Loraine enjoys her quiche

On a recent outing for brunch my wife asked my mother whose name is Loraine if she had enjoyed her quiche, which happened to be Quiche Lorraine. Amusingly, the cadence of the words in the query might have made it unclear whether my wife actually addressed my mother by her name. The written question would have posed no problem (see further below). To my ear, the question sounded thus:

"Did you enjoy your quiche Loraine?"

Clearly, the pronunciation and intonation of "Loraine" made it obvious that my wife omitted the kind of quiche in favor of the name of the in law eating it who carried an equivalent name, though one spelled with only one "r." "Loraine" was spoken with an accent on the second syllable and with a rising vocal tone, yet with no noticeable pause between the words "quiche" and "Loraine." This lack of strong pause led to the possible confusion.

Had my wife asked the question in this way:

"Did you enjoy your Quiche, Loraine?" still with an accent on the second syllable, still with a rising tone in her voice, and with a slight pause between the words "Quiche" and "Loraine," there would have been no possibility of confusion. It is also true that only three persons were present, who else could my wife have addressed? Furthermore, I had just enjoyed a savory meatloaf soaked in port wine, and my wife had witnessed the event.

From Wikipedia: Quiche Lorraine is perhaps the most common variety of a French baked dish that is made primarily of eggs, and milk or cream in a pastry crust. In addition to the eggs and cream, it includes bacon or lardons. Cheese is not an ingredient of the original Lorraine recipe, as Julia Child informed Americans: "The classic quiche Lorraine contains heavy cream, eggs and bacon, no cheese." Of note, most contemporary quiche recipes include Gruyère cheese, technically called quiche au Gruyère. Also of note, the addition of onion to quiche Lorraine makes quiche Alsacienne.

Subscribe to Sentenceparts How's your English today?

What kind of "thing" is contemporary news reporting?

The word "thing" can be used with good effect. See 5/8/08 Keith Olbermann, "The Fuel Tax Thing." However, when used indiscriminately, as had a Los Angeles television reporter while reporting on a fire threatening the ruin of nearly completed condominiums, "things" like using language to actually name a solid object can cause alarm.

As the reporter from local station KTLA channel 5 approached a harried construction worker her microphone at-the-ready, the fire was still a concern. Lives could have been imperiled. Firemen were seen scurrying in the background. What was the point of the reporter thrusting herself directly into the activity? We seem to have an explanation by her choice of words given the gravity of the situation.

Reporter to construction worker: "Did you smell the security thing? She said, looking at the construction worker stopped from his progress, not fully understanding, What thing? What smell? He must have thought.

The reporter seemed to be merely searching for "action images" and found one, a man, presumably engaged in an important action. The reporter stopped the man, pushed the microphone in his unlucky face and used the word "thing" to describe some sort of olfactory security mechanism. We are used to calling the auditory variety fire alarms. How difficult is it to say, "fire alarm," or "security alarm?" whether it be the smell or sound variety?

"Security thing"? Reporters should be communicating concrete information to the public by both questions and descriptions. "Thing" says very little. Use a noun which squarely names that which is spoken of. Provide a precise mental picture, please! Simply because television mostly concerns visual images, when language is used, we should expect the same clarity a camera may provide.

We might say the reporter presented a nuisance to the firefighter, and certainly to her audience.


Thing: n. object, fact; idea. (Concise Oxford Dictionary). A "thing" can name any object, fact, or idea in the abstract. When it counts, use the concrete name.

Charlie Sheen & Denise Richards..."The most nastiest couple"?

Serafin means "Angel of the highest order" (Concise Oxford Dictionary). Kim Serafin, a reporter and commentator of the Entertainment subculture (In Touch Weekly) who possesses a serafin smile, recently lost touch when proved guilty of the commission of a most unangelic grammatical error--the double superlative.

Comparitive and Superlative forms of adjectives "are used to emphasize or intensify meaning as well as merely to indicate literal differences of degree" between and among things (Harper's English Grammar, John B. Opdycke). If we didn't have these forms, usually formed by either adding suffixes: -er, -est, or by using the adverbs: more, most, how would we know which of a thing was least or most of some quality among other things?

