Heaven’s house party

I woke up yesterday to the news of the passing of Art Linkletter and suddenly the world felt a little less good.

It’s hard to think of someone who gave so much to so many just by being himself, a bit reserved in the background, while spotlighting the world’s funniest entertainers—young children.

Those of my generation grew up watching House Party but we didn’t entirely get what was so funny until we were grown.   What a treat it was to watch Art Linkletter with my son when in 1998 CBS introduced Kids Say the Darndest Things, hosted by Bill Cosby, on which Linkletter made occasional appearances.

Art Linkletter lived to be 97, was married 74 years and outlived three out of five of his children. 

There is plenty to read about his interesting life, much of which was news to me.  So pick up yesterday’s paper or go online and you’ll surely be as warmed—yet sad—as I.

What I especially loved was something he wrote in a reprint of one of his books:  “Children under ten and women over seventy give the best interviews for the identical reason: they speak the plain unvarnished truth.”

Now if Bill Cosby lives to 97, I’ll feel better.

2 Comments

Filed under In Memoriam, Movies, Television and Radio, Reading

Golden anniversary

Today is Word Nymph’s 50th blog post.  I never thought I’d have that much to say.

Milestones are good occasions to look back. 

In 50 blog posts I have learned:

  • Readers have as many peeves and curiosities as I do when it comes to language.  The ones they would like to explore further include “less” versus “fewer,” “use” versus “utilize,” “that” versus “who” and “that” versus “which,”  among others.
  • Most readers don’t take themselves or me too seriously, which is the object of the game here, though occasionally someone does school me with pronounced severity.
  • The search phrases leading to my blog (which I can see on the back end) are, shall we say, interesting.   I definitely underestimated the overall interest in anything nymphish.  Also, there are far more people interested in that silly mayonnaise commercial than I would have thought.  And far fewer people writing about it.  Hence, I might soon attain the title of Mayo Queen.  Thank you, Kraft!
  • I really shouldn’t blog before coffee.

Also on the occasion of this milestone, here’s what I’d like my readers to know:

  • If you see a typo in a post, check back later.  Chances are that it’s been fixed.  After the aforementioned coffee.
  • I appreciate your indulging this experiment of mine.  More than anything, your participation is what makes it fun. 

I hope you’ll stick around.

4 Comments

Filed under All Things Wordish, Family and Friends, Technology and Social Media

The rest nest

Last night my husband and I spent two hours gazing into our future.  At the end of the two hours, we signed up for Long Term Care insurance.

The timing of the meeting with our insurance agent wasn’t ideal; and in retrospect, should not have been scheduled so soon after the Golden Girls experience I had just days ago.

In two hours’ time, we saw ourselves a decade or two, maybe three, in the future, when statistically, one or both of us will no longer be able to function independently, or inter-dependently. 

While the agent and my husband were crunching numbers, I visited a place where I was hunched over my walker, or maybe puzzled and doodling all over my checkbook or lying at the foot of the basement stairs with a broken hip.  Or, knowing me, walking away from blazing stove burners long after the pots have come off

Then, while those two pored over actuarial and premium tables, I traveled to Florida, to an upscale assisted living facility, and watched myself playing Scrabble.  My husband was out on the lanai, comfortable in a rocker, alternately grinning and dozing.  A musical group came into the dining room and performed a Sheryl Crow medley and the score from Mamma Mia.

One thing I know as I contemplate the long term care scenario is that we must do away with the word “facility.”  If I am going to one, it can’t be a facility.   It must be something fuzzier.

We were bound to tackle euphemisms here someday, so we might as well start now.

I am not going to an assisted living facility.  Where am I going?

According to the blog of Entertaining Euphemisms, it’s a “wellness and vitality residence” or “continuum of care lifestyle community.”

Pretty good.  Can you do better?

6 Comments

Filed under All Things Wordish, Family and Friends

The princess bribe

Sarah, honey, how could you do it?  As those of us here in Washington, D.C. could have told you, money for influence is a tricky notion, one that usually doesn’t reflect well in headlines, not to mention on hidden camera.

But you appeared on video, soliciting large sums in exchange for access to your influential ex-husband.  It was painful to watch, especially for you.

