Fritinancy

Master of Your Domain

I'm in the slow, tedious, neck-pain-inducing phase of a name-development project: checking domain availability for dozens of name candidates. Until today, my process has involved visiting Register.com, typing in a few names (Register allows multiple submissions), and waiting patiently for results on a new screen. Now I've learned about a new application (new to me, anyway) that eliminates the "waiting patiently" part. Start typing your desired domain into Instant Domain Search and get results while you're typing. If your domain is available, Instant Domain Search gives you comparative buying options (why pay $14.99 a year at Network Solutions when you can pay $1.99 at Yahoo?). If it isn't available, you'll get a menu of options that include "backorder," "visit site" (to see whether it's parked or developed), and "make offer."

I wish I could remember how I stumbled upon this elegant little time-saver, but I neglected to capture that information.

I did learn that the little company that created Instant Domain Search, Hartshorne Software, has also developed a free, browser-based picture-editor called Snipshot that lets you edit images as big as 10 mg or 25 megapixels. I tried Snipshot on a much smaller image and was impressed by the application's ease, speed, and clean design. Cute name, too.

Whatchamacallit Is Hell

When does Iraq's "sectarian violence" become "civil war"? When is it just--as the White House likes to say--"a new phase"?

Slate.com blog reporter Christopher Beam reports on this war of words being conducted in the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Some of it is decidedly uncivil, like this snipe by Boston Herald columnist and conservative blogger Jules Crittenden, who, Beam says, "calls the announcement 'essentially meaningless. Like pointing out that the war in Iraq has now lasted longer than World War II. Like making headlines out of the war dead in increments of 500.' He also digs in to the motives behind the phrase: "NBC's unilateral declaration of Iraq as a civil war follows … is intended to support the idea that we don't belong there."

Meanwhile, Beam says, The Huffington Post has a clip from The Daily Show in which Jon Stewart and John Oliver offer alternatives such as "faith-based melee" and "internal sovereignty challenge."

And over at The Borowitz Report, comedian Andy Borowitz delivers a "Euphemism Shocker":

President George W. Bush said today that he would not allow a civil war in Iraq to erupt on his watch, and said that in order to prevent that from happening the United States would aggressively search for new synonyms for the phrase "civil war."

In order to seek out the most sanitized alternatives to that phrase, the president announced that he was launching an ambitious new mission called Operation Noble Euphemism.

Borowitz deadpans that White House spokesman Tony Snow announced that "the United States is committed to finding a lasting euphemism for civil war in Iraq."

And he adds: "Mr. Snow refused to say which if any euphemisms were under consideration, but did say that the White House had already ruled out 'Shiitepalooza."

Hey, nameigos--let's enlist. I'll ante up with:

Differently Abled Peace

Fray-for-All

The Troubles

A Bit of a Row

Haters' Quarrel

More euphemism follies at Slate: Deadline for the latest contest is tomorrow, Nov. 30. The subject this month is what Shakespeare called "making the beast with two backs." In other words, make love, not war. In a manner of speaking.

Jargon, Buzzword, or Hype?

Kathy Sierra, who blogs at Creating Passionate Users, has written a rambling and fascinating defense of jargon in which she says that "talking to other experts is more stimulating than talking to newbies" because "you get to use domain-specific jargon."

She has a point. At its best, jargon is to ordinary language what a bouillon cube is to chicken soup: an intense linguistic nugget that flavors the entire conversation. Jargon often summons up a vivid image, as when a diner waitress yells out an order for "Adam and Eve on a raft" (two poached eggs on toast), or a cynical doctor proclaims that a patient is manifesting "the Q sign" (unresponsive, with tongue hanging out), or a taxi driver says he's heading for the "dog pound" (the Greyhound Bus station).

Kathy distinguishes between jargon (good) and buzzwords (bad) this way:

Where buzzwords are used to impress or mislead, jargon is used to communicate more efficiently and interestingly with others who share a similar level of knowledge and skills in a specific area.

Having an "insider" lexicon is part of the benefit of being "into" something, she writes. 

It's not about elitism--it's about efficiency. It's not about impressing others--it's about a shared understanding of specific concepts. It's about being able to talk about ideas or processes or even parts with fewer words and (potentially) greater meaning.

I part company with Kathy over the example that gets her started down this path: "Web 2.0." Is it a buzzword? Is it marketing hype? Or, as Kathy claims, is it a legitimate bit of jargon that functions as a secret handshake among the cognoscenti?

