in

Paul McFedries' Tech Tonic

Making the world a better place, one computer book at a time

Lingua Techna

Technology, language, and technical writing (plus some interesting stuff, too)

August 2008 - Posts

  • The Comprehensibility Test

    In a remarkably sane post about new words, editor John McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun offers the following bit of wordly wisdom:

    [T]he point is not whether a dictionary has conferred legitimacy on [a] word; the point is whether the word is comprehensible and appropriate in context.

    Exactly.

    This applies to cliched speech, as well. In the Globe and Mail op-ed piece that I mentioned in my previous post, the writer objects to phrases such as push the envelopethink out of the boxlow-lying fruit, get your ducks in a row, and going forward. She instructs us, upon hearing such phrases, to "take a bold step forward and politely demand clarity." However, with the possible exception of low-lying fruit (the variation low-hanging fruit is much more common), all of these phrases are perfectly comprehensible. If someone tells you about "the guy who pushed the envelope while thinking out of the box," you might think "Dude, get some new vocabulary," but you'd know what the person was talking about.

  • A Corollary to McKean's Law

    McKean’s Law (named after lexicographer Erin McKean) states that “any correction of the speech or writing of others will contain at least one grammatical, spelling, or typographical error.” In the op-ed pages of yesterday's Globe and Mail, Laura Rosen Cohen wrote a tirade against buzzwords, clichés, and speech correctness that has no such errors, but it does include a distressing number of tired phrases, including mind-numbingwalking on eggshells, culture of fear, and baby steps. I therefore propose a corollary to McKean’s Law:

    Any rant against clichéd speech will contain at least one cliché.

Copyright © 2008 Logophilia Limited and Paul McFedries
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems