Better Sentences, Better Communication, Cheers!

Bill Belichick a Captain Ahab, Yes; Vengeful, No

In a recent piece about coach Bill Belichick of the National Football League's Buffalo Bills, Associated Press writer Jim Litke paints in fairly true colors a description of the despot-like football man. However, when he says of him: "(Belichick) could have taught Captain Ahab a thing or two about revenge," Litke's metaphor goes off course.

In Moby Dick, or The White Whale, by Herman Melville, Captain Ahab hunts the whale in a "dehumanizing" way that "sacrifices his crew." Ahab is not a man to put on false appearances. On the other hand, Belichick dissembles when speaking about his team to the press, and according to Roger Goodell, franchise commissioner of the league in which the Buffalo Bills play, Belichick "represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field." Ahab is "monomaniacal" in his "search for truth" as he hunts the whale. Belichick is also obsessively single-minded in pursuit of his goal of "perfection" and is willing to negotiate ethics in his drivenness: He uses modern technology to steal vital information from his opposition (see Goodell above). Belichick also "likes swollen heads inside helmets...and leaves his first team on the field even after well-established leads" according to Litke.

So far, the implied metaphor of Belichick as more of a Captain Ahab than Ahab himself ("Belichick could have taught Ahab a thing or two...") might hold, but ("taught Ahab a thing or two about revenge"?) No. Doesn't work. To suggest that Ahab was seeking revenge on the whale is mistaken. He recklessly sought the "truth" to his own detriment and that of his men. At the end of the day, Belichick is not seeking "truth" in the form of hunting down his opponents or a perfect won/loss record, and his men return home quite wealthy and celebrated, if a bit sore.

But let us dig deeper into the metaphor. Captain Ahab, himself, was inspired by the Old Testament king Ahab of Israel "whose name has become a byword for wickedness." (William Rose Benet, The Reader's Encyclopedia). Instigated by Jezebel, "a woman of loose morals," King Ahab executed a man on false charges because he wanted his vineyard. King Ahab, himself, could not be accused of revenge. He was "merely" wicked. Coach Belichick may be colored in negative terms, but he is neither vengeful nor wicked.

Thus, the metaphor of Belichick as Ahab, either the Captain or the Captain's own prototype, is a metaphor gone as far astray as the Pequod sailing after the white whale. Fortunately Mr. Litke is not going down with the whale. He will live to write another day while perhaps using perfected metaphors.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

The Weather Channel Makes Its Own "Impact"

Cheers to the Weather Channel which recently correctly used impacted (a past participle of the infinitive to impact).

A warmly dressed meteorologist warned motorists of poor driving conditions because of snowstorms in the Midwestern and Eastern United States:

"More roads will be impacted" said the cheerful woman speaking from a warm studio. Once more, impact means to fix firmly by packing or wedging, either literally or figuratively. In this case, the road has literally been struck by the "impacting body" of the snow forming a thick and hazardous layer.

Drive carefully!

The "DNA" of Verb Forms

A reader asks for the simple past tense of the verb wring: "to squeeze or twist especially so as to make dry or to extract moisture or liquid." Merriam-Webster Dictionary says the past tense of Wring is Wrung.

Let's explore the "DNA" of verbs, the various forms they take for various uses: We'll continue to use "wring" in the process, which should take several postings. Don't worry, I'll not give you such a wring that your neck will crack. (archaic)

The standard view of a verb begins with its infinitive, the word "to" placed before the verb. Therefore, the infinitive of wring is: to wring.

After the infinitive come four Principal Parts*: 1) the verb in the 3rd person singular, present tense: wrings, then 2) the present participle: wringing, followed by 3) the simple past tense: wrung (as we have seen), and finally, 4) the past participle: wrung. Notice, in this case, the verb in the simple past takes the same form as the verb in the past participle.

Another look at the Principle Parts of the verb wring used in sentences:

3rd person singular, present tense: Ted wrings his hands when he is frustrated.

simple past tense: Ted wrung the towel of its wetness.

present participle: Ted is wringing the towel of its wetness.

past participle: Ted has wrung the towel of its wetness each Friday.


We'll have more to say about the Principle Parts in future postings. Meanwhile, let me ring in the New Year** with this toast to be repeated December 31st: "Here's to healthy sentences and sound communication."

*Some grammarians include the infinitive in the Principle Parts.

**to ring to summon especially by bell. Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

How Long Can a Democracy Or Even a Market Place Last Without a Literate Public? Oh Yes, And What About the Arts?

A recent report released by the National Endowment for the Arts finds that "an increasing number of adult Americans were not even reading one book a year." Further bad news: 72% of high school graduates were "deemed by their employers as 'deficient' in writing."

NEA chairman Dana Gioia emphasizes that 9-year olds read well, indicating that elementary grade educators are succeeding; while 17-year olds who "never or hardly ever" read for pleasure has doubled, to 19%, with a consequent diminishing of their comprehension scores. The cause: a lack of "counterbalancing the electronic culture" kids enter after age 9.