Here's my take: any term that's coined in a brainstorming session, as "Web 2.0" was, doesn't have the same linguistic status as "gumbo" (horse racing slang for a muddy track), "passholes" (stand-up-comic-speak for freebie audiences), or even "newbie." Real jargon is populist; its origins are anonymous and mysterious, but it always refers to something tangible and specific. You may not understand it at first, but once you hear the definition, it's as clear as day. By contrast, no two people seem to agree on the meaning of "Web 2.0." Kathy wants this not to matter:

"Web 2.0" may be the least understood phrase in the history of the world, but that still doesn't make it meaningless.

Maybe not, but it doesn't make it jargon, either.

The most entertaining part of Kathy's post, however, is at the end, where she offers up fourteen word triplets, all of them lingo belonging to one profession or hobby or another. See how many you can decipher before you read the comments (Kathy has knowledgeable smart readers!). For extra credit, try these:

• Ditzy, bridge, essemmellex
• Foley, cucaloris, whirly
• Brite, reefer, thirty

Post a comment and tell me (a) where each set of words comes from and (b) what they mean.

By the way, I got some of my jargon references from a dandy book, Idiom Savant: Slang As It Is Slung, by Jerry Dunn. It's apparently out of print, but you can buy it used for as little as sixty cents.

Word of the Week: Dotsam

Dotsam: The wasteland of abandoned Web sites, Hotmail accounts, blogs, wikis, MySpace pages, etc., that their creators have ignored for months or years but which remain accessible. The word was coined in imitation of flotsam and jetsam; "flotsam" refers to goods that float in the water without having been thrown there, as after a shipwrek, while "jetsam" has been cast into the sea--jettisoned--usually to lighten a ship's cargo in an emergency.

Via Buzzwhack.

You Better Not

It's that time of year, when clichés drift down like snowflakes, disproving the theory that no two snowflakes are exactly alike. Something about the smell of pine needles and the jingle of Salvation Army bells seems to transform otherwise original thinkers into platitudinous hacks. If you write for a living, or hope to, you'd be well advised to heed this Scroogy list of holiday clichés to avoid, compiled by Baltimore Sun copy editors and colleagues and shared by John McIntyre at You Don't Say. My favorites:

"’Tis the season": Not in copy, not in headlines, not at all. Never, never, never, never, never. You cannot make this fresh. Do not attempt it.

"’Twas the night before" anything: 'Twasing is no more defensible than ’tising. (And if you must refer to the Rev. Mr. Moore's poem, if indeed he wrote it, the proper title is "A Visit from St. Nicholas.")

"Yes, Virginia" allusions: No.

"White stuff" for snow: We should have higher standards of usage than do television weather forecasters. Also avoid the tautologies favored by these types: winter season, weather conditions, winter weather conditions, snow event and snow precipitation. And the tautologies favored in advertising: free gift, extra bonus and extra added bonus.

And speaking of gifts, reader Bryan Vartabedian, who writes the definitively titled Parenting Solved blog, alerted me to a Wall Street Journal article by Elizabeth Holmes headlined "Especially During the Holidays, 'Gift' Is a Verb That Just Keeps 'Gifting'." If you're not a subscriber, you may not have access to the article, so here are the pithy parts (email me for more):

The noun "gift" is a popular word, synonymous with "present." But this holiday season, it's cropping up increasingly as an encouraging verb -- as in, to give something to somebody.

Users of Apple Computer Inc.'s popular iTunes online store can "gift" songs and albums and videos to one another. Mondera, an online jewelry retailer, pushes customers to "go ahead, gift her" a diamond. Epicurious.com, a gourmet online food guide published by Condé Nast, features an entire section labeled "Thanksgifting." Gossip Web site TMZ.com reported actress Angelina Jolie "was gifted" a diaper bag after the birth of her daughter.

Despite its seeming acceptance, the verbification of "gift" has sparked a lively debate in some quarters, from grammarians to bloggers. "Using gift as a verb is a sign of stupidity, laziness, and verbal sloppiness," wrote the host of the Web log feh-muh-nist. "We frown on this usage," agreed Pam Nelson, a journalist with the News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., on her blog Triangle Grammar Guide. (The Wall Street Journal also prefers to give rather than to gift.)

Even so, there's a small contingent of supporters -- and they've got some history on their side. "The verb 'gift' is a perfectly good one," declares Barry Leiba in his blog, Staring at Empty Pages. "To be able to use 'gift' as a verb without raising hackles, well, that would be a gift."

As Mr. Leiba notes, the use of "gift" as a verb isn't new. Most dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, include a definition of the term as a transitive verb. "And," he says, "it's nice to have a word that specifically means 'to give as a gift.'"

Reporter Holmes goes on to quote linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, who says that despite heaps of noun-to-verb precedent (milk the cow, water the grass, and other examples of anthimeria), "to gift" goes too far.

"Nobody ever likes this one," says Mr. Nunberg, who feels it is tainted by commercialism and its overuse in gossip columns and press releases.

What? A holiday allusion ... tainted by commercialism? Yes, Virginia, I'm shocked.

Honestly

What does one want, really, from a root vegetable?

Simplicity.

Integrity.

And, above all, candor.

Shot by CB at Johnson's BBQ on San Bruno Ave. in San Francisco.

Thanksgiving Linkfest

I love Thanksgiving. No religion, no Muzak, no dead trees, no compulsory gift giving--just food and fellowship and then dessert.

And so, in the spirit of the day, I'm grateful:

For three women who inspired me to start blogging: Mary Sullivan, who writes Way to Grow and The First Year, two thoughtful, well-written blogs about embarking on the entrepreneurial life--and whose encouragement and advice helped me launch Away With Words; Sylvia Paull, the most connected woman in the universe and author of Berkeley Blog; and Laurie Clemans, an omnitalented, insatiably curious marketing ace.

For frequent commenters Mike Wagner of Own Your Brand! (in Iowa), Mike Pope of Evolving English II and Mike's Blog (in Seattle), and Matthew Stibbe Bad Language (in London)--three smart guys who never fail to inspire me.

For generous linkers Amy Kane, who writes Atlantic Ave., about life on the New Hampshire seacoast; John Robinson of Sore Eyes, who writes about anything that strikes his wide-ranging fancy; and Steve Spalding of How to Split an Atom--good geeky fun.

For fellow namers Strategic Name Development, Stoked Brands, and Cintara, who help me keep my competitive edge.

For Language Log, Dr. Goodword's Language Blog, Wordmall, and Separated by a Common Language, which slake my thirst for word knowledge. (Please go immediately to Dr. Goodword's definitive post on the use and misuse of "comprise" and commit it to memory.)

For Visual Thesaurus, which has brought me new readers and new insights into the worlds of words and writing. For Vocabula Review and Wordsmith.org, stimulating resources both.

For faithful readers and supporters Pam Slim, whose Escape from Cubicle Nation is required reading for anyone thinking of making the leap; Bryan Vartabedian, a pediatric gastroenterologist in Houston who seems like the kind of guy I'd take my kids to when they had tummy troubles, if I had kids and lived in Houston; and dynamic duo Mark Gunnion and CB Brown, finders of oddities and makers of connections.

For the super-fantastic Manolo's Shoe Blog. Shoes and laughs: what could be better?

For my very smart clients, who challenge me and believe in me.

For my brothers, who actually read this blog and send me great ideas for posts.

For my father, who taught me to read in two languages, brought home his English-grammar books from community college and shared them with me, and indulged--nay, abetted--my love of word play.

For all of you who care about the way we talk and write and sell each other stuff.

Thanks.

Thanksgiving Day parade photo: This Goes Nowhere.

Chew on This

As many of us in the U.S. prepare for Thursday's Thanksgiving feast, at which each of us will consume the average annual caloric intake of the entire population of a small African nation, hunger is perhaps the least of our concerns. And our government would like to keep it that way, as this Washington Post editorial reports:

The Agriculture Department has taken what you might call the Scarlett O'Hara approach to Americans without enough to eat: It will never call them hungry again. Rumbling stomachs? Malnourishment? That's not hunger, the department says. It's experiencing "very low food security."

Maybe there's some scientific basis for this Orwellian recasting. The lead author of the annual report on Americans' access to food told The Post's Elizabeth Williamson that "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured." The bland phrase "food insecurity" has been used for years to describe households that have problems putting enough food on the table -- though until this year they were divided into two groups: "food insecurity without hunger" and, for those in the most desperate straits, "food insecurity with hunger." This latter group is being renamed "very low food security," meaning those in it show "multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake." In other words, they're hungry.

The Post calls it "linguistic airbrushing," and concludes:

At least the USDA doesn't have jurisdiction over national monuments. Otherwise, just imagine it going after the inscription on the Statue of Liberty next: "Give me your energy-deficient, your financially challenged, your space-impaired masses yearning to breathe free."

