Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism
When discussion of last week's post began drawing from Wikipedia, that fickle forum of boneheads and blowhards, I bowed out.
Then I remembered Sketchy Citation #13, from my criminal law casebook. I realized that maybe I was being cocky and wrong; maybe and Wiki-people aren't all blowhards after all. After all, one can only assume my casebook's rather famous author ordered his sources according to the weight and relevance he assigned them.
This post makes two invitations. You may attempt to convince me to not swear off Wikipedia, notwithstanding its contributors' blatant, sneering ignorance about Hobson, Hobbes, and choosing (which I have attempted to correct, to no avail). Or, you may identify at least three usage errors in the following passage from then-Professor (yes, Professor) Obama's Fall 2002 Constitutional Law III exam (thank you, Armen):
Then I remembered Sketchy Citation #13, from my criminal law casebook. I realized that maybe I was being cocky and wrong; maybe and Wiki-people aren't all blowhards after all. After all, one can only assume my casebook's rather famous author ordered his sources according to the weight and relevance he assigned them.
This post makes two invitations. You may attempt to convince me to not swear off Wikipedia, notwithstanding its contributors' blatant, sneering ignorance about Hobson, Hobbes, and choosing (which I have attempted to correct, to no avail). Or, you may identify at least three usage errors in the following passage from then-Professor (yes, Professor) Obama's Fall 2002 Constitutional Law III exam (thank you, Armen):
The Pleasant Administration has garnered much of the credit for the mall's success, since it was the Administration that put together the public-private parternership that got the project off the ground. To jump start the development, the city purchased the site five years ago and made it development-ready through the issuance of a general obligation bond, to be paid back out of the city's tax revenues over twenty-five years. Then, after it was unable to sell the property to a developer because of the economic risks involved, the city entered into an agreement with Mogul Development Corporation, whereby [list] . . . .There is a fourth issue with the quote. I confess that the fourth issue is really a pet peeve and not a proper error, but I'll buy beer and tequila for anyone who shares my sentiments.
Labels: Grammar Snarks
posted by Patrick Bageant at 10:01 AM
27 Comments:
Don't be a bitch... If you see something wrong in wikipedia, correct it and make a contribution to world knowledge. Not everyone can afford to do research on lexisnexis.
My confidence in my "boneheads and blowhards" assessment is picking up steam.
I got "since" instead of "because" and that dangling modifier--though not so sure about that one SINCE the modifier modifies the subject of the sentence..."the city."
1. Lowercase the second appearance of "administration."
2. Should read, ". . . partnership, which got the project off the ground." Otherwise readers can't tell if there was more than one partnership.
3. Obama should have used a hyphen in "jump start." This is a stretch, but because jump and start mean the same thing in this sentence, the phrase should be hyphenated to avoid redundancy.
4. What Armen said.
"ready for development" rather than "development-ready."
My grasp of English isn't so good that I could ever make a useful contribution to a Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism, but my grasp of knowledge is enough to say that while Wikipedia isn't perfect, it's really darn good at (at the very least) steering you in the right direction. Take advantage of the links they provide, flag things that are incorrect, or join in the discussion on the inaccuracies (most every controversial article has a hotbed of discussion behind it).
Wikipedia, with enough policing, will eventually become the most vast collection of knowledge assembled. With a touch of skepticism you can find just about anything you'd need to know about everything. Just make sure that if you find something important, you make sure it has proper citation behind it before you put to much credence in it.
I think Mogul Development Corp is properly spelled R-e-z-k-o, too.
Rimshot!
There was a poorly written and outdated post on Obama calling himself a professor way back in April 2007, but it did inspire some good comments on the subject.
http://boaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/04/hot-for-teacher.html
1:13 is pretty much awesome. And EW definitely earned his beer and tequila at 7:05, though not for the reason I anticipated.
I guess no one else is bothered by phrases like "entered into an agreement." I suspect Armen is about to freak out and have another driver [sic] license moment, but here goes: phrases like "entered into an agreement" (or worse, "entered into a contractual relationship") are needless and redundant.
They're also wrong. Literally.
