LOL and Such—Linguistic Change

The quote below, from one Vykki, is a response below a comic where a guy wants to communicate with a deaf person, but he doesn’t know ASL very well. This post is about that comment.

I’ve also heard people say “LOL” out loud—either as “ell oh ell” or “lawl”—while not actually laughing. Basically, LOL has evolved to be something other than an abbreviation for “laughing out loud”, in much the same way that “ok” is no longer an abbreviation. (There’s a fun thought: 150 years from now, people might say, “Did you know that ‘eloel’ came from ‘laughing out loud’? That’s crazy!” Assuming they remember its origins at all—the origins of many words and phrases, including “ok”, are debated, and perhaps that one will be too.)

a comment on https://girlswithslingshots.com/comic/gws-chaser-980

I have heard someone say “LOL” myself, once, maybe twice. (Perhaps I don’t swing in the appropriate circles), but I think Vykki couldn’t have said it better. Language changes. We curmudgeons have to deal with it.

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

You can tell people who read a lot because of the occasional mispronunciation they make because they know a word, but never heard it pronounced. I used to mispronounce “metropolitan” for that reason.

Anyway, this Adam at Home comic almost makes that point:

My advice? Show someone the word and ask them how to pronounce it. If they turn out to be wrong, at least you’ll have someone to blame.

Whenever you have two (or more) of something in a sentence, they should share the same structure. For example, if you have a list, they should all be the same part of speech. Line items in bulleted lists should have the same structure. (I wrote about parallelism several times in the past. Look up “parallel” in the search box in the upper right corner.)

I’m not sure how this is wrong, but it’s wrong. The sentence has a compound direct object that doesn’t match itself:

This time around the threat is contained, but flight crews have detailed and practiced responses to more extreme problems.

Maybe it’s because the source is British. I Americanized the spelling.  https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/nasa-international-space-station-leak-iss-latest-alarm-soyuz-module-a8514291.html

“Detailed” looks like an adjective (a detailed response), and “practiced” looks like a verb (they practiced responses). Not the same. Bad. Maybe “detailed” is a verb? What is the sense of detailing a response? Is “practiced” an adjective? What’s a practiced response? I think the sentence is just plain not well written.

They could fix this with a simpler sentence; for example:

This time around the threat is contained, but flight crews have practiced detailed responses to more extreme problems.

One verb, one direct object. Nice. 

Sigh. They do it twice, panels 1 and 2

“Snuck” is too common; everybody uses it (except my spell checker!) The correct word is “sneaked.” 

In conversation, go ahead and say “snuck” if you want, but when you write nonfiction adult material, go with “sneaked.” No one will notice that you didn’t use “snuck,” but you’ll sound more mature.

Sigh. Here’s another one. 

The Newark (DE) News Journal, no less. C’mon, guys—you’re professionals. It’s “sank”!

But this guy gets it right! Last panel.

This post isn’t exactly a lesson, but it is about writing. After you read the post, I invite your comments. 

Here’s a passage I ran across:

Plants need three things to grow: air, water, and nutrients. Farmers usually take care of the last bit by fertilizing their fields.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/corn-variety-grabs-fertilizer-from-the-air/

The first sentence mentions three “things.” But the last thing in that list is a plural! That means more than three, right? Maybe the writer should have said “three categories.” But are air and water mere categories? ehh… “Nutrition” is a singular, but it’s not quite parallel with the rest of the list. Maybe ignore the subtle incongruity and leave the plural in there? After all, in the next sentence, the writer referred to nutrients as a “bit.” Maybe re-write the sentence: Plants need air, water, and nutrients to grow. That eliminates the incongruity, but the sentence isn’t as dynamic; makes for a weaker beginning for the article.

So. Hmm. Uh, well, er, what do you think?