Kris Spisak: Recent Episodes
Kris Spisak
Here is one kind of statue of limitations, but my guess is that this isn’t what you meant.I imagine a woman of stone with her arms crossed and her wide stance as unyielding as her disposition. Is this what a statue of limitations would look like? A force blocking your way? Or perhaps something headless, limited herself.
Whatever you may imagine for this phrase, keep this in mind: you need to imagine something. “Statue of limitations” is something made up. Or let’s be honest, we’re talking about a common mistake.
If you’ve ever debated between “statue of limitations” vs. “statute of limitations”:
The correct phrase is “statute of limitations.”Like the difference between “Baba Yaga” and “Baby Yoda,” we know slight alterations in spelling make all the difference.
What is a “statute of limitations”?
We’re talking about a law that defines the amount of time one has between the date of an offense and when the clock runs out for legal action to be taken against the alleged wrong-doer. Am I a lawyer? No. Are there subtleties and sophistications to a statute of limitations beyond this summary? Absolutely.
Someone with a legal background could take this concept much further, but this is the gist. Like “case in point” and “for all intents and purposes,” some specialized language has become a part of our everyday vernacular. However, we don’t need law school experience to get this right.
Now maybe you’re thinking about the statute of limitations around grammar policing. Calm down, folks. Let’s just focus on doing better ourselves. That’s always the best strategy, legal or otherwise.
Sign-up for my monthly “On Words and Onwards” email newsletter for more language tips and trivia like this.
The post Writing Tip 448: “Statue of limitations” vs. “Statute of limitations” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Teeming with chaos or teaming with chaos? And how does this change if we’re talking about ducks? Oh, a little letter makes all the difference. The world can feel overwhelming sometimes, but let’s at least ensure your spelling is under control.
Remember, when it comes to “team” vs. “teem”:
- Team (noun) – a group of individuals undertaking a joint action
- Team (verb) – to join together as a group to pusue a shared undertaking
- Teem (verb) – to be filled to overflowing, over-abundant, increasingly crowded
More definitions exist than these; however, they seem to be the most common. And whether you have ever confused these spellings or not, there’s more to this conversation.
Both can indeed use the preposition “with” when acting in their verb forms (“teaming with” vs. “teeming with”), but their connection is much deeper. Obsolete definitions of these two words lay bare their connected ancestry, allowing for meanings you might not pull out for everyday use but are simultaneously fascinating.
Forget modern life for a moment. The Old English word tēam meant “progeny,” “descendants,” “lineage,” or even “a group of draft animals.” Thus, a tēam of ducks or pigs was a standard usage, and we’re not talking about hockey players or sideline mascots. This is another type of team buiding entirely.
The word “teem” derived from the related Old English word tīman or tǣman, which meant “to produce offspring” or “to give birth to.” And, of course, produce enough offspring, and the space will be teeming with them. Hello, modern usage. Is this where rabbits enter the conversation?
As for the chaos, here’s hoping getting our words right will quell at least one modern anxiety. And if that doesn’t help, just think of ducks. A team of them. A pond teeming with them. Who doesn’t love ducks?
Go team.
Sign-up for my monthly “On Words and Onwards” email newsletter for more language tips and trivia like this.
The post Writing Tip 447: “Team” vs. “Teem” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Let’s talk rebels with an ostentatious cause, because whether we’re talking “flout” or “flaunt,” rebellion and arrogance are likely part of the conversation. Both “flout” and “flaunt” are verbs we shouldn’t quite aspire to. Both have a negative implication hiding in their natures, and maybe that’s the source of the confusion between them. Maybe it’s […]
The post Writing Tip 446: “Flouting” or “Flaunting” the Rules appeared first on Kris Spisak.
