Valley Girl University

*gagamaggot*

Reading almost anything written in the last 30 years is a crap shoot. As traditional publishers have come to be run more and more by bean counters and literate editors have been more and more pushed aside in favor of hucksters who know how to weigh manuscripts or some other such stupid criteria, the murder of the English language there has become more and more par for the course. Still, there seem to be a (very) few literate adults left in trad pub houses.

“Indie” publishing is all over the place, but yes, execrable treatment of English is a wee tad more common in “Indie” books. It’s as though in all forms of publishing practiced nowadays, books are becoming dominated by products from writers (and proofreaders and editors) who all received degrees in Assassinating English from Valley Girl U.

Example abound, but the proximal cause of this wee rant is,

“If X didn’t hack into Y’s accounts and trace the money to Z, we might never have put it together.”

No, moronic graduate of Valley Girl U. No. “”If X hadn’t hacked. . . ”

I really, really, really wanted to dope slap the writer (and any proofreader and editor) for that, especially since it was the capstone of many usage, grammar and utterly stupid POV errors.

People who want to get paid to write (or proofread or edit) text should do their due diligence. They ought to at least work to become minimally literate. The example above disqualifies the writer (and any proofreader and editor involved in the book) from inclusion in the class, “literate.”


Continue reading “Valley Girl University”

I Blame “Mass Man”

OK, “backyard” I can almost buy as a noun, since it’s been (fairly infrequently) used that way, and not just as an adjective, since the 17th Century. It’s still infelicitous. (And note the differences in pronunciation between “back yard” [separate adj+noun] and “backyard”[adj]) But using the adjective “backseat” as a noun in place of “back seat” is just laziness, committed by writers whose verbal vocabulary exceeds their reading/writing vocabulary (and who have a tin ear for nuances of pronunciation, as well). How many morons write “frontseat” to be used as a noun? Yeh, maybe a few–though in today’s increasingly illiterate society, increasing in number–morons. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of subliterate, lazy writers misusing adjectives as nouns. . . and editors and “proofreaders” who are just as subliterate and lazy. All should be flogged with dangling participles.

And all of the above who get paid for their abuse of English should be flogged–for real–through the streets before being tarred and feathered.

That is all. For now. . .

Something the Internet Is Good For

[Just a lil stream of consciousness rant. . . ]

One thing the Internet is really good for: revealing the extent of subliteracy1 in society. Small example: folks who misuse as nouns compound words that are adjectives, instead of using the separate adjective/noun phrase that applies, or who misuse adverbs that have been formed as compound words instead of using the adverb/verb phrase that is appropriate. FarceBook yields a good example. It offers “Log in” to, urm, log in but offers the noun, “logout,” for the action of logging out, instead of “log out,” as it ought. Other examples are almost endless, it seems.

“War monger” when the word is “warmonger.”

“Backseat” (adjective) when referring to a “back seat.”

“Nevermind” (*gagamaggot*–an almost sure sign of a 20-something nearly illiterate grup; still useful when writing archaic dialog, though meaning not at all what the aforementioned grups might intend) instead of “never mind.”

“Alot” (which is a “word” only in the nearly non-existant minds of self-made morons) instead of “a lot.”

Misuse of “altogether” (a perfectly useful word meaning “entirely” in place of “all together” (something like “as a group”).

Misuse of “everyday” (adjective: commonplace, quotidian) for “every day” (a regular, daily occurrence).

And, of course, the plethora of examples of verb phrases versus compound nouns that poorly-read people get wrong with fair consistency, because they have never (or have not often enough) read examples used correctly.

When I read things like this in someone’s text, I can be fairly certain that they are lazy thinkers who have not bothered to do their basic homework (that is, bother to become literate) before committing their slop to text.

Of course, these little indicators are just part of the package, and more subliteracy indicators await the conscious reader. Still, these canaries can give a quick tip to careful readers that the oxygen’s being replaced with toxic fumes in whatever text they contain.

Thank you, Internet, for showing the true value of a hyper-democratic society: a rush to the bottom of an ever lower common denominator.


[micro-mini addendum]

A slightly different problem, of course, is dumbass illiterates misusing words they think they know the meanings of, and we’ve probably all seen a bellyfull of this. From the mother country of the English language, published recently in a “professionally edited,” internationally read newsrag, this:

“Each date was captured on camera, with the ‘big reveal’ illiciting [sic] wildly different reactions from the women. While some find it funny, at least two of the women struggle to hide their disappointment at Joe’s conceit [sic].”

THAT got published?!? *gagamaggot* No wonder illiteracy in English is rampant. . . and not just in the US.

1subliteracy: a neologism I have not seen elsewhere, though someone else must certainly use it, intended to convey just what it appears to convey: a condition of poor literacy that does not approach a standard that could be reasonably called “literacy” by any honest person. Subliterates can generally puzzle out the words formed by letters, though they often have only vague ideas–if any at all–what the words they have puzzled out actually mean. And in those cases where subliterates do know words’ meanings, their reading vocabulary is vastly overshadowed by their oral vocabulary, rendering their own attempts to reproduce what they have heard (quite often from those who, like them, are not at all well-read) incorrect.

Gross examples of this are simple misused words such as using “then” for “than” (or vice versa) or any of the plethora of sadly laughable misuses regularly promulgated in social media, blogs, discussion lists and even Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind “professionally” written and edited subliterate crap.

