May 26, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Politics and the language of . . . me
Hmmmmm . . . Julian invites us to consider our verbal tics, and get our readers to weigh in.
. . . there are individual prose-crutches particular writers tend to fall back on again and again. One has to be careful here, because you don't want to lump ordinary elements of someones personal style and authorial voice into this category—those are good things to have—but rather focus on those little tics that breed laziness by substituting for words or constructions that might be fresher or more apt for the particular piece.Of course, one's own tics are usually more obvious to others, so I thought I'd impose on you guys: What are the words, phrases, and constructions any of you who've been reading for a while notice recurring? Once I know what these are, I can make sure I really mean to use them when they pop up on my screen.
My vanity here conflicts with my obsessive introspection.
After a few moments consideration, here are the verbal tics I've noticed in myself:
1) "Of course". I use it all the time. Actually, you guys have no idea how often; I frequently delete it from successive sentences. I also wildly overuse "obviously", generally for things so obvious that I don't need to point out their inevitability.
2) I am under the impression that my tendency to refer to my readers as "My little chickadees" drives some of them up the wall. But I've tried to cut way back on that.
3) "This is why". I lean far too heavily on it in explanations.
4) "Yes, . . . ". When acknowleging other peoples' arguments I almost invariably use this construction, which might be better varied.
5) "I mean" probably stopped being cute five years ago.
6) "Indeed" could profitably be substituted with some other, less monotonous construction.
7) "I hear you cry" is probably getting old, but I might stand by this one.
8) "Presumably" does have close substitutes. I should look into that market.
What do my readers think? (Be gentle, my little chickadees).
Posted by Jane Galt at May 26, 2007 5:42 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>As I started reading this piece I began to wonder, is Jane going to mention chickadees? The most obvious of her prose tics.
She does, which shows a useful amount of self-knowledge.
Now, if someone could only tell me what it means?
Posted by: Tim Worstall on May 26, 2007 6:32 AMI read often and comment little and I this is a post nearly fits the comment I wrote and deleted yesterday.
I don't notice as many language tics, however I am put off by your adoption of ridiculous brit-speak this last week or so - we know you have been in London, we don't need the reminder. This might be funnier in spoken exchanges where you can do the verbal emphasis thing to make it work as an obvious exaggerated "I am doing the tourist thing" contrivance. In your written pieces, it causes me to pause, as a reader, and disconnect from the thought you are conveying when you substitute spelling, etc.
Just my opinion - other chickadees may find it cute enough to ignore.
Posted by: dana on May 26, 2007 8:45 AMTim, "my little chikcadee" was a phrase by employed W.C. Fields, in his movies, usually when Fields was improbably attempting to woo a young lass.
Posted by: Will Allen on May 26, 2007 9:37 AM"Presumably" does have close substitutes. I should look into that market.
"Clearly"
"Obviously"
"One supposes"
"I suppose"
"No doubt"
"Without question"
"Almost certainly"
"One suspects/I suspect"
"Surely"
"All indications are"
"This strongly implies"
I can't really think of anything in your writing that drives me up a wall -- in fact you're a really good writer, but I guess you knew that (and I don't frequent the blogs of bad writers). My only suggestion is you might want to concentrate on brevity. Understandably some of your posts are quite long as you often delve into complex issues related to economics, philosophy, etc. But, whenever possible (and I know this isn't always possible), less is more. Presumably (or make that "my guess is") writing for a magazine (make that "newspaper") prompts you to treat your blog like the incredible luxury it is (ie., no word limits). Once in a blue moon, though, I come across one of your posts -- especially in the evening -- and I can't force myself to get through it even though I find the subject matter interesting.
Posted by: Jasper on May 26, 2007 9:47 AMI think that "my little chickadees" is quite cute and endearing.
One thing I find myself doing frequently is that I adopt some particular word or locution and then start using it a whole lot for a while before it grows tiresome. Oddly enough, this is not a completely conscious process - I wonder if anyone else does similar things.
