Usage Note

Four common usage errors are cropping up in what I read, perhaps because writers think the usage lends gravitas to their writing and allows them to feel that they are better writers than their skill level indicates.

The first is plethora; the dictionary says plethora is superabundance or excess. As a noun, it can be used with a "a ... of" phrase, as in a plethora of ideas about recycling.

The second is myriad; the dictionary says myriad is an adjective that indicates an indefinite number. Since myriad is an adjective, it is correct to say myriad butterflies filled the sky with beautiful colors, with myriad (an indefinite number) modifying butterflies, the noun. It would be incorrect to say a a myriad of butterflies, because myriad is a noun in that sentence construction, and myriad is an adjective that modifies a noun.

My pet peeve is the use of off of, such as take your jacket off of the kitchen table. We either take things off or we put things on, but we don't take things off of nor put them on of. Off is an adverb and has a long list of correct usage in a standard dictionary, but the dictionary specifically warns that ... particularly in written usage, off should not be followed by of or from. Of is a preposition and is often used in constructing prepositional phrases, such as "of the people, by the people, for the people."

And, finally, there is a word that takes the place of writing that someone is in "a state of anxiousness": anxiety. There is no need for the phrase when one word suffices.

What difference does usage make? It's the difference between being a good writer and just slapping some words/phrases onto a page and calling yourself a good writer.

Fender Bender

The small Mexican man who lives down the block drives a huge pick-up truck, behind which he has a very large metal mesh trailer that he uses in his landscaping business. To park his rig, he pulls up across the street, then backs the trailer/truck into his long driveway. In the process, he blocks the street in both directions and concentrates solely on getting through his driveway gates and all the way to the backside of his property.

He pays scant attention to the traffic on the street, perhaps because he believes that other drivers will see what he’s doing and allow him to pull forward, back up, pull forward again, and then back up again. And that’s a good assumption on his part, but faulty logic while operating a motor vehicle.

Y went to his volunteer job at the mini-mall down the street and was returning home when the gardener arrived at his house. Y saw that the rig was stopped in front of the man’s home, so Y continued up the street. Unfortunately, that was when the man decided to pull forward again, at an up-the-street angle, prior to resuming backing into his driveway. He hit Y’s car door and shoved Y’s car to the side of the road. Y called me, clearly upset, and I went to the scene.

Yes, Y had the right-of-way technically, but when there’s a potential traffic hazard blocking the road, each driver has to be aware and take defensive steps to stay safe. Y didn’t do that: he just swung his car a bit to the right and decided to go around the truck, unaware that the man would be pulling forward again as he straightened out his rig for backing. The small Mexican man pulled forward without checking the road conditions because he assumed that other drivers would stop and wait for him. He also admitted that he was using his mirrors to assist him in backing, not for checking the road he was blocking. Assuming anything is bad driving, but both drivers made assumptions about the other, which resulted in a collision.

Y’s car was slightly damaged, but it’ll have to be professionally fixed as it’s a gouge, not a dent that can be straightened. The small Mexican man’s big pick-up had no damage, which seems to be the way these things go. I played the role of referee and told each man he was incorrect in his assumption – and it’s both their faults, so move on. Y is going to take his car to a guy he knows up the hill for damage estimates and we’ll pay to have it fixed. Not the way we intended to spend an income tax refund, but there’s no use in spending any time at all in whose fault it was and who has to pay whom.

Same Old/Same Old

As my movie buddy and I left the theater after viewing Son of God, the three ladies ahead of us were sharing their experience with the film. One of them was really disgusted by the fact that there was "nothing new" in the story! Movie Buddy and I guffawed, both leaping to the conclusion that yep, the story is 2000 years old and there's really nothing new in the telling or retelling of the plot: Jesus is born, he lives, he spends 40 days in the wilderness, he's crucificed, he arises on the third day.

My son, when I shared the story of the disappointed movie viewer with him, provided another perspective: the same film was part of a TV series that Mark Burnett and Roma Downey made about The Bible. It appears (I have no personal knowledge) that Burnett and Downey clipped out the relevant parts from The Bible mini-series and turned it into a feature-length film titled Son of God.

With that said, the "nothing new" comment makes a whole lot more sense than expecting a new twist on the same old/same old Jesus story!

Holy Guacamole

Only in California can the BIG lead on the local news be the coming shortage of avocados! We're all lamenting the potential loss of "guac" with our tortilla chips.

Ellen Schmellen!

Yesterday, Monday, was the day after the live 86th Oscar extravaganza -- which included a pizza delivery this year and a selfie tweet that overwhelmed Twitter. Along with Ellen's hosting duties at the actual Oscars was the promise of "live Ellen after the Oscars" on her daily show -- which, yesterday, Monday, the day after the Oscar extravaganza -- was reruns.

Today is Tuesday, two days after the Oscars -- and Ellen is "live" after the Oscars! Ellen's sleep-deprived; her guests are tired from all the partying; and the talk is fresh about "last night" at the Oscars and all the fun had by one and all.

Except -- "live" is technically every show at some point in time, but I figured "live after the Oscars" meant the Monday show would be "live", not taped, the day after the Sunday Oscars, and not "live" on tape the day after the day after the Oscars.

Just sayin'!

Juxtaposition

"Wedding dress" and "sexy" don’t belong next to one another in a bride’s description of how she wants to look on her special day. Assuring the store personnel that the bride wants to “show off my girls” in a plunging neckline is the wrong image, especially for a church wedding. Black brides are fond of “dropping it like it’s hot” to see whether the gown is tight enough over the (sometimes already far too bodacious)booty.

While I can understand that bridal gowns of years past may be too modest for today's bride, there has to be a middle ground between no peeking at private parts and showing the whole world what you’re bringing into the marital bedroom!