If you’re from the American South, maybe you’ve heard the expression, “As drunk as Cooter Brown.” But who was this guy? And why is it some legends endure? There are many versions of Cooter Brown’s history, and this is only one. It isn’t quite a recommendation of how to handle political turmoil, but there’s a […]
The post Language Trivia: “As drunk as Cooter Brown” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Oh, spellcheck, “suss” is indeed a word, even though it seems to be flagged often. It’s red-flagged “spelling mistakes” like this that make you seem kind of “sus” yourself actually, spellcheck. See what I did there? Are you having “sus” vs. “suss” confusion, folks? New slang often slips into the public vernacular, but in some […]
The post Writing Tip 445: “Sus” vs. “Suss” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Okay, people! (Peoples? Persons?) Have you ever wondered when to use “persons” vs. “people” vs. “peoples”? Yes, all are proper plural forms in English. Let’s leave the singular “person” out of things for a moment. If we’re looking for the correct plural form, what is a writer/speaker to do? Well, the simplest answer in most […]
The post Writing Tip 444: “Persons” vs. “People” vs. “Peoples” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Oh, ellipses, the confetti of punctuation marks. A little here, a little there, and it feels a little bit like a celebration, no? Wait, that’s not what you’re going for? Sure, I talk about ellipses (the plural form of “ellipsis”) in detail in Get a Grip on Your Grammar (Career Press, 2017; HarperCollins India, 2020), […]
The post Writing Tip 443: Ellipsis Rules You Should Know appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Amid my book talks, book club visits, and signing events around the release of my fiction debut, The Baba Yaga Mask, I’ve had the urge to do more. I’m honored to teach about Ukrainian folk art, folktales, history, and dance as I discuss my book, but I’m also beginning a new effort. Won’t you join […]
The post Humanitarian Aid for the Ukrainian People appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Should we talk about not catching “flak” when wearing your flak jacket? Is “flack” spelled similar to “quack”? Or else “flac” like “Big Mac”? “Flaque” like “plaque”? First things first, let’s narrow it down to just “flak” or “flack” for this conversation. Catching flak/flack Getting flak/flack Taking flak/flack As always, there’s a right answer, but […]
The post Writing Tip 442: Catching “Flak” or “Flack”? appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Bragging’s not good, but a little bit of confidence can be powerful. I’m not talking about #humblebrags or #sorrynotsorry comments. When you’re with the right listener and you want to toot your own horn (there’s an expression we need to dive into on another day), what’s the correct phrase to follow your statement of pride? […]
The post Writing Tip 441: If I “do” or “don’t” say so myself appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Which would you rather have as your superpower: “invisibility” or “invincibility”? To be “invisible” or “invincible”? Both have their perks, but that’s perhaps beside the point. Do you know the difference between these two words? Remember: “Invisibility” means unable to be seen. “Invincibility” means unstoppable or unconquerable. So many questions come up with this pairing: […]
The post Writing Tip 440: “Invisibility” or “Invincibility”? appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Ooh, you’re savvy with your words, but do certain pairings like this still trip you up? And how on earth am I relating this to peanut butter? No worries, wordsmiths. You’ve got this, and stay tuned for that second answer. Here’s what you need to know about “collaborate” vs. “corroborate” once and for all: To […]
The post Writing Tip 439: “Collaborate” vs. “Corroborate” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
We’re not talking pronunciation differences à la “tomato”/”to-mah-to” or “potato”/“po-tah-to.” We’re not talking regional differences. There is a distinction worth knowing when using “cocoa” vs. “cacao”; however, do you know what it is? And when I say “using ‘cocoa’ vs. ‘cacao,’” I suppose I could be talking about usages in a recipe or in a […]
The post Writing Tip 438: “Cocoa” vs. “Cacao” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Whether you want to blame Ben Franklin or Noah Webster, sometimes, the English language seems unnecessarily complicated, doesn’t it? The spelling of “gray” vs. “grey” is another such case. But, wait, there is an answer to your question. You just need to specify which gray/grey you’re looking for. Fancy mustard? Grey Poupon Breakfast tea? Earl […]
The post Writing Tip 437: “Gray” vs. “Grey” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Of course you know! Or, do you? How do you spell “on the lam” / “on the lamb” again? Simple answer: “On the lam” (L-A-M) is the correct spelling of this expression. Less than simple answer: But we don’t quite know where this expression comes from. Oh, English language. There you go again. Does this […]
The post Writing Tip 436: How do you spell “on the lam”? (“On the lamb?”) appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Are you imagining laundry hanging up to dry or a bit too much of a celebration? Or if you know where I’m going, here’s your next question: how many sheets to the wind are we talking about? In 1737, Benjamin Franklin published The Drinker’s Dictionary, a list of 228 “round-about phrases” to describe drunkenness. (More […]
The post Writing Tip 435: How many sheets to the wind? appeared first on Kris Spisak.
If you’re not sure about this one, here’s your big, messy hint. (Who’s having flashbacks to cleaning chalkboard erasers? Just me?) We could chalk it up to the speed of communications these days muddling things, or we could chalk it up on the sidewalks of our cities and towns. Either way, there’s something we need to remember with this phrase. You might be “chock-full” of ideas, but let’s clear this up once and for all.
