Malaprops

Malaprops are incorrect words (or non-words) that sound similar to the intended word, often to humorous effect. They are named after a certain Mrs. Malaprop, a character in a Dickens novel (but I read recently she’s in something by Richard Brinsley Sheridan written in the late 1700’s. I’m too lazy to research it.) Here’s a more up-to-date example of this linguistic comedy:

From Luann, Feb 4, 2001.

Malaprop, referring to the humorous error, is called a malapropism by some, and this leads me to mention a more insidious error, one that occurs too often among educated folks, (who are more likely to read this blog than people who make malaprops). The error I refer to is pretentiousism. Pretentiousisms are grammatically correct words that are longer, harder to understand, or more obscure than plain, clear writing or speaking. I’ve mentioned pretentiousism in the past; you can search this blog for it.

Don’t add unnecessary syllables or Latinisms to your writing. Don’t say “utilize” when “use” will do. Don’t say “obfuscate” when “confuse” will do. Don’t say “malapropism” when “malaprop” will do.

Here are a few more malaprops, from the pen of the talented Darrin Bell, who writes Candorville:

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

What happens if you don’t get a Valentine? Maybe you write a post-Valentine’s Day blues poem. My youngest says this poem by Shel Silverstein is her favorite:

I hope things turn more cheerful in the future.

This blog is about writing, but today is a holiday for romantics, so let’s see if we can combine the two. A parody is something that is a recognizable imitation of something else, but also recognizably changed, usually to humorous effect, although the motive can be ridicule, occasional (that is changed to suit an occasion), and even for plain old commentary. I suppose songs and poems are the most common parody, but I have heard of plays, a person’s mannerisms, and movies being parodies, too. No doubt a clever enough person could parody about anything.

Lets stick with Valentine’s Day poems.

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Sugar is sweet,
And so are you.

This bit of doggerel is so familiar, all you need is the first line (or a suggestion of it) and a suggestion of the poem’s structure to make a parody recognizable. Here are a few:

Roses are red,/Onions are green,/you are the sweetest/that I’ve ever seen.  (Maybe the onion is a Vidalia)
Roses are red,/Daisies are white./When we are kissing/it feels so right.
Roses are red,/Arranged in a vase./I am in heaven/When I look at your face.
Violets are blue,/Roses are red./When I’m with you,/I want you in bed!
Cell phones are here,/computers are too./I hope no one calls/when I am with you.

Just be sure not to end that second line with month, orange, purple, or silver! I invite you to add your own parodies in the comments.

This is as close as I could find of a parody of a Valentine’s Day heart.

…and here’s a parody I found on Valentine’s Day, from Jorge Cham’s clever strip, PhD:

Way back when, about 25 years ago, I read a whole book on how to use non-discriminatory language when referring to women. In grade school they taught me to use “he” when referring to a male or female; saying “he or she” being considered wordy and unnecessary. No longer.

Maybe you remember the joke that ran around back then, that went something like this:

A man and his son were in a serious traffic accident. The man was killed and the boy received a serious head injury. They rushed him to the hospital and called on the hospital’s brain surgeon to operate. The surgeon took one look at the boy and said, “I can’t operate on this boy—he’s my son!” How could this be?

Another group has become more vocal about linguistic discrimination. Not being familiar with the field of transgender and sexual preference issues, I found the reference enlightening and useful. Well, I use the term “useful” advisedly. I’m not likely to need much of the vocabulary to write computer documentation (my day job), and I tend to hold the opinion that private matters are private, but still, it’s nice to know, and it might prevent me from making a faux pas.

It’s the GLAAD Media Reference Guide – 8th Edition. It’s a pdf, and it’s free. If you’d rather, here’s a link to the page that has the link. It lets you browse the topics in the guide without needing to download the whole document.

A somewhat related linguistic note: Although I bemoan the loss of a perfectly good word for happiness, the term “gay” has a legitimate etymology. I’m told it’s derived from the French gai, meaning a male actor who plays a female role.

Once upon a time I had the opportunity to listen to a Peter Paul and Mary concert. During one of the periods of banter between songs, Peter or Paul (I never could tell those guys apart) commented about the ridiculousness of saying “hot water heater.” After all, you heat cold water. The other day I ran into this incorrect usage in an article that I had better expectations of, but now I can’t find it. (If I do, it’ll appear here and I’ll remove this remark.)

Similar redundancies are to say ATM machine and PIN number. Redundancies both. You can usually get away with things like this in your spoken English, but don’t do it in your writing!

More recently I ran into another superfluous word in an article in Inside Climate News quoting an oil pipeline company. Maybe I should say oil pipeline company lawyer. Nearly every lawyer I’ve met thinks they can write, but they can’t.

Gallagher ultimately accepted a $16,000 “close proximity” fee, on top of $6,400 for the land that Enbridge took.

Proximity means “closeness,” not “measure of distance.” A bomb with a proximity fuse goes off when it gets close. It’s redundant to say “close proximity.”

I won’t venture to guess whether Inside Climate News put the phrase in quotes to be precise, or to point out the redundancy.