Monthly Archives: January 2012

The Art of Proofspeaking

By
1

 

Elmore Leonard, reading aloud

Before he became a best-selling novelist and screenwriter, Elmore Leonard, served time in the trenches of advertising. He worked alongside David E. Davis, Jr., a writer who had been, and would once again become, a well-known automotive journalist. Five years older than his colleague, Leonard took on the role of mentor, and advised Davis that the best way to check his own writing was to read it aloud. That advice served both Leonard and Davis very well over the years, and it can serve you as well. Continue reading →

To Email or Not to Email?

By
Reply

During Ballpoint’s nascent stage, we were very serious about tackling — even solving — the myriad problems associated with email. I won’t enumerate them here, since anyone reading this will have experienced at least some of those problems first-hand. As a company, we decided that solving our own email issues was a sufficient challenge, and we’d put off tackling those of the world at large. This was, I think, a wise decision, as it cleared the deck for what Ballpoint has become, and is becoming.

Fortunately, there’s good advice to be had on the subject of email, and Elizabeth Danziger’s Writamins newsletter is the source of some that I’m going to pass on to you now. The first is to ask yourself whether email is the appropriate medium for the message you’re about to send. Some email fans might rightfully say that the answer to this is always yes, as it provides an irrefutable (virtual) paper trail. That might prove useful If you report to someone who tends to say “why didn’t I know about that?” Continue reading →

Idiotismes and Reeking Illiteracies

By
Reply

 

Here at The Ballpoint Revue, we’ve determined to (mostly) not take on a scolding tone. If we do, we label it a rant and secretly enjoy ourselves. While we don’t shy away from having and sharing opinions, our posture is one of understanding and tolerance about adult mistakes and youthful conventions. We respect the world of writing for what it is, while we intend to raise awareness and share methods for making it better. True confession? We adore curmudgeons and cranks, and occasionally like to share their rants in lieu of doing the unseemly nasty ourselves. Continue reading →

The “Wait, what?” Moment

By
2

I don’t know precisely when the phrase “wait, what?” sidled into the mainstream. It appeared in a terse LOLCAT image (Dude. Wait, what?) a while back, but lately I’ve been hearing it said by people who wouldn’t know a LOLCAT if it peed on their shoes. No matter. It’s a great phrase, and I welcome it.  It’s the appropriate response to anything that triggers incredulity, and it’s what I said the first time this image appeared on my screen.

Of course, the trigger doesn’t have to be visual. I find myself thinking “wait, what?” — if not saying it out loud — when reading, hearing, or watching almost anything that involves politics.

What were some of your “Wait, what?” moments?

Incredulous: Unable to believe something. First used in the 16th century. From the Latin incredulus (in = not; credulus = trusting, or believing).

The King of Prescriptivism

By
Reply

Several of my recent posts explained why Ballpoint has chosen to occupy the region between descriptivism (how people are using language right now) and prescriptivism (how people should use language, if they want to be correct). Those posts were followed by one which hosed some love on the wonderfully useful — even indispensable — descriptivist source, Wordnik.com. Today, prescriptivism gets equal time, in the form of an equally useful — even indispensable — ink-on-paper book titled Garner’s Modern American Usage (2009, Oxford University Press). Continue reading →

The Snark-Free Zone

By
Reply

As a rule — a much-broken rule; more of a guideline, actually — The Ballpoint Revue’s Friday post is a funny picture intended to poke gentle fun at language gaffes, and provide a gentle reminder of why, for example, it’s important to remember when to place an apostrophe between the t and s in its.

Sometimes, though, the poke hasn’t been as gentle as it might have been. With that in mind, here are a couple of pictures that I’m certain will offend no one. You’re getting two pictures, instead of just one, to compensate for the lack of snark. (Some of our readers  enjoy the occasional dose of snark.) Continue reading →

The Queen of Descriptivism

By
Reply


The last few Ballpoint Revue posts have wandered through the no-man’s land (or, if you’re a Star Trek fan, neutral zone) that runs between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics. At Ballpoint, we’re comfortable occupying that territory. It provides a good view of both camps, and allows us to make informed decisions about the content of our apps and other projects. Our position is that the language needs true believers on both sides. These fundamentalists maintain an equilibrium of sorts, and as a result, the language maintains a contemporary vitality without becoming so new so fast as to be unintelligible to most people.

The Queen of Descriptivists — a title we made up, but which is richly deserved — is Erin McKean, formerly the principal editor of the New Oxford American Dictionary
She’s the founder of Wordnik, the most democratic of online dictionaries. Continue reading →

Pick Your Battles (Part 2)

By
Reply

In Part 1 of Pick Your Battles, I suggested that being your cohort’s grammar cop was, at best, a thankless task, and that if you take on that role, it’s best to do so on a carefully targeted basis. At Ballpoint, we can’t allow ourselves the same luxury. Our apps explain the difference between confusing pairs of words and phrases, so by definition we have to take a stand on what’s right and what’s — dare I say it? — wrong.

Sometimes this is dead simple. Even if the differences might seem subtle, discomfort and discomfit don’t mean the same thing, and it’s worth knowing when to use one or the other. Sometimes we’re forced to grit our metaphorical teeth and say “we don’t care that plenty of people use these two words interchangeably. They’re different, and that difference is worth preserving.” Continue reading →

Pick Your Battles (Part 1)

By
Reply

A few days ago, I was watching Benedict Cumberbatch play the title role in Sherlock, the wonderful 21st century reboot of Doyle’s characters. Sherlock — everyone’s on a first-name basis nowadays — was listening to a potential client’s tale of woe. When the poor sod explained that he was going to be hung, Sherlock pointed out that the correct word was hanged. Bored, and having already decided to decline the case, Sherlock recast himself as The Grammar Police. Continue reading →