But a sure sign of subliteracy–chiefly of being exceedingly poorly read–is this problem of either misuse of compound words or the failure to use a common compound word where it is appropriate. This is a common failing of poorly-read writers.

Remember: Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline

Cluebat: Things are no better in 2015 than they were in 2005 when that WaPo article was written about the 2003 NAAL. In fact, the 2003 NAAL data (not the Ed Department spin on the data) showed the situation to be worse than the article states, because the “complex text” that “recent college graduates” couldn’t read and comprehend included bus schedules, want ads and med instructions as found on prescription med bottles.

Do note: I do not consider myself as well read as either of my grandfathers, for example. Just saying.

Spreading subliterate crap. . .

. . . one article at a time.

So some subliterate (backed up by subliterate editor[s?]) has written a “helpful tip” article about cleaning one’s oven in an amazing way that anyone who’s not dumber than a bag of hammers already knows. naturally, it’s peppered with crap like this:

“Let sit over night [sic]. The baking soda will need at least 12 hours to work it`s [sic] magic.”

No, moron. “Overnight”–one word–and “its” is the possessive of “it”.

If the “writer” were literate or at least had a literate editorial staff to back her, this crap wouldn’t be in the article, useless as it is to anyone who is actually an adult.

*sigh* So maybe there’s an adult American somewhere who is so clueless that they’ve never been exposed to baking soda and vinegar for cleaning. Wastes of oxygen.

I’m Not Easily Offended, but. . .

. . . no! Really! *heh*

Anywho. . .

A writing team–husband and wife–whose books I really enjoy nevertheless have some really annoying habits. “Though all at [place name] are not actively hostile, [blah,blah]” is one. No, “though NOT ALL at [place name] are. . .” The first formulation simply does not work. The first formulation simply and plainly (and nonsensically) means NO ONE AT [place name] is hostile, when the context is one of describing a hostile environment!

That’s just dumb, and some proofreader or editor should have caught that.

Then there are the many annoying misuses of “I”. For example, “some [x]s are not like you and I.” Parse that without the “you.” “Some [x]s are not like I.” Stupid, right? These are not stupid people writing these things, but they are just not literate enough to notice some of the stupid things they write. Consistently. They appear to genuinely think these constructions make sense.

Sadly, they are also very, very, very good storytellers, so these sorts of things are being almost subliminally taught to their hordes of fans.

That’s just sad.

Edumacation-ish, ah, Whatever. . .

Ran across this from someone “edumacated” at a state university who was then in an admin position there for some time:

“It was predicted that we would see outbreaks of the diseases that we had nearly irradiated [sic] come back with a vengeance with all the illegals coming across our Southern boarder.! [sic]”

“Irradiated”?!?

Oh, and the cute lil period-exclamation point punctuation.

*gagamaggot*

(No links or names. I just can’t do that to this person. . . )

Just another gripe about dumbed-down society

One of the worst failings of many contemporary performers attempting to sing classic songs (or really any songs at all, it seems at times) is that all too many can’t really hear music, let alone perform music. As Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau often said when asked about his facility singing both lieder and opera (thought by many to be vastly different musical genres), “Man muss sich anhören was die Musik sagt.” Those who can’t really hear what the music is saying turn in performances that are either bland and tasteless or inappropriate to the marriage of text and tune. IOW, MOST typical contemporary performing/recording “artists”–except when they “sing” pieces that match their musically-stunted tastes and abilities. But that’s pretty much OK with an audience that has even less ability to discern music.

Just another of the effects predicted by José Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses (La rebelión de las masas).


Fischer-Dieskau: “One must listen to what the music says.”

In the Very Best of Hands

Because my Wonder Woman is a pubschool librarian, she gets all kinds of catalogs from all over. One that hit the circular file pretty quickly was for products for sale to state and other public employees and organizations from the state correctional department. (By state law, only public employees and organizations can buy products made by state-owned slave labor.)

The catalog’s cover boldly states

“If Your [sic] Looking For Hot Deals. . . “

At all levels, local, state, national, our governments are in the very best of hands. . .

Gripe #3,286,169 (But other than that, life’s juuuuust fine. . . )

Some of this might be a bit repetitious, but since those who need to read these gripes just AREN’T PAYING ATTENTION*, here ya go:

I’d like to put “cross hair” in my crosshairs, along with “on to” misused in place of “onto,” and, conversely, any number of other misused adjectives and adverbs people use in place of the adjective-noun phrase they are misused in place of: “backseat” and “backyard” instead of “back seat” and “back yard,” and “anyone” and “anything” for “any one” and “any thing,” for but a few examples of misuses common to people whose verbal vocabulary has far outstripped their subliterate written vocabulary.

Thatisall. For now. . .


*Just like such people paid no attention in English classes, and just like their so-called English (or, more likely nowadays, “language arts” *gagamaggot*) teachers likely paid no attention in THEIR classes, from all indications.

And yes, I know the statement immediately above is completely unacceptable syntax in formal, or even business, writing. I DGARA. At least it contains no misused words, the subject of this gripe.

Just Another Gripe

It’s always pretty easy to tell when an author (and his proofreader(s) and editor) has a weak vocabulary, usually based on a verbal vocabulary, often misheard and spoken by others who have weak vocabularies. Example? Sure, here’s one:

“Tag him?” I felt a laugh rising from within and I let it slip. “Is that a crude aphorism [sic] for sex?”

The word the subliterate author was groping for that his subliterate proofreader(s) and editor were just as ignorant of was “euphemism.”