Posted by: Howard on May 26, 2007 10:36 AMI don't get that annoyed when people use "clearly"/"obviously"/etc. for things that are clear or obvious. The problem is when things are not at all clear or obvious and people use such adverbs to make others feel dumb for disagreeing with them rather than bother to explain things. Opinions usually don't need modifiers.
"Lu...rve" is overused.
Argument from personal moral authority should stop. That is, "I care about X/have much more experience with X than you do, as demonstrated by Y,Z,AA, etc., so my opinions on X policies are more important than yours." There's more and more of this here.
Posted by: AT on May 26, 2007 10:44 AMYour writing style tends toward the orotund and verbose, which presumably annoys a lot of people. I find the rhetorical technique refreshing and amusing.
There is something to be said for brevity being the soul of wit; yet, at the same time, there is something to be said for Dostoevsky.
So it is with your blogging.
Posted by: Dave on May 26, 2007 11:27 AMdana: an explanation.
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/005603.html
Posted by: explanation on May 26, 2007 11:38 AMI really like Jane's writing, and I am not sure if there are any tics or tendencies I would change.
My radar does get tripped when a writer uses "obviously," "presumably," "clearly," "almost certainly," etc. These terms are often used by writers who are making a claim that they are unable or unwilling to back up. The "obviously" is an attempt to bully the reader into accepting the claim by insisting that any intelligent reader would accept it.
A little Googling suggests that Jane does NOT abuse "obviously" in this way, although I may be the wrong person to check: I often agree with her, and what seems legitimately obvious to her usually also seems obvious to me.
Posted by: mschrist on May 26, 2007 12:48 PMI don't want to see any brevity out of Jane. She can't write too much for me!
There is one tic that the blogosphere in general needs to curb:
Stop. With. The. Period. After. Every. Word. For. Emphasis.
Please!
Posted by: Withnail on May 26, 2007 1:25 PMYou've really been on a roll since you got to London :-) Lots of great stuff. I keep laughing out loud, people wonder what I'm reading. (I do also appreciate the content, not just the writing.)
Posted by: Tim Lundeen on May 26, 2007 1:53 PMYou don't say "Sod off, you sanctimonious wally" often enough.
Posted by: dearieme on May 26, 2007 3:46 PMA verbal tic that annoys me generally, but especially when it metastasizes into the written sphere, is that of beginning declarative sentences with relative pronouns, e.g.,
"What I'm doing is..."
"What I'm telling you is..."
"What we're trying to do is..."
The first n words in each case conveying no information whatever.
God, I'll be glad (temporarily) when another introductory phrase comes into fashion. When I was in grad school, technical talks invariably featured multiple instances of the phrase, "It turns out that ..."
That one eventually drove me wild too.
Posted by: Occam's Beard on May 26, 2007 5:01 PM"After a few moments consideration, here are the verbal tics I've noticed in myself:"
Ridiculous and pretentious use of British spelling.
Posted by: Greg Hlatky on May 26, 2007 7:01 PMThe tic that drives me batty is abuse of the word "just" as a delimiter, particularly where it lends a false sense of humility to someone's statements or requests. Similar to the situation where someone says "Basically, all I am asking for is..." and then proceeds to detail something that is not at all basic.
Posted by: anony-mouse on May 26, 2007 7:04 PMAT--you beat me to it on "obviously"; sorry to duplicate.
Posted by: mschrist on May 26, 2007 7:50 PMPeople CAN be cured. When we visited my Dad in Germany over twenty years ago, he used to say "An und fuer sich" ("in and of itself") a lot. My little brother said "I don't understand that bit about the peach" ("einen Pfirsich" ("a peach") is almost homophonous). When my Dad figured out what my brother meant, he stopped. using. it. forever.
:-)
Posted by: Jens on May 27, 2007 10:52 AMGreg Hlatky....this used to annoy me quite a bit as well. Eventually, I learned that she does it because she writes for the Economist and thus would find it too confusing to switch back and forth between the two.
