Monday, May 17, 2010

don't say it.

Well, my mentor Dr. Syntax read Everything is on the Table today and liked it a great deal. Unfortunately he had a total breakdown this morning when the fellow in front of him in the Starbucks line said something about a Simplograndemochamacchimacchihalfcalfcrappochinofrappe with cinnamon to the Barista. I don't know which word set him off but they had to take him away in a basket and so I'm posting his response inspired by Sharia's post:

________________

Dear Americans,

There are so many more things you shouldn't be saying. But you keep at it, don't you?

It's not hopeless, you can change if you really want to. After all, you managed to pry yourself away from "efforting" not that long ago and if you keep trying you can stop pushing envelopes too and leave it to the mailman. The worn out engineering metaphor was about pushing the outside of a performance envelope anyway and you don't even know what that means, do you? Efforting -- don't you feel, well, effortless without it?

Yes, I know what you're saying and I know what you're talking about so you don't have to point out that everything you said or saw or liked was what you were talking about, OK? The same for you telling me about what you were like or are like when you were trying to tell me what you said. I already know what you're like what you said and what you've been talking about and I don't like it.

Believe me, I'm being tactful when I mention for the umpteenth time that intact is one word, not two and that you don't tow a metaphorical line, you toe it. So can you remember that, or do I have to get nasty? Because that actually is what I'm talking about -- and while we're about the word because it's because there never was a reason that was because anything. Let's pause and contemplate the cause of such confusion. That's if you want to know the reason that I said it not the reason why I said it. The reason is that I prefer to make sense and that preference takes precedence over my American desire to sound as unlettered and unfettered by logic as possible .

So you want to know your congressman's track record? So do I, because I don't want my congressman betting on the horses or dogs or anything else that runs on tracks. Track records are records one holds at the track or that the track keeps records of. One can have all kinds of records you know. Try saying congressional record or job record or any other kind of record you can think of -- please. You can simply stop saying track record like a broken record now and all of the above in one swoop and I don't care if the swoop is fell or kindly. Just stop.

Are you going green or are you already there? If so, get off my boat or take a Dramamine. It's fine if you turn lights off or drive a small car and commute a short distance and keep your cell phone charger unplugged, but that isn't making the oceans or rain forests any greener because you're not doing a damn thing when compared to what the cattle ranchers and the oil drillers are doing and that Wal-Mart you shop at burns up more Wal-Watts than all the SUVs in the parking lot just keeping the air conditioning cold enough so you won't smell the customers. Just save energy and leave it at that. Green is pretentious, don't pretend it isn't.

Wall Street Vs. Main Street? They don't measure up to Interstate 94, so lose the metaphor and cutesy dichotomy dude, cause it's my way or the highway says the cliche -- or maybe Rte A1A if you prefer the scenic route.

High Tech means absolutely nothing. It's a gimmick designed to make a gimmick more appealing to people who don't know how gimmicks work. It's not a useful comment. Stop saying it.

Did you know, by the way, that you can get close, or even up close without getting personal, and since you can also get personal without getting up close there isn't any reason to keep adding one unrelated action to another as though they were inseparable, is there? So why do you keep doing it?

I had a hard time with the Sunday crossword puzzle yesterday and I was outside on the patio and not in any kind of box, so thanks for your suggestion, but it doesn't help anyone think -- so stop saying it.

And last -- perhaps least perhaps not least, that's up to you -- stop trying to sound like a 14 year old street urchin, unless you are one -- and even then, hipness is only a type of conformity and there's nothing more cliche than a hipster of any age even a week out of date with his palette of cliche-of-the-day speech. It's OK to grow up. It's OK to sound like you are grown up (Not if you're running for office, of course) and have read books and don't need to paste together cutouts from other people's speech like someone writing a ransom note in some 30's cinema noir film.

It's OK to defeat someone without kicking their ass; to be bad at something without reference to fellatio and please, for God's sake don't open another can of whoop ass on me. It was out of date 30 years ago and smells like it.

I could go on, but my message is like simple and I'm like limiting the list in order to impactify it so that it will impact negatively on you in an impactful way and because like you know I can't do this all day without more coffee -- that's what I'm talking about.

-Dr. Syntax-

8 comments:

  1. Would a swell foop be okay?

    Um, imma leave outa here, now. Just sayin'. No offense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That Dr. Syntax is like, one doubleplusgood duckspeaker for vocabulistical enhancification. In the manner of Orwell’s critiques, I’ll just add that corporate talkers are among the worst coiners: “to problem solve” isn’t a whit better than “to solve problems,” yet all those Alec Baldwin wannabe lookalikes out there keep saying it and much worse. One wishes they would make a “good-faith effort” to cut that out. There is just some crap up with which we shall not put.

