to change one&#8217;s image, usually used in the context of changing a corporate image.</p>
<p>The mental images I take away from this, however, are skittish already-branded cows running awy from psychotic cowboys holding red-hot branding irons who want to brand them again.</p>
<p>Another trend I&#8217;ve noticed is a fascination with Tuscany region of Italy.  Restaurants all over have popped up with Tuscan style dishes of various kinds, I see travel agency ads promoting trips there, I see ads promoting Tuscan style home decorating, and so on.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s the sudden appeal of Tuscany, I wonder?   Twenty years ago, I never saw references to this part of Italy.   I imagine it&#8217;s a temporary thing until the next foreign flavor of the month takes its place, as Tuscany has apparently supplanted the chipotle mania of a few years ago.</p>
<p>/rant over</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/07/02/advertising-rant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Word Play</title>
		<link>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/05/03/word-play/</link>
		<comments>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/05/03/word-play/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 16:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>libertine</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trivia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertine.efx3.com/?p=102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This image represents one word.  Post your guess in the comment box below.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-101" src="http://libertine.efx3.com/files/2009/05/two_doctors.jpg" alt="two_doctors" width="200" height="225" /></p>
<p>This image represents one word.  Post your guess in the comment box below.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/05/03/word-play/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Clunky Neologism</title>
		<link>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/04/29/a-clunky-neologism/</link>
		<comments>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/04/29/a-clunky-neologism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:57:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>libertine</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neologisms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertine.efx3.com/?p=95</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve recently come up on an expression that instantly earned its way into my list of language peeves: Re-home This expression, used most often in reference to pets, means to find it a new home when its current owners can or will no longer care for it. Though not yet listed as a bona-fide word [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve recently come up on an expression that instantly earned its way into my list of language peeves:</p>
<p style="text-align: center"><strong><em>Re-home</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: left">This expression, used most often in reference to pets, means to find it a new home when its current owners can or will no longer care for it.</p>
<p>Though not yet listed as a bona-fide word (I checked), it follows a trend now common in our era of textspeak and passion of ever-increasing brevity.  Like other words and expressions of this ilk, it accomplished brevity at the sacrifice of language fluidity.  In other words, it&#8217;s jarring and awkward.</p>
<p>&#8220;Re-home&#8221; follows a tradition of coining neologisms using the prefix &#8220;re&#8221;.  It follows such clunkers as &#8220;re-login&#8221; (used by Earthlink) and the older &#8220;relocate&#8221;, used the place of the simpler, more direct, &#8220;move&#8221;.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s also pretentious, as it makes a verb out of a noun, in the same annoying spirit as many people use the word &#8220;impact&#8221; these days.</p>
<p>For those who can&#8217;t bear to simply say that they are looking for a new home for a pet because it&#8217;s not fast enough for them, there is a solution that uses a bona-fide verb: re-adopt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertine.efx3.com/2009/04/29/a-clunky-neologism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
