Archive for the ‘Grammar’ Category

Here’s a piece from The Week featuring six gadgets designed to save us from ourselves, including free software that will scan your e-mail for content that might be considered impolite. It’s often suggested that we should draft our e-mails with no names filled into the “To” line until you’ve written it, reread it/proofread it, and then are sure it’s really what you want to communicate to avoid inadvertently sending something written in the heat of the moment that might be something to regret later. I’ve had clients hire me to create and document e-mail standards for use within their organizations, and adding the recipients’ names at the end is just one of my recommendations, as well. Sometimes it can just help preclude your sending something that is still in draft mode while on other occasions you may just wish to draft it, save and close it, and revisit it with a bit of a time cushion to revisit what you’ve written and how you wrote it to help minimize misunderstanding or other fallout. (Remember, as always, if you are doing a varied distribution, it is more appropriate to address the e-mail to just Undisclosed Recipients [NO hyphen after Undisclosed and Recipients should be plural, by the way--it's often used incorrectly] and have that set up in your address book to go to you and then use the BCC [blind carbon copy--a legacy from typewriting days] feature to click recipients’ names for privacy purposes unless each recipient needs to know who else received it for business purposes.)

Bad Decision Blocker is another product mentioned in the article, and it’s designed to prevent someone from calling a boss or other significant person when fatigued or a bit tipsy. Some of these may be amusing, but the overall look into the melding of technology and emotion-laden communication is somewhat intriguing–perhaps a tad like being your own Big Brother?

The legendary Ruth Reichl recently wrote a great post entitled “The Meaning of Ludo’s” in which she talks about her experience with the sought-after LudoBites, which transcends the typical excitement associated with a new dining opportunity as it has no fixed location. As the theater and romance of restaurants has always intrigued me and working with clients in the foodservice industry has long been a love of mine, this entirely different perspective on what makes a restaurant a “go-to” has a new level of intrigue.

The success of LudoBites shows that it is often not just about the decor, the setting, the food, table linens, service–as this restaurant picks new locations and on the night Reichl visited it was inhabiting what she described as “a little sandwich shop in a grungy part of town – it is the ultimate statement about the supremacy of food over ambiance.” Read more here:

According to Facebook, “Starting today people will be able to connect with your Page by clicking “Like” rather than “Become a Fan.” We hope this action will feel much more lightweight, and that it will increase the number of connections made across the site.”

Please note that this may also impact the language in some of your marketing materials where you may have invited prospective followers to become “Fans.”

I just read a great piece from Rob Reinalda at Ragan.com on how language gets mangled with some tips for how to avoid making such errors: http://bit.ly/dk3wae Sometimes it’s just that people don’t hear the word right in the first place, and Reinalda advises that “Questioning meaning can help you avoid misusing ‘familiar’ terms.” One of his examples is the unword “supposably.”

A first cousin to this syndrome is the butchering of song lyrics, sometimes with funny or embarrassing results especially when sung exuberantly by a music lover who didn’t quite get the words the way they were intended. You can check some of those out at http://www.kissthisguy.com/, the Archive of Misheard Lyrics, which designates some as the funniest or most absurd of the week while showing what the lyrics really were. Even the the national anthem has gotten contorted into some intriguing or just-plain-funny takes on it. Reinalda’s piece touches on those mangled words and phrases–many of which we start to associate with certain individuals. Most of us DO have some language blind spots. And, with a little “need more coffee” digression here, I think many of us have typing blind spots, too. Do you ever find that there are some words that your fingers just want to type with transposed letters? I used to find that I’d type “teh” instead of “the”? What IS that about, anyway, and why do these seem to be so different for each person? We’re told that we can take solace from knowing that it happens to incredibly gifted writers and journalists frequently, too. At least technology is helping us out a bit on the typing front, as you can set up your custom dictionary in Word to autocorrect common mistakes you know you’re making, though–such as my “teh” typing foible!

Feel free to post your thoughts on other tin-ear language mistakes you’ve heard (and don’t hesitate to share if you have any fat-fingered typing mistakes that you keep having to deal with, too!). When you hear them, do you tend to just let them go or do you ever correct the speaker especially if it’s a professional colleague or friend who you may really wish to help? There are definitely some alligators in that water as it’s a sensitive subject even if you’re intending to be proactive.

I just came across a great piece on the power of the word and how key it is to avoid “puffery” in our business and personal communications written by Michael Port, Contributing Editor for Entrepreneur, featured on the American Express OPEN Forum.

Here are just some of his observations from that article that apply to virtually any sales, staff, or client meeting as well as advertising and personal connections: “Most of the actions or activities people engage in, both personally and professionally, are carried out through conversation, so our use of language is a powerful tool for building or breaking trust. If you can’t back up your puffery or prove the generalizations you make, it’ll be difficult to engender much trust.” As Port cites in his post, “All generalities are false, including this one.”

You can keep reading here: http://bit.ly/bddrX4