Posted by: alan on May 27, 2007 1:18 PMI vote for keeping the "chickadees", "I hear you cry", and "obviously" (so long as it appears at the end of a logical chain of reasoning).
"Presumably" is cool too.
Don't mind the British spelling, personally. Doesn't have a pretentious tone, especially if one has bothered to go back and find out your reason for using it.
Come to think of it, these are rather tame tics.
Posted by: Inquiring on May 27, 2007 1:48 PMRe: "obviously" -- this reminds me of a great story that Michael McConnell (now a Tenth Circuit judge) once told about the famous liberal judge Skelly Wright. What prompted the story was that we [the students in McConnell's class] had read some judicial opinion in which the judge used a word like "clearly" or "obviously." McConnell recalled that when he got out of law school some 20 years earlier, he had gone to start his clerkship with Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit. When he got there, one of Wright's outgoing clerks was explaining the duties of the job to McConnell. McConnell asked how extensively Wright edited or rewrote drafts of opinions written by clerks. The response: "Ha! The only thing he will do is find the most dubious proposition in the entire opinion, and then put the word 'Clearly' in front of it."
Posted by: Stuart Buck on May 27, 2007 2:01 PMI didn't realize just how often I said "Fair enough" until I got given a cake with that written on the top of it for my finishing up a summer job.
Posted by: Alsadius on May 27, 2007 4:09 PMwords fall out of your brain a certain way, and who am I to make a fuss? if I am able to get the point, and I know that it is Jane/M that makes it, then where is the matter? who comes here to find out if Jane uses the term colour, and is flawless in parts of speech? I for one only care for the thought and soul behind it. for all those commenting, and the things they say, this is no less true of them...
D
"look, I only speak two languages, english, and bad english..."
Actually, I find "my little chickadees" endearing, as we gather 'round to hear Autie Jane's wisdom.
Posted by: Lab Rat on May 27, 2007 6:43 PM"...The problem is when things are not at all clear or obvious and people use such adverbs to make others feel dumb for disagreeing with them rather than bother to explain things..."
A physics teacher of mine told me about a book that would frequently use the phrase "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer", while referring to some bit of rather deep physics arcana.
Posted by: roy on May 27, 2007 6:56 PMI am one chickadee that regards complaints about British spelling as a sign of provincialism in the complainer that is sad in this day and age.
Posted by: doctorpat on May 27, 2007 9:58 PMI am one chickadee that regards complaints about British spelling as a sign of provincialism in the complainer that is sad in this day and age.
Considering that Britain's gatekeepers of spelling have been known to actively change words to maintain a wall of separation between the Queen's English and that atrocious Americanized version (many English words that were spelled "-ize" from time immemorial have since been willfully converted to "-ise" for British use), I should think there's room for a bit of good natured counter-antipathy on the American side of the pond.
Posted by: anony-mouse on May 28, 2007 2:07 AMI don't care for the Southern English use of "one" to mean "I". I prefer the Scottish habit that "one" be used rarely, and then a la the French "on".
I prefer "ise" to "ize" because I can't bear "advertize".
Posted by: dearieme on May 28, 2007 4:59 AMI thought Professor Reynolds had a patent on " Indeed ". I guess "certainly " could be used occasionally in it's place; but I generally find your writing to be quite gracful.
Posted by: Charlie on May 28, 2007 8:50 AM4) "Yes, . . . ". When acknowleging other peoples' arguments I almost invariably use this construction, which might be better varied.Indeed, a sprinking of "You've got to be kidding!" and other such rejoinders would really liven things up. If it helps, you can consider this advice a halfway house between your current practice and dearieme's suggestion. :-)
Posted by: Kirk Parker on May 28, 2007 12:11 PM
I like the way you write, and even some occasional British-isms don't bother me at all. As someone else said, writing for the "Economist" accounts for that! And I'd hate to see you edit your words for brevity.
Posted by: Will on May 28, 2007 6:39 PMSo you think you've got it bad?