Next time, maybe you’ll consider all those who’ve looked up to you all these years.  Think of the children whose parents read them Budgie the Little Helicopter—which by the way, our son loved.  My husband and I used to hide Budgie on nights when we were too tired to read it (it was a little long) but our son always found it and brought it to us beggingly.  You were a part of us even then.

Think of all of us whom you inspired with your Weight Watchers commercials.  The way you pronounced Weight Wohchahs lent sophistication to our point-counting.

We looked up to you and yet you were a duchess we could relate to, with your struggles with weight and overindulgence, and those unflattering swimsuit shots.  We rooted for you when the tabloids exposed your troubles.  But this latest misstep has put your supporters in one sticky wicket.

We understand that, financially, you have fallen on hard times.  There, there, dear.  Come join me for two-for-one night at Ruby Tuesday and we’ll work through it.  That is, if you don’t end up doing hard porridge in the chokey.

5 Comments

Filed under Marketing/Advertising/PR, Movies, Television and Radio, News

Golden Girls

About 20 years ago, I worked in an office with an extraordinary group of people, many of whom were women my age.

When you spend more than a third of your day with the same people, you become close.  These women and I had our children together and, in the ensuing years, we shared everything–the challenges of working and rearing children,  strategies for making it through each day with our sanity, recipes, more laughs than can be counted and oceans of tears.  Some of these women have passed on, a sad reality that has brought the rest of us even closer.

Once, in the office lunch room, I suggested that maybe someday we would all live together, like the Golden Girls, which was at the height of its run on television.  I painted a picture of us sharing a house in Florida, driving around in a big convertible, with our head scarves tied tightly beneath our sagging chins.

In The Golden Girls series, which ran from 1985 to 1992, the characters played by Bea Arthur, Betty White and Rue McClanahan were in their early 50s.  Estelle Getty played Sophia, who was 70, tops.

The day before yesterday, I had lunch with three of my old girlfriends.  It hit me then that we had, alas, become the Golden Girls.

After settling in according to who needed to sit on which side of whose good ear, many parts of the conversation still had to be repeated.  There was, after all, background noise in the restaurant.

Next came the organ recital.  We discussed our health screenings, what conditions are plaguing us, which body parts ache and what meds we take.  We talked about our feet, debating which are worse, problems with the plantar or those of the metatarsal.

We talked about our emptying nests and commiserated about all it has taken to help our hatchlings fly on their own.  We also heard what it’s like to have an adult child move back home with all of her children.

We heard news of parents and more former colleagues who had passed.

We acknowledged the challenges of dwindling incomes and investments and compared notes on which chain restaurants offer two-for-one entrees on which weeknights.

We laughed at all the old lady behaviors we’ve adopted, such as finding a blouse we like and buying it in every color.

I shared that I had recently bought half a pie.

What brought our lunch to a close was a conversation about television–what shows we like and the fact that you can now can get TV programming through Netflix, which streams through the Wii. 

That was it.  Just the idea of “streaming through the Wii” sent us rushing to the ladies’ room, where we shared a final laugh and called it a day.

I haven’t bothered to take the Which Sex and the City Girl Are You quiz that’s going around in anticipation of the new movie.

Instead, I will start my own quiz and ask my peers to consider:  Which Golden Girl are you?

1 Comment

Filed under Beauty and Fashion, Family and Friends, Foibles and Faux Pas, Movies, Television and Radio

Justice I am, without one plea

I am feeling a little Andy Rooneyish today.  I can almost hear him narrating this post.

Last month, I was handed a uniform traffic citation outside my home state.  Because there is a court date looming, I realize I am taking a risk by blogging about it.  But I can’t resist.

To recap, a state trooper pulled me over for driving 69 miles per hour in a 55 mile-per-hour zone.  Then he wrote me a ticket for 70 mph, which could have consequences beyond a simple fine.

Following this incident, I received letters from seven of that state’s law firms, pitching their services in helping me get the charge reduced or dismissed.

I finally sat down and combed through all the letters.  The first one hit me with its rash of unnecessary quotation marks, so I decided one way I’d sort the letters would be to weed out those that didn’t pass the Word Nymph test. 