Usually, when a thing is already the better or best of something, how could it be "more better," or "most best." I say "usually" because of course, exceptions occur; but tread carefully because we are no longer in the Elizabethan era when double comparatives and double superlatives were commonly used, even by William Shakespeare.

Back to Kim Serafin. She said of the most unseemly divorce proceedings between Mr. Sheen and Ms. Richards,

"There's no doubt this must be one of the most nastiest divorces..."

Ms. Serafin could have said, "one of the more nasty divorces," or "most nasty divorces," but not "most nastiest" which is redundant. You've said it once, Kim, no need for twice in one sentence, even if the substance of your reportage is largely blather and hyperbole.

For the record, when we express differences of degree upward, we use: more/most for the comparative (between two things), and most (among three or more things).

I would say that Ms. Serafin is among the best Entertainment reporters, but since there are no more than two good ones, I shall say she is usually the better between them.

 Subscribe in a reader

The accrual of power

Jonathan Zittrain, a lecturer at Oxford specializing in Internet governance and regulation, recently appeared on the Charley Rose Show and spoke on future uses and abuses of cyberspace and the internet. Along the way, Rose asked Zittrain what he believed a good social use of the Internet might be. Zittrain considered the question carefully, improving upon it while responding:

"...how to establish ordered solutions to social problems that come up without having to go to a top/down authority structure... (and that would be) community-based solutions (such as) Wikipedia, something self-correcting without abusing the power that accrue to themselves."

While the thought provokes serious reflection, I feel Professor Zittrain put too much "mustard on it" not only by adding unnecessary words, but by adding words that don't fit with the normal use of the verb accrue though that is up for debate. See the definitions below. Zittrain needn't have added "to themselves" as accrue is primarily used a an intransitive verb, that is, it does not require an object. It normally means: to come into existence, accumulate. Zittrain could have said simply: "...something self-correcting without abusing the power that accrues." However, accrue may be used as a transitive verb, meaning it will have an object, but not usually in the sense professor Zittrain used it. It may mean: to accumulate (as interest rates) or some other thing after a period of time.

The power happens as a result of the process, not because someone decides he will have power even if that is the goal. Thus, one does not accrue power to oneself. It either happens or does not happen given the circumstances.

In any case, a very insightful interview. Professor Zittrain is quite brilliant and speaks clearly and colorfully on the subject. In one instance he uses a very creative extended metaphor* to describe the "healthiness" and "safety" of cyberspace. Look for it and enjoy.

*Extended metaphor: a metaphor that continues into the sentences that follow, a metaphor developed at great length.

Fuel tax proposal impacts like a tooth gone bad

"The fuel tax thing impacted the wrong way," Keith Olbermann said when commenting on Senator Hilary Clinton's strategy of proposing a fuel tax relief--effectively short term relief. Senator Obama seemingly chose correctly when he chose otherwise. At least this is Olbermann's point of view. We might be able to say that the "demand for such a tax savings is in short supply." (see definition below). Yet, why not choose perfectly good alternatives: influenced, swayed negatively, affected adversely.

Nevertheless, the fuel tax proposal did not literally wedge itself, embed itself, or even overcrowd the list of proposals the candidates have made concerning the high price of energy, especially petroleum fuel.

By the way, Keith, "Fuel tax thing"? Actually, good choice. Olbermann, by choosing one word, thing, tells us what he thinks of Senator Clinton's strategy in a trenchant way. Clinton's proposal is a thing, nothing more. Of course Keith seldom if ever offers just a word in his observations and commentaries. For this reason, the choice of one word, thing, makes his point concisely.

impacted, adj. wedged in firmly, embedded; pressed tightly together; overcrowded; of a tooth which is unable to fully erupt (Dentistry). Or, A condition where demand for a particular service, commodity or space is in severely short supply or high demand. (Concise Oxford Dictionary).

Subscribe in a reader

Dennis Miller, tell us where did the confab "went"

Comedian Dennis Miller wasn't so funny when he recently blundered in his choice of verb tense. All of us blunder while speaking, but Miller's proved a gross error. After all, Mr. Miller makes his living through talking, so we may expect better of him.