Go visit this website . . . .
http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/thelarrysanderscollection/index.html
. . . and then click on his personal visit with Jerry Seinfeld.
Heheheh.
Posted by: Mark Throneberry on May 29, 2007 2:25 AMIn your blog, I am slightly fond of the "little chickadees", although I understand that they would be inappropriate in the _Economist_.
I also think British sentence-closing punctuation is more logical and clear, although 'ich bin ein Amerikaner', which I assume must be some kind of horrid junk food. :-)
Posted by: Smith on May 29, 2007 7:36 AMI don't mind Brit spelling (although, how hard is switching, really?), but Brit phrases are weird and out of place: "little blighters," "life's a bugger," etc.
Maybe a part of me should find it kind of cute or charming, but...no. Just odd coming from a New Yorker. It puts me in mind of rich suburban white kids saying things like "Word up, yo."
On the flip side, I'm fine with chickadees. Maybe it's my New England heritage.
I've never even noticed any of the other alleged tics.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on May 29, 2007 10:56 AMNot my tics, but some of other peoples' habits that irritate me to no end:
- "half dozen" -- Just say "six"! "half dozen" subconsciously inflates the number you mean, and is a lot longer.
- "x cents on the dollar" -- Just say "x percent"!
- "divvied up" -- Come on, I'm not ten anymore; just say "divided".
- "paycheck" -- come on, who under 50 doesn't use direct deposit now? If you mean income, say income. Also, "check coming in the mail".
I must agree - being referred to as part of a collective chickadee group is endearing.
(Right there with you on "of course", too.)
Person: Many smaller companies and some industries just don't do direct deposit. (Contractors, for instance - nobody I know that works in construction or related trades gets direct deposit.)
I like "half dozen" and "baker's dozen" and "score"; I'm happy with language being rich and traditional, not purely utilitarian.
Posted by: Sigivald on May 29, 2007 1:31 PMPerson: Many smaller companies and some industries just don't do direct deposit. (Contractors, for instance - nobody I know that works in construction or related trades gets direct deposit.)
And I bet those very same people don't get "paychecks" either, so it's a moot point.
I like "half dozen" and "baker's dozen" and "score"; I'm happy with language being rich and traditional, not purely utilitarian.
Sure, as long as you can adapt to me saying "quarter gross" instead of 36.
Posted by: Person on May 29, 2007 1:44 PMAnd I bet those very same people don't get "paychecks" either, so it's a moot point.
The good news is, in most healthy individuals, the know-it-all attitude slowly wears off as you approach 30.
Or IOW, Svigald was correct: Many smaller companies don't do direct deposit. I happen to work for one, and since my profession is engineerings, we don't exactly have a truckload of illegals receiving off-books cash payroll. These are actual checks, cashed or deposited in the conventional way.
Also, contract/consulting payments are frequently done with checks. Technically that's a business-to-business transaction, but if you're one of the many people out there who is working as an independent (which I did in my previous life), those checks ARE your paychecks for all practical purposes.
Posted by: anony-mouse on May 29, 2007 2:07 PManony-mouse:
The good news is, in most healthy individuals, the know-it-all attitude slowly wears off as you approach 30.
There was no such attitude, except in the one that "knows" all people receives "paychecks".
My problem with the term "paycheck" is that it equates wage payments with the physical paycheck, which need not be (and usually is not anymore) the case. It feels quaint, change-resistant, and dumbed-down, like the reader doesn't understand a wage payment apart from that paper check that's dropped off every n weeks.
I understand most people don't react that way; it's just one of my peeves.
Also, contract/consulting payments are frequently done with checks.
Correct, but:
those checks ARE your paychecks for all practical purposes.
Just because you "think of them" as paychecks, doesn't make them paychecks. For it to be a paycheck, it would have to come regularly, and have the pre-calculated deductions already removed and denoted.
Posted by: Person on May 29, 2007 2:42 PMThere is better language to us
http://www.optimates.us/Greatbooks.htm
.
O/T, but something so stupid can't go without mention. Don't know whether to laugh or cry.