The report emphasizes that "literary readers" are more likely to exercise, visit art museums, keep up with current events, vote in presidential elections and perform volunteer work, demonstrating that reading "creates people who are more active....(and that) People who don't read, who spend most of their time watching television or on the Internet, or playing video games, seem to be significantly more passive. Finally, the report projects that at a time not so far off, "The majority of young Americans will not realize their individual, economic or social potential."

The above implied commentary quoted liberally from an article in the Los Angeles Times written by Hillel Italie of the Associated Press called, "Writing's on the wall, but who will read it?"

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Mediocre Metaphor Saved by Fresh Turn of Phrase

Water, as in most areas of the Western United States, is a worry, always has been. Yet, all too many "Angelenos" don't appear to be concerned because water has for most of the past one hundred years cost them little.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa asked the citizens to reduce usage by 10% in June of 2007. The City has not responded well. The Los Angeles Times headline in the Metropolitan Section, called "California" read:

"L.A.'s water savings are just a drop in the bucket."

With water supplies down because of a drought in 2006, and record low snowpack in the Eastern Sierra where Los Angeles obtains most of its water, Angelenos are no angels in their profligate use of water. Therefore, "...a drop in the bucket," while accurate, would appear to be too tame a metaphor to describe the profligacy of the greater citizenry. We're therefore going to have to write a grammar usage citation. A metaphor with more force was requisite. The squandering of water is not solely an economic issue, it has become an environmental one as well.

However, later in the well-written and well-documented article, the writer quotes Miriam Torres of the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water who provided a fresh turn of phrase that encapsulates the issue perfectly. Torres said:

"People in Los Angeles have to think of water as a precious resource and not a commodity."

Beautifully put. The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water is currently applying pressure on the mayor to impose stricter measures to effectively deal with the scarcity of supply. Given that his constituents have increased their water usage 4.83% (millions of cubic feet of water) over the past ten months, "drops" will not suffice.

More on "'Bending" Pronoun Case, What is Case?

"Case" of nouns and pronouns indicates their function: 1) subjective case, also called nominative case: the noun or pronoun functions as "doer" or "subject of"; 2) objective case, also called accusative (direct object) or dative (indirect object) of the verb; and 3) possessive, also called genitive, in which instances the noun or pronoun are showing ownership or possession of some sort.

A recent comment to the posting "Bending Beckham's Pronouns" of 7/26/2007, which should be read first, prompts the following response below, also in commentary form suggesting an explanation as to the reasons folks make blunders with their pronouns.

The argument goes that working class folks in England and parts of North America in the nineteenth century would be rightly corrected when putting an object pronoun in a subject position: "Me and Anthony will mop up." Some assert that the problem is mitigated when putting the other party in the compound subject first: "Anthony and I will mop up." That is, a tweaking of the syntax (order or words) will better cue the ear to make the right choice. Probably.
At any rate, if the lesson is presumably "overlearned," folks would then tend to "hyper correct." That is, they would tend to put the subject pronoun anywhere, including in the object position upon merely hearing and then falsely cueing on the word "and": "Anthony told Meg and I."

Makes sense to me.

Bad Syntax, ha, ha

YouTube - A Wicked Deception

The Oxford Mini Dictionary defines syntax as: "The arrangement of words to form phrases and sentences." When poorly arranged, syntax distracts and harms communication. After all, when writing or speaking, we usually mean to persuade or inform. It's good, therefore, to get your "ducks in a row." (idiom).

Because other languages are characterized by different ways of arranging syntax as well as different choices in diction, for various linguistic reasons, the result of a bad translation can be quite humorous, purposeful or not. Anyone who has been to a dubbed or subtitled foreign language film that's been poorly translated will appreciate this parody, done by some very clever people who purposely mismanage both diction and syntax. Have fun with this video called: "A Wicked Deception" in which the dialogue has supposedly been translated from English into French, then into German, then back into French, then back again into English using a "popular" internet translator. (click link above)

Tarnishing an Otherwise Unblemished Commentary

David Norrie served as the commentator to the play-by-play announcer during the most recent "cross town" football battle between the University of Southern California Trojans, and the University of California at Los Angeles Bruins won by USC. In his "color" commentary Norrie referred to formerly first and second-ranked teams in the country which suffered defeat during the season thereby damaging their chances of eventually playing in the national championship game in New Orleans in January. Below, Norrie mentions the plight of Arizona State's football team while managing to tarnish his own commentary through misuse of a critical word:

"Arizona State's record was 9-0 until their blowout loss to Arizona (University of Arizona in Tuscon). They subsequently suffered another big loss to USC (University of Southern California) which took a lot of tarnish off the early season."

Mr. Norrie meant to say polish or a similar word.

tarnish: to dull or destroy" Merriam-Webster Dictionary

polish: a smooth, glossy surface; state of high development or refinement Merriam-Webster

Truly, before their collapse in Tucson, Arizona State had been mentioned in the same breath as LSU (Louisana State University) and Ohio State University, the two schools whose records, though not unblemished, still had enough of a gloss to land them in the Big Easy for a national title showdown.