In the aftermath of cohort Bill O'Reilly's recent interview with Senator Hilary Clinton, Miller commented to O'Reilly:

"It was a nice confab, but I don't think it should have went any further..."

The usually truculent host, O'Reilly, overlooked the gaffe, but we have not, even if the two considered their exchange a friendly chat. Friendliness should include a certain respect for elemental grammar. Miller, a wordsmith of considerable talent, particularly in younger days, made the hair rise upon the neck with his blunder.

Miller used the present perfect tense which is formed by employing "have" or "has" with a past participle. The present perfect "describes an action or state begun in the past and leading up to the present." (501 English Verbs, Thomas R. Beyer, Jr., Ph.D.).

Miller chose correctly based upon what he was describing, a conversation between Senator Clinton and O'Reilly that was proceeding. However, in using "have," an auxiliary verb (helping verb) used in forming the present perfect tense, he was required to use the past participle of go, which is gone. Thus, "have gone," not "have went."

(present) go, (simple past) went, (pres. perf.) [have] gone

The Bubblemeister is cliché prone, is it an accident?

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and subject of previous postings on this blog, recently said of the sub prime mortgage debacle: "This was an accident waiting to happen."

Apart from using a cliché to describe an economic collapse that might have been avoided through prudent Central Bank policies, or the rare case of the government using its regulatory capabilities, Greenspan himself could be accused of having set the scene for the "accident" through his own handiwork of supplying the market with plenty of cheap cash.

That's real *chutzpah from the Bubblemeister.

*chutzpah, n. (Yiddish) nerve, gall, audacity.

Subscribe to Sentenceparts How's your English today?

Mr. Buffett has spoken: We are in a recession

From the desk of Guy Geldworth:

The jury is in, we are in a recession. Not that most folks who fear job loss or reduced hours, or who have, in fact, experienced it, have doubted it.

Billionaires Warren E. Buffet and Charles T. Munger, Buffet's long-time partner at Berkshire Hathaway Inc., have declared it so. Buffett at the recent Berkshire shareholders meeting in Omaha is a skeptic of the classic criterion: the economy must experience two consecutive quarters of negative growth. His own definition: "...when most people and businesses (are) not doing as well as they were three, six, or nine months before." Obviously, the super rich and those who shill for them like Larry Kudlow (see below) will not respond "yes" to this definition. No discernible change in their income, their material lives.

So, Shush! Don't tell Kudlow of CNBC, the financial channel's market cheerleader whose boss is parent company NBC, which is owned by General Electric. And don't tell our own Guy Geldworth. (We are hopeful Guy's own job is secure when we read headlines such as "UBS may slash 8,000 jobs amid write-downs" in the Los Angeles Times, 5/5/2008.)

But Guy (whom we still love only because he's young and, at heart, principled) and Larry are market guys who've been getting a lot of cheap money from the Fed for years. Additionally, they're dealing with the element who have the money (there's plenty of it around) and who are waiting for another Boom to deploy it in our recent market history of Boom & Bust, Boom & Bust...

Don't worry, there will be another bailout, but after the fall election. Thus, when the market is safe for the "common folk" we'll give a call to Guy because he is, after all, a market guy. But for now, here are the facts. You make the deductions and act accordingly.

• The first quarter numbers are in: GDP growth increased only 0.6%, but even this sickly number is misleading because inventory buildup also increased and indicates actual negative growth.
  
• Exports are diminishing. Both the Chinese and European economies are slowing in their growth. One reason, the dollar has stopped its decline and growth has its own limits.
  
• Economist Paul Krugman has called current banking conditions similar to the bank run of 1930-31. Confusingly, he feels we are not in a recession. I suppose we must crawl through this maze of seemingly contradictory facts and factoids.

OK, the hard numbers. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride:

• While the banks have "only" declared $200 billion in losses, $1.2 trillion of losses are yet to come. We know about the huge write downs stemming from the sub prime mortgage debacle. Still to come will be the losses stemming from consumer debt: credit card defaults, automobile loan defaults, student loan defaults.
  