John Quiggin makes a very strong case for the validity of ad Hominem arguments.
I don't know if I can ever take anything anyone associated with him says seriously again.
Posted by: aaron on May 30, 2007 10:05 AMNo need to explain Jane to me, it's her blog - she can write as she wishes and I will read it.
To defend her by saying it is too difficult to switch to her native speech/spelling when she is also writing for the Economist is to make the affectation seem even MORE pretentious, to my reading.
Posted by: dana on May 30, 2007 11:48 AMheh...
"For it to be a paycheck, it would have to come regularly, and have the pre-calculated deductions already removed and denoted."
at least that is YOUR definition... most people call the thing you get when you work, and then get paid... a paycheck, oddly enough. Making the assumption that it isn't in cash of course... It's a pretty common definition, though I appreciate it's also a pet peeve of yours. I think your assumption about the numbers of people who don't get a physical check may be an overstatement, where are you getting your numbers from? I would also have to wonder how many people regard the direct deposit of their wages as a "paycheck" even if you regard it as quaint. "Direct deposit of wages", or even the shorter "Direct Deposit" just doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same way... Say it with me: Paycheck. See? Two syllables to monetary goodness.
Posted by: D on May 30, 2007 12:30 PMSo, if he re-did the working class standard "Take this Job and Shove it", Johnny Paycheck might consider changing his name to Johnny EFT... or "Non-negotiable receipt of Deposit" or something? Fun idea.
Posted by: dana on May 30, 2007 2:11 PMSo, if he re-did the working class standard "Take this Job and Shove it", Johnny Paycheck might consider changing his name to Johnny EFT... or "Non-negotiable receipt of Deposit" or something? Fun idea.
Posted by: dana on May 30, 2007 2:11 PMSo, if he re-did the working class standard "Take this Job and Shove it", Johnny Paycheck might consider changing his name to Johnny EFT... or "Non-negotiable receipt of Deposit" or something? Fun idea.
How about taking it in the other direction and changing his name to Johnny Cash?
Posted by: triticale on May 30, 2007 6:54 PMI'm wondering if Person is annoyed by people who "dial" telephones or "tape" TV shows with their Tivos.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on May 31, 2007 9:42 AMDoes he "type" at his keyboard? That one's awfully archaic, too, once you parse out the meaning of it.
Posted by: anony-mouse on May 31, 2007 2:04 PMzmrqsfhaw vhirmzbcs gpylozvq juyilvtas dvouhzx gonwfa mwapfvhy
Posted by: ahuo dtxnaqblc on May 31, 2007 4:52 PMbdcgklox gbrj gvxewrl qlhmsvy suyjbo ioxadf lkzf http://www.syxtc.gewjiot.com
Posted by: jnaeqtohm olejz on May 31, 2007 4:53 PMpjgyndfl ujsyitf xpif jasyvtzd srjfw itfowlc zfhme nzajcvt vbyh
Posted by: jzhap kwlqphdc on May 31, 2007 4:54 PM- "paycheck" -- come on, who under 50 doesn't use direct deposit now? If you mean income, say income.
Income >= Wages or salary > "Take home pay"
First, you probably know some trust fund babies and don't even know it. Most of them work normal jobs, but also get a little extra income. There are also plenty of people with a job plus a side-business. Their incomes are also greater than their salary.
Second, if you've ever worked for pay, you know there's a large difference between your wages and the money you actually get. 21% of my earnings goes to tax withholding (SS, medicare, federal and state income taxes). Another 10% goes for the employee benefit programs.
So, what are you going to call the portion of your earnings that's left for you? The traditional terms are "Take home pay" and "paycheck", which are equally inaccurate where direct deposit is concerned. Nobody's invented a handy term that does include direct deposit. So, "paycheck" is shorter...
And in every direct deposit program I've been on (most of the time since 1979), the computers print out the earnings statement with a paycheck form attached, and then mark the paycheck as nonnegotiable.
Posted by: markm on June 1, 2007 8:35 AM