    I agree with respect to the consequences of impoverishing the Great American school kid’s vocabulary, whatever the relationship buzzwords and bad grammar may or may not be to such impoverishment. Politics is a deadly game mostly played by means of words; the less competent we are with them, the more vulnerable we become to self-interested liars. I think the schools used to get across the point that each of us should see good writing and speaking as an expression of self-respect. My mother didn’t have much formal schooling, but she was an intelligent woman and I remember that when she wrote personal letters, if she didn’t know how to spell something, she reached for a dictionary to look it up. Appropriate expression mattered to her, even in an ordinary letter. Many kids and even adults in today’s age of informality clearly haven’t been imbued with that concern, and they misspell simple words shamelessly, revealing in the process that they haven’t cracked open a book since dear old Mrs. Applebee put a .38 to their heads in junior high English class. Even persnickety college students routinely turn in formal papers with a dozen grievous errors in every paragraph and little sense that it makes any difference (to borrow a line from Tina Fey’s Sister Sarah impression) “what yer words mean and what order ya put ‘em in.” They’re bright, but often they just don’t have much practice and they apparently don’t see the act of writing as a matter of self-respect. They don’t read much formal prose, so they’re clueless when they have to produce some.

    What else is lost? Well, to some extent, the ability to appreciate the remarkable beauties and emotional range of language, which is capable of much more than instrumentality or unmediated expressiveness. Without this sense, how does one appreciate the splendor of a passage like the one Juliet speaks in anticipation of uniting with Romeo?

    Give me my Romeo: and, when he shall die,

    Take him and cut him out in little stars,

    And he will make the face of heaven so fine

    That all the world will be in love with night,

    And pay no worship to the garish sun. (3.2.23-27)

    Didn’t know the dinosaurs were so romantic as to quote Shakespeare, did ya!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Dr. Syntax,

    My friend and I are having an argument...

    He claims that he has 'principals' and I want to believe that he really means 'principles' could you please tell us what the difference is and would it be polite for me to correct my friend?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh b-dino, that is one of my favorite passages in all of Shakespeare.

    Dr. Syntax,

    Yes. We're all Sarah Palin now. Few people cringe at the syntactically twisted sentences that she giddily shares with her audiences.

    Just today, I listened to part of a speech she gave at an organization for children with autism last weekend.

    I wrote these gems down:

    As she was ingratiating herself with the veterans in the audience, she thanked them for "...all of those protections of our country,"

    and then went on to recount a football game with Alabama and another team and described the winning play after which "...the game expired."

    She also spoke of "...stricter oversight of deregulating so people voluntarily can be more generous."

    Seriously.

    I couldn't listen to much more because my jaws hurt from grinding my molars together.

    She has her very own lexicon in which she's always talkiing about "there" or something "in there."

    John McWhorter writing in The New Republic wrote this about her speech patterns:

    "Palin is given to meandering phraseology of a kind suggesting someone more commenting on impressions as they enter and leave her head rather than constructing insights about them. Or at least, insights that go beyond the bare-bones essentials of human cognition — an entity (i.e. something) and a predicate (i.e. something about it)."

    "What truly distinguishes Palin’s speech is its utter subjectivity: that is, she speaks very much from the inside of her head, as someone watching the issues from a considerable distance. The there fetish, for instance — Palin frequently displaces statements with an appended 'there,' as in 'We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there...' But where? Why the distancing gesture?

    ReplyDelete
  5. TAO - My friend and I are having an argument... He claims that he has 'principals" ...

    I noticed. Out of kindness ("why," I ask myself), I didn't want to humiliate him any further.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was hoping that I wasn't the only one...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Dr. Surtax,

    The Committee for the Reduction of Redundancy and Repetition has decided not to meet pending or until they have their first meeting. Thus, they will not assemble, gather, or congregate until their initial, first time get-together.

    Their Pre-Summit Announcement, Proclamation, and Statement wants to make this absolutely and abundantly clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable before they had their first meeting, so that it would not be unclear, baffling, or bewildering in any way, shape, or form.

    So their first meeting will actually be their first meeting, and they will not assemble, congregate, or meet in point of fact before their first meeting.

    This should avoid having people show up for their first meeting before it is held, since it would be too confusing to those who did, and this is exactly and precisely what they seek to avoid, forestall, preclude, and prevent by reducing any confusion, mistake or muddle thereby lessening the duplication, reiteration, and repetition thereof and heretofore.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But where? Why the distancing gesture?

    Because there is no there there.

    Palin's there is generic and unspecified enough to cover up (or attempt to cover up) an utter lack of understanding of anything non-moose-stew related. So there could be anywhere: here, there, nowhere; in Alaska, Russia, Eye-ran, Afghanistan, New York, among them librul media elites, or in The Ga-Ga Land. Doesn't matter. It's all there. Or there, more accurately. Or not.

    These phrases gush from deep inside Sarah's head like an uncontrollable geyser of muck, capable of muddying waters and killing off any sentient life on contact.

    But don't think this is an accident. It is part of the grand design, in which Sarah The Winking Idiot can charm her way over there, wherever it may be -- FOX, WSJ, White House (god forbid). It's all there for her -- sky is the limit.

    P.S. Speaking of neither here or there (though mostly the latter), you may remember the movie Being There about a dimwit, Chance the gardener, who is seen as a sophisticate and whose "insights" on American economy and other matters are revered by pretentious society types. We can't exclude a possibility that when Palin uses the word there, she may -- subconsciously, of course -- refer to Being There (hint hint -- the joke is on you, people).

    So there.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.