When it comes to the question of “Chalk it up” vs. “Chock it up” …
The correct phrase is “chalk it up” not “chock it up.” It’s all a matter of giving credit where credit is due—often figuratively these days. However, the origin of this phrase does call back to literally writing debts in chalk. If one owed a store a certain amount of money, the store owner would chalk it up on the wall to keep track of it. (Ah, the days before ecommerce, mobile credit card readers, and crypto)
Now, “chock” is indeed a word. It dates back to at least the 1600s and has a few meanings, from a solid metal casting that might appear on a bow or stern of a ship to a wedge that blocks movement of a cask or a wheel. These days, we don’t generally see “chock” on its own; however, it does still appear in the word “chock-full” (most commonly hyphenated, but sometimes spelled “chockful”). But there’s a twist you might not see coming here.
The word “chock-full” is older than the word “chock.”
Gasp. I know. I had the same reaction.
Bonus Writing Tip: If something is “chock-full,” as in filled to overflowing, we’re not talking about overflowing with blackboard chalk but we’re also not talking about heavy metal or wedges to stop casks from rolling away. In this case, we are indeed looking for “chock” with an “o,” but “chock-full” has been around since the 1400s.
It’s just the English language keeping you on your toes, folks. But you knew that already, right?
Sign-up for my monthly language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles like this.
The post Writing Tip 434: “Chalk it up” vs. “Chock it up” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
Yeah, I know. I’m sorry, little guy. If you’re handing something with kid gloves, what comes to mind? Small gloves? Or is it something else?
While the meaning is largely understood, the phrase “to handle with kid gloves”—as in to handle something delicately—should not in any way be connected with children.
Well, unless you mean a goat child, which brings us right back to the word “kid,” doesn’t it?
Yes, when you hear about those “kid gloves,” it’s not a reference to gloves for young people. The expression originates in reference to gloves made from “kid leather,” as in the skin of young goats or often young sheep. But we don’t often hear about “lamb gloves,” even if that may have been more accurate. It’s usually the “kid gloves” that get the attention.
Why kid gloves? Well, if you want to get down to specifics about leather, kid gloves are incredibly soft. In the 1700s, they could be found upon the hands of the wealthy who deemed them luxurious, as well as white-gloved butlers and servers who would be sure to wear them when handling silver, glassware, or anything that might smudge. Some deemed them ostentatious; some deemed them impractical; some deemed them simply lovely.
However, whether speaking about handing something gently (like candlesticks) or taking care of the gloves themselves (which weren’t always long-lasting because of their fine nature), it’s understood that careful conduct was key.
It’s less about the size of the gloves or the wearer. It’s all about the material. Of course, now the phrase is an idiom that can refer to handling people or situations carefully too. There are no literal gloves involved, just an expression that calls upon antiquated fashion statements and/or meticulously cautious touching. The phrase moved from the literal to the figurative in the late 1800s.
And as with many phrases, just because we say it doesn’t necessarily mean that we know what we’re talking about.
Next time you hear someone say something about “kiddie gloves,” you’ll know the difference. Now how to handle these English language faux pas… well, that depends on your audience. Perhaps the matter should be dealt with delicately. Perhaps, in fact, there’s an idiom that’s just perfect for this, no?
Sign-up for my writing and editing email newsletter for more writing tips like this.
The post Writing Tip 433: About those “kid gloves” appeared first on Kris Spisak.
A few stolen minutes out of your day to talk words and communication, because our daily lives are surrounded by the evolution and influence of words. Forget the grammar police. There is so much more to this conversation.
Episode #45 – A Grammar Mayday Over “Mayday” Approximate transcript: Welcome to episode number 45, where we’re talking distress signals—not because we’re feeling distressed necessarily, at least I hope note, but because there are secret grammar mistakes hiding in plain sight if you know where to look for them. Really? Yes indeed. Or if you don’t have language correction tendencies, let’s bring it down to a simple question: where does the word “Mayday” come from?
How about S.O.S.?
There are stories here, folks, and we’ll get into them today.
But first, let’s dive into…
The Latest in Word, Language & Writing News And we have a lot worth touching on today. Rather than going in depth into any of these stories, I’m going to remind you that links to all of these updates are in the show notes.