Here’s where Andy Rooney comes in.  Just picture him sitting there behind his cluttered desk, amidst the open envelopes, letters and the waivers they all come with (in case you haven’t been so fortunate as to receive one).

The first letter comes from a “Community Oriented Law Firm.”  In quotes, but no mention of who said it.

The second claims, I am not a Big City law firm.  Is this supposed to be a selling point?  Or is Big City a municipality in that state?

The third letter talks about fines for running a Stop Sign or Red Light.  Capitalized.

The fourth displays the following tagline below the firm name:  honoring Him by serving those with legal challenges in our community with integrity and excellence.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

The fifth one touts its postage-paid envelope for sending back the waiver:  No stamp necessary!  Exclamation point! Wow, if this saves me 44 cents, then they’ve got MY business.

The sixth letter went straight to the bottom of the stack for twice using the obnoxious parenthetical numeral.  That’s in case you wouldn’t otherwise know  – Traffic offenses generally cause insurance points to be assessed against you that will result in increased premiums for a period of three (3) years.  For example, premiums can be doubled for a traffic violation that carries four (4) points.   I’m glad they made that clear, as I was absent the day they taught us how to spell numbers.

The seventh letter begins a paragraph with, If you have not already plead guilty…  Isn’t it pled?  Or pleaded?

The reality is that, if I choose to obtain legal representation, I place my fate in the hands of one of these firms.  And I do so humbly because I am being charged with a violation that has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar or punctuation.  Traffic law is the great equalizer.

Anyone out there have a cousin Vinny?

Word Nymph will resume on Monday, after spending Sunday asking forgiveness for her irreverent headline.

1 Comment

Filed under All Things Wordish, Foibles and Faux Pas

They is wrong

According to the Fake AP Stylebook’s April 21 Facebook post:  “Avoid using masculine pronouns in sentences where the subject’s gender is not specified.  Broads find it offensive.”

What this broad finds offensive is the subject/pronoun disagreement that often occurs as a result of a writer’s attempt at political correctness.

I am a firm believer that political correctness and grammatical correctness are not mutually exclusive.  (Though if I did have to choose?  Hmmm.)

It is incorrect to suggest that “everyone have their say” or “the winner deserves their prize.”  In these instances, because the subject is singular,“their” should be “his.”   “He” and “his” are considered gender neutral, even though they are masculine pronouns.  For those sensitive to gender equity in grammar, “his or her” is perfectly acceptable.  Or,  if we know that the subject, say “winner” in the earlier example, is female, we may say “the winner deserves her prize.  “Their” is just plain wrong.

Also, remember that “everyone” is singular, even though it sounds like a lot of people.  Every one.   So please do not say “everyone is entitled to their opinion.”  

I recently stumbled on a blog that claims to specialize in writing.  I won’t call out the blogger by name because I know how hard it is to churn out copy day after day, and I am the first to admit that, in so doing, I make mistakes regularly. There is a difference between making a mistake and deliberately breaking a well-known rule.

The blogger wrote this week, “It helps a writer’s ego as well as their ability to write if they have peers to read and give feedback on their work.” 

The writer is a “he” or a “she,” not a “they;” otherwise, it would be “writers’ egos” and “writers’ work,” plural.  And if the choice is to go plural possessive, please note where the apostrophe goes.

Six days earlier, the same blogger wrote:  “Everyone has read a bit of bad prose or poetry in their life and access to the Internet seems to make it easier to point out other’s grammatical and spelling errors as well as their downright awful writing in general.”

Oh, really?

3 Comments

Filed under All Things Wordish

Ambush advertising

The new Kraft mayonnaise commercial is not only entertaining but extremely clever.

Have you seen it?  It’s a takeoff on the Extreme Makeover shows.  The wife was always making tiny finger sandwiches, like the ones you’d have at high tea, and the husband was forlorn.  Kraft bursts in and does an extreme sandwich makeover with its new seasoned mayo and an oversized roll, and the result moves both husband and wife to tears.

Advertising Age ran a story earlier this year on Kraft’s push to step up its marketing strategy following the company’s acquisition of Cadbury.  Kraft has produced some pretty memorable ads over the years.  Remember the famous “And I helped!” for Shake and Bake? Ad Age points out that the company continues to wear a bit of a down-home label when it comes to its commercials.

