Tuesday, 4 April 2006 12:35 pm
Ironically, my blood is type O
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineThere have been a few too many linguistic errors in my life lately for me not to comment.
1. The Washington Post got a letter last week saying that it had made the same mistake twice in one week: using "wherefore" to mean "whither." I had seen one of those times and thought they were just making a lame joke. I've known the true meaning at least since junior high. If the Post is for an eighth-grade reading level, they need journalists who are not under that level. (Would it be easier to remember if the word didn't have a misleading E at the end?)
2. A Comcast article made arguably a more grievous error. They spoke of a "majority" on a survey that turned out to be 32%. Butchering 400-year-old English is one thing, but if you don't know the significance of "plurality," you shouldn't report on it.
3. Back to the Post. Today's Style section featured a "DOONESBURYA FLASHBACK." Doonesburya? Never heard of it. I can expect this sort of thing from the Express, but not a paper that costs readers money. You'd think they'd have the title set by default or at least added it to the spellchecker by now. Maybe it's presently set up to ignore acronyms, and thus it ignores anything in all caps.
4. In a much less journalistic sphere, I'm still struggling with audioconference transcripts. By now, I've determined that there is a human behind them, as unbelievable as some of the consistent errors are (e.g., "reported in" becomes "report indeed"; "projects that" becomes "project that is"; "thinking about" becomes "think being"). The last barbarism to catch my eye: "much adieu about nothing."
Much adieu to you, too, buddy.
1. The Washington Post got a letter last week saying that it had made the same mistake twice in one week: using "wherefore" to mean "whither." I had seen one of those times and thought they were just making a lame joke. I've known the true meaning at least since junior high. If the Post is for an eighth-grade reading level, they need journalists who are not under that level. (Would it be easier to remember if the word didn't have a misleading E at the end?)
2. A Comcast article made arguably a more grievous error. They spoke of a "majority" on a survey that turned out to be 32%. Butchering 400-year-old English is one thing, but if you don't know the significance of "plurality," you shouldn't report on it.
3. Back to the Post. Today's Style section featured a "DOONESBURYA FLASHBACK." Doonesburya? Never heard of it. I can expect this sort of thing from the Express, but not a paper that costs readers money. You'd think they'd have the title set by default or at least added it to the spellchecker by now. Maybe it's presently set up to ignore acronyms, and thus it ignores anything in all caps.
4. In a much less journalistic sphere, I'm still struggling with audioconference transcripts. By now, I've determined that there is a human behind them, as unbelievable as some of the consistent errors are (e.g., "reported in" becomes "report indeed"; "projects that" becomes "project that is"; "thinking about" becomes "think being"). The last barbarism to catch my eye: "much adieu about nothing."
Much adieu to you, too, buddy.