"Into" and "enter" both denote physical movement. (Compare with "in" and "begin.") Agreements and contracts aren't places that can be entered, nor do the parties do anything in relation to the agreement that even remotely corresponds to the word "move."
That's why I think people like us should disregard whatever gibberish Armen is likely to spout, and just use "contracted," or (even better) "agreed."
I'm going to pull some of my punches, but here it goes. First, they're called "prepositional phrases." Second, even in common English usage, prepositional phrases are NOT exclusively related to physical location. For example, if I said, "this idiotic comment that shows no grasp of language is beneath you, Patrick," I would not be talking about the actual location of the comment. "We're entering uncharted territory" is another common figure of speech. I may not like it, but I also don't clamor for proof of said territory.
But more importantly, I think someone needs to retake 1L year. While using common English, as opposed to lawyerese, is an admirable trait, clearly you failed to grasp Contracts. There's a difference between agreeing and entering into an agreement. For example, we both agree on EW's personality [note the preposition]. We haven't entered into an agreement about it. Similarly, using "contract" as a verb can be sloppy and needlessly confusing. I contracted the general contractor who contracted with sub-contractors to use tractors. I feel like The Game here.
So yes, we normally don't say things like, "the parties entered into an exclusive dating relationship," but in legal writing, it clearly and succinctly explains the legal relationship of the parties. As opposed to say, agreeing on who should win American Idol.
Wait. You actually think:
"A and B entered a contractual relationship whereby blah, blah, blah . . . "
is more clear and succinct than:
"A and B contracted to blah, blah blah . . ."
Seriously?
Yes, because the latter is often found in awkward conversations regarding sexually transmitted diseases.
lol, you win.
But you are still wrong.
Patrick@9:43--periods end sentences. "Literally" is an adverb, not a sentence. Putting a period after a word doesn't make it a sentence.
You whine about the most inane things, but can't properly form a sentence?
These threads on anal grammar policing make me really dislike this blog. Since when did Boalties become such d-bags?
Looks like somebody's got a case of the Mondays.
Literally.
With respect to "Into" and "enter" both denote physical movement. (Compare with "in" and "begin."), see the (arguably dubious) notions of Cal's own George Lakoff, on conceptual metaphors.
Whenever I want to make a real zinger of a point, I pronounce it "litrally", the way the British do.
11:00, What's wrong with using fragments for emphasis?
Absolutely nothing. That's what.
Grammar snobbery is just that: snobbery...very unbecoming of a Boaltie. And, FYI, it demonstrates low self esteem. Elevating oneself through correcting others' grammar is pathetic, and has always been a tip off to me to stay away, far far away. Did I say that clear enough for you to understand? You might be a little more careful about being a snobby little jerk if you're going to sign your real name to these posts.
Wow, you know all the grammar rules. How "special". I second 10:39. Grammar snobbery is lame and douchy.
But a circle j*rk of anonymous commenters who use "douche" in a post is as Boaltie as asbestos. Right?
Well, whatever. If you cared to kick the tired here you would find plenty of places where I'm shot down, and hard (e.g., "intensive purposes" "hat tips" and "pled").
The point (which apparently was an obscure one) was to have fun. Sorry for the confusion.
. . . and now "tired" for "tires."
Sheesh.
It's people like 10:39 who make me hate being in law school.
10:39... if you had any self-esteem at all, you WOULD put your real name on your post. It's pathetic to see someone scrawl that crap in a post meant to be (and no Patrick, it was not obscure) in good fun.
Anyone can talk big behind the veil of secrecy, but until you put a name to your words, they are meaningless. Hopefully you can channel your anger to something more important in life than a blog comments section, such as what celebrities will be on the next season of dancing with the stars.
I immediately regret getting involved in this, but can we also get rid of "said" as an adjective? I hate it, and it's never necessary. I noticed Armen used it back there, and it cracked me up to see my number one language peeve in a post about other language peeves.
The most unnerving thing about this use of "said" is it's EXCLUSIVELY used by smart people, often for the very purpose of proving their intelligence. This makes it all the more annoying and not any more necessary. Just stick with "the." That's Allstate's stand.
Post a Comment
<< Home