Here are the top 7 language news stories since our last episode:
- Helsinki’s mayor recently suggested the Finnish capitol should be an “English-language city.”
- The Oxford English Dictionary just had a “K-update,” adopting over 20 new words from the Korean language.
- Merriam Webster’s definition of the term “Anti-vaccer” has gone under attack.
- The New York Times declared recently, “Gender pronouns are changing, and it’s exhilarating.” (I love that energy.)
- Blockchain technology could provide secure communications for robot teams. (Because, yeah, we’ve got to think about these things too)
- A Facebook exec on moderating hate speech outside the US, answered, and I quote “Language is a challenge.” (Ha, yep. And wow the language stories we could go into with Facebook, but I’m holding off since this is a quick review)
- And lastly, Psychology Today just published an article called “Why terms of address matter,” speaking to the idea of what we call one another having consequences for the relationship. (Fascinating. Seriously.)
That’s seven stories.
There’s so much more to cover. In fact, I had trouble narrowing down the top stories for this episode, so follow my social media feeds to stay in the loop with the latest in communications news. Follow me @KrisSpisak on Twitter and @KSWriting on Facebook.
Links to everything I’ve mentioned are in the show notes on my website. Intrigued? Excited about what you can bring to your next water cooler conversation? (Whether it’s an actual water cooler or something along those lines on Zoom?) You could argue that how we as people connect with each other is changing faster than ever, couldn’t you.
More on communications news next time, though. It’s time to dive into to today’s…
English Language History & Trivia Have you ever wondered where the word “Mayday” comes from? Does it have something to do with the first of May and a Maypole? No.
Does it have something to do with permissions and a Jennifer Garner movie, where the grownups say yes to everything the kids ask for a single day? Nope, that’s “Yes Day,” not Mayday. “Can” vs. “may” conversations aside…
So, mayday, mayday. Let’s explore where this term comes from.
Let’s set the scene.
You’re on a ship, sailing across the Atlantic Ocean. A storm, far out on the horizon, is already producing waves that bounce your vessel up and down, into peaks and valleys, crests and troughs, and then comes the wind, tearing at anyone on deck, and the rain, whipping the sleeves of your shirt and the hair on your head, and the thunder that booms so loud it echoes across the roiling sea…
Okay, am I channeling Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Caruso? Maybe. Maybe not.
But what is a ship captain to do? How do they signal their distress?
Mayday. Mayday. It’s spelled as one word, not two, for you know if there was a space involved, we’d be back to the first of May, talking picnics and May pole dances.
You know the word, but what about it’s origin?
Supposedly, “mayday” was coined by Frederick Stanley Mockford, a senior radio officer in Croydon, a town in England, but whether he’s the first official person to say this is not quite proven. That’s not the important part of the story.
Mayday was first tested as an emergency distress signal on planes that flew between England and France across the English Channel, as well as with air traffic between the U.S. and France.
You’re seeing France as a big part of this story, and it will all start coming together for you here. The word “Mayday” comes from the French phrase similarly pronounced “m’aider” (excuse my terrible French accent; that’s “M-apostrophe-A-I-D-E-R), which is a simple, literal request. Help me. And when that call out is Anglicized, we get “mayday” (M-A-Y-D-A-Y).
But wait … there’s a problem. This must be fake news. Why the hesitation? Well, it comes down to grammar. Because while logically, to one who doesn’t speak strong French, “M’aider” would translate to “help me”; to others who do indeed speak proper French, they would say … um … no. Or perhaps something slightly more eloquent. French speakers listening, please fill in this blank with the appropriate language to use when shaking your head at someone getting your language wrong. I know. It happens.
Apparently, “help me” would be said a bit differently in French. “M’aider” translates as “help me to … ” but technically, it would need a verb to make sense. Like, “help me translate this, please” or “help me to not make a grammar mistake as I’m setting international communications protocol.”
It’s a simple language mistake. “M’aider” doesn’t—or should I say “shouldn’t”—stand alone.
But hey, that’s what I’m here for with the English language. We all have to keep helping each other out with the language cause.
However, does this grammar flaw point to fake news entirely with this French language word origin story with mayday? Oh, for a moment, it seems so. There are so many fake news stories out there. But then I’ll ask another question. What was the background of those who introduced “mayday” to the world?
If it was indeed Frederick Stanley Mockford, he was English. And if it was somebody else, my bet is that they weren’t French but loosely familiar with the French language.