Twenty-four years ago, Neil Postman wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death:  Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, in which he discussed how television and other entertainment media spill over into politics and public dialogue.  Even after 24 years, while the entertainment media are vastly transformed, a point Postman made regarding television advertising holds true today, as Kraft proves in its Sandwich Makeover campaign:  “What the advertiser needs to know is not what is right about the product but what is wrong about the buyer.”

What better way is there than an ambush makeover to make a consumer feel bad enough about herself to run right out and buy mayonnaise?

Leave a comment

Filed under Food, Marketing/Advertising/PR, Movies, Television and Radio, Reading

The other woman

My husband is in love with Ms. Garmin Nüvi.  It happened the moment he heard her voice through our new GPS. 

This came as a big surprise to both of us.  He is among the last to fall for any high tech gadget.  He has the most distant relationship with his cell phone.  After four years, he has yet to record a voice mail greeting and usually doesn’t recognize when it rings that someone is calling him.  He recently bought his first home computer but, alas, after several weeks, it still has no software.  He will probably never own a Blackberry.

He bought me the Garmin nüvi for Mother’s Day, intending it would be mine alone to take on business trips. 

Last weekend we went out of town for a wedding, so we took it along to try it out.  My husband was astonished that this woman, who spoke sternly and resolutely through the speaker, knew where we were going and, further, how to get us back on course when we stopped for gas. 

When she spoke, he answered.  “Thanks, sweetheart.”  When she said to turn right, he said, “I’ll do that, sweetheart.”  “What next, sweetheart?” 

As we headed out to the various wedding events, my husband asked me whether we were taking “her” with us.  It was starting to feel like a threesome.  Only she was the one being called “sweetheart.”

After the wedding Saturday night we went back to our hotel and stepped into the elevator.  An electronic voice announced, “Going up.”  My husband gasped, “It’s her!”

6 Comments

Filed under Family and Friends, Foibles and Faux Pas, Technology and Social Media, Travel

Further study

One of my favorite movies is Finding Forrester.  The reasons are many—the plot, the cast, the characters and the writing among them—but mostly its treatment of language.  The movie is also a good resource for remembering the rule governing “farther” versus “further.”

Finding Forrester, released in 2000, was directed by Gus Van Sant, who also directed Good Will Hunting.  The entertainment site IMDB notes that the two movies essentially have the same plot:  “An underprivileged youth is discovered by a reclusive genius and is shepherded to his full potential. What GWH was to math, this film is to literature.”  If you haven’t seen it, or seen it lately, it’s worth watching or watching again.

Sean Connery plays a reclusive Pulitzer-prize winning author who very begrudgingly befriends a teenaged basketball player.  As it turns out, the teen, who hangs out on city streets, is interested in writing.

Jamal Wallace, played by Rob Brown, manages to get in to an elite private school on a basketball scholarship.  There is immediate tension between Jamal and his haughty English professor.

One day in class, the professor says to Jamal, “Perhaps your skills do reach farther than basketball.”

Jamal replies, “Further.”

“What?”

A student tries to stop Jamal from challenging the professor.  Jamal continues, “You said that my skills reached ‘farther’ than basketball. ‘Farther’ relates to distance, ‘further’ is a definition of degree. You should have said ‘further.’”

Great scene.  Good lesson.

I have plenty of friends and colleagues with whom I have debated “farther” versus “further.”  Some claim the two are completely interchangeable.  There are some sources that support that claim but sufficiently more that explain the distinction.  “Farther” applies to an advancement in physical distance while “further” means to a greater degree.  “Further” also applies to an advancement of time or figurative distance, e.g., to take the discussion a bit further.  It is also used as a verb, such as to further one’s education, as well as an adverb to mean additionally.

A colleague once told me she just doesn’t like “farther” so always uses “further.”

I am always puzzled when people just plain do not like a word and deem it better to use incorrectly a different word in its place. 

With the exception of profanity, there really are no bad words.  Every word has its purpose.  The key is to know the purpose and to use the word correctly. 

There are several examples of word rules I have trouble remembering.

Maybe one day there will be a movie that helps me with “bring” versus “take.”

6 Comments

Filed under All Things Wordish, Movies, Television and Radio