• The Fed has "only" $400 billion in reserves with which to cover losses, yet the losses amount to $1.6 trillion.
• What do the banks do with the "easy" Fed money? Many are not even loaning to themselves. Home loans? Yes, you can borrow, but your rates won't decline. Yet it was your dollars the Fed used to provide cheap cash to the banks. Should you be concerned?
• Related point in housing: Thus far, there have been 200,000 foreclosures nationwide, yet 2,000,000 are projected to follow. "Look for the banks to sell more preferred stock, and bonds in order to "look like they've been doing something" when the inevitable next bailout jackpot occurs after the election. They will want to look good." (Jack Rasmus).

Linkage among: Income Inequality, the Banking Financial Crisis, and the Recession

• More from Jack Rasmus: The United States economy has accumulated $12 trillion in debt in the last six years. $5 trillion in government debt, $4 trillion in consumer debt, and $3 trillion in business debt. This debt should have in some way helped to finance a stimulus to the economy but basically failed. Mr. Rasmus maintains that while some money has gone into financing the Chinese financial boom, from which some American investors have profited, much has gone into off shore tax shelters or was squandered in high risk ventures such as hedge funds.
  
• Thus, a lot of the "debt/stimulus" money wound up in speculative ventures looking for big payoffs such as the current ethanol bubble. While all too many Americans are hungry to fuel their gas tanks with government subsidized corn-based fuel, (part of the $12 billion debt/stimulus) others abroad are simply hungry. One-third of the increase in price of food is related to higher price of corn. Are we Americans not concerned with foreign approval?
  
• Fact: There is actually a surplus of capital which will eventually find its way back into the economy when it is safe.
  
• Fact: For most Americans asset prices are falling, particularly in the value of their homes; and they are incurring greater amounts of debt as living costs rise and the level of their income falls in relative value.
  

One must ask, why trust most pundits on television? They merely work for those who wouldn't know about or seem to care about average people. They're just looking for the next "Bush" to continue the party for the few.

They don't have to look too far. He comes in the form of a former naval aviator, multi-millionaire senator who helped bail out a fraudulent banker who bilked common people of their life savings in the last big boom/bust cycle in the late 1980's.*

How soon we forget department

*In the 1980s when John McCain was embarking on his political career in Arizona, Charles Keating, an Arizona banker, son of a developer, was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal." (CNNfn Web Site, December 2, 1996). (Jack Rasmus)

In today's American judicial system, lack of conviction often is no indication of innocence, particularly when a political figure like McCain steps before the bench.

NBA abuses 3rd person pronoun

The NBA playoffs have arrived, and with them the possible abuse of Grammatical Person in the use of personal pronouns; that is, how certain players will refer to themselves in the post-game interview. Too many players will refer to themselves by using the third person pronoun--"he," instead of "I." They may also refer to themselves by using their own name. These choices seem to be made by design possibly to deflect negative attributes mentioned by the interviewer, but also to merely appear humble depending upon the nature of the question or observation. One may only guess. Nevertheless, the switching of pronouns from speaker referring to oneself as the speaker, to speaker talking about oneself seems quite odd and falls under the category of rhetoric (the art of speaking or writing to make some effect) rather than solecism (improper grammatical usage, incorrect speech).

Note: In using the 3rd person pronoun, these athletes seem to stick to the Nominative Case (Subjective Case) when talking about themselves; that is, they do not say "him" in self-reference, using the Accusative Case (Objective Case) 3rd person pronoun. That would appear exotically distant even for an exalted modern athlete.

A review: "Person" identifies who is speaking, who is spoken to, and who is spoken about when two or more people speak to each other or among one another. click here for personal pronouns

The reporters themselves might be responsible for this rhetorical aberration from normal pronoun usage and self-reference.

Some are found asking, "How did Kobe Bryant ("he") feel out there today?" Instead of, "How did you feel out there?"

The second person pronoun is required (unless speaking rhetorically) when addressing an individual, even sports heroes.

Sometimes it's the sports figure who, I suppose, wishes to take the spotlight off himself by using the third person pronoun, talking about himself in the third person. However, imagine the following silly exchange--just to demonstrate how fast language can deteriorate:

Sports reporter: "How are you feeling today?"

Athlete: "He's well, thank you."