Forwarded by Judyth at the Alameda County Community Food Bank, which knows a thing or two about food insecurity. And hunger, too. If you have a little too much on your plate this holiday, make a donation to feed those who don't.

And thanks for the title of this post to Eric Schlosser and Charles Wilson, authors of Chew on This: Everything You Don't Want to Know about Fast Food.

Fun with Words and Pictures

It's a short work-week here in the U.S. (Thanksgiving Thursday, recovery Friday, and lots of people getting an early start Wednesday). Here are a couple of diversions to while away the downtime...or escape the kvetching of kith and kin.

For word mavens: Verbotomy, in which you create a new word--a "verboticism"--to fit a made-up definition. You can also vote on definitions already submitted. Seasonally appropriate example: Create a word that means "to leave food on your plate, not for the starving children in the world, but so you don't get fat." Some of the submissions so far: Egorexia, Slimhibition, Metabulimia, Foodiephobic. You can do better, right? Tip: Read the playing tips first. Note to nonverbals: the daily cartoons are pretty cute, too. (Hat tip to Wordlab.)

For visual savants: Guess the Logo. Just how successful have Amazon, Yahoo, et al., been at making their brands memorable? Test your memory or your random luck. (Hat tip to Rome Beauty and her colleagues at the Big Orchard.)

Update 11:22 a.m.: Apologies for the bad link to Guess the Logo. It's fixed now.

Image: Verbotomy.

They Is the Walrus

"Ask Someone Why They Love Their BlackBerry" reads the headline on the full-page ad in today's New York Times.

Chalk up another lost battle in the war of the English pronouns.

Once upon a time, "someone" was a singular subject--just like "he," "she," and "it"--that required a singular possessive: "his" or "her." The default was "his," because, you know, the patriarchy and all. "Ask Someone Why He Loves His BlackBerry" would have been correct, and uncommented-upon, as recently as thirty years ago.

Some of us on the "she" side of the aisle found this--and a whole bunch of other things, like sex discrimination in the workplace--a tad unfair. We lost the Equal Rights Amendment, dammit, but we won the right to be sloppy about grammar.

English, an otherwise wonderful language, ties us into knots on this issue. All our personal pronouns for humans are either yin or yang, feminine or masculine. Remember the 1973 movie No Sex, Please, We're British? Well, where grammar is concerned, it's "Sex, please! We're speaking English!"

Writers have been grappling with this challenge not just for decades, but for centuries. Writing in the Language Log blog a couple of months ago, linguist Mark Liberman pointed out that the King James Version of the Bible is full of examples of the singular "they" (e.g., "in lowlinesse of minde let each esteeme other better then [sic!] themselues"). Read the follow-up post for more than you ever wanted to know about the history of this usage.

Every so often someone devises what seems to be a clever solution: an invented "epicene" (genderless) pronoun. The gender-neutrally named D.N. DeLuna (apparently a "she"), who is a writing instructor at Johns Hopkins University, recently came up with the one-size-fits-all "hu" (pronounced--I am not kidding--huh). An editorial writer in the Los Angeles Times considered "hu" and decided it "looked like a Vulcan vocabulary word."

I feel compelled to point out that in Hebrew, "hu" (pronounced hoo) means "he." And "hee" means "she," and "mee" means "who." Learning Hebrew is very confusing for English speakers.

Now comes Michael Berger in The Vocabula Review with an assortment of alternatives, which he presents in an article titled "Up with the English Epicene." Access to the article is restricted to subscribers (and if you're interested in language, you really should subscribe; it's cheap), but here's a snippet:

Here are some candidates for this esteemed role, to fill a need in the evolving English language:

he/she: esh, hesh, heesh, shehe

him/her: rim, mer, hmer, hrim

his/her: ris, ser, hris, hser

With such a set of gender-neutral pronouns in our arsenal, we could finally conveniently and candidly employ our language to refer with dignity and facility to both women and men in their capacity as equal human beings, regardless of gender. When we want to refer with a pronoun to the human being generically, instead of using the awkward he or she, or s/he, or she or he, or alternating genders, or acceding to the still awkward but consensually advancing plural, we could do so in a way that advances both human equality and linguistic grace and efficiency.

Uh-huh. Or perhaps "uh-hu." It's a valiant effort, but I don't think anyone in, um, their right mind is going to buy it.