And we can’t end this conversation without a shout-out to S.O.S., which was the primary distress signal used that needed to be replaced. And yes, there were others—that’s a different conversation—but let’s just talk S.O.S. for now.
Why did S.O.S. need to be replaced or supplemented? Well, S.O.S. is often thought to be an acronym for “Save our souls or “save our ship,“ but it was introduced during the Morse Code era, and that telegraphic form holds the answer to its meaning. “S.O.S.” was a collection of short and long dots and dashes than were adapted as a distress signal because the pattern stood out and was easily recognizable ( . . . – – – . . . ). Sadly, I think I learned the pattern in my childhood from a S.O.S. brand steel wool soap pad commercial with dirty dishes in a sink clanging it out, but you probably have a much more academic memory of leaning this than me.
S.O.S. was powerful, easy Morse code for those communicating via telegraph. However, while ships used telegraphs, airplanes did not. As aircraft were put to use more and more, they used radio, and shouting out S.O.S. is not as clear as it could be. S’s were often mistaken for F’s, and in a moment of absolute urgency, do you think anyone would have the state of mind or even the time to clarify?
“No, excuse me, let me repeat. That’s S like Sam. O like Oreo.”
Or to use the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet (IRDS)—think Alpha, Bravo, Charlie—do you want that captain or pilot to shout into the radio, “Sierra. Oscar. Sierra. Sierra Oscar Sierra!”
What?
Actually, let me go back in time more, we’re talking before the standard usage Military Phonetic Alphabet, which wasn’t greatly used until World War 11. Back in 1927, it would not have been Sierra, Oscar, Sierra, but Santiago, Oslo, Santiago, because the early version used city names from across the world.
You see the problem. Nobody needs that confusion shouted over the radio in a moment of distress.
And to come full circle, after the early tests that tried out the new distress signal, the International Radio Telegraph Convention, also in 1927, lists 51 Rules, and the official usage of “mayday” (M-A-Y-D-A-Y) was among them. Clarity. Speed. This is what was needed. And where was this convention held? Washington, D.C. A place not known for its proper French grammar.
So Mayday, from the French m’aider, which isn’t correct French, but they were trying. And trying is good. But it stuck, jumped, and solidified into to English before anyone really could stop it.
Also in 1927, the United States formally adopted “Mayday” as an official radiotelegraph distress signal, explaining in Article 19 of their resolution that “mayday” originates in “the French pronunciation of the expression m’aider.”
Language takes off like that sometimes. And sometimes it goes in the wrong direction. We see it happen. Sigh. Language. It can’t be controlled sometimes. Should we call for an S.O.S.? Nah, but let’s hang on for the ride.
Language Challenge I’m going to twist our conversation in a different direction. If multiple distress signals were coming in at the same time, maybe the radio operators would have to prioritize and organize the help needed. If all emergencies were equal, would they say: “First come, first serve” or “first come, first served”?
Sure, this is an expression often discussed more in line with restaurants and delis, but it’s something to know either way.
Only one is correct: “First come, first serve” or “First come, first served” (with that d). Do you know?
The answers, as always, can be found on my website, at GetAGripOnYourGrammar.com.
Personal Update: For my personal update, I know I shared in the last episode the exciting news that my first novel, The Baba Yaga Mask, is coming in April 2022. Yes, my first novel, though it will be my fourth book. But today’s update goes in a slightly different direction.
Amid the pandemic, like all of you, I haven’t been to many big events over the past two years, and thus, a number of my favorite workshops and programs that I love to do with audiences were either put on hold or done virtually. And virtually is great—not quite the same as being with a live audience, but still fun and workable.
But this month and next, I actually have a number of in-person events we’re attempting. Outdoors for some, masked for others, distanced and thoughtful hopefully with all. But live audiences. For my Grammartopia programs, for my Story Stop Tour programs. I am tentatively thrilled and excited. Tentatively. So much tentatively.
I hope you and your words are doing well, everyone. I know we’ve all had enough with feelings of S.O.S. and Mayday. Maybe we should channel The New York Times and their feelings of “exhilaration” around changes. What do you think?
Sign up for my English language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles and podcasts like this.
If you like what you’ve been hearing, don’t forget to subscribe to this podcast (via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Android, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or RSS) so you’ll never miss out on another word you should know. Many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to rate my show wherever you listen.
Words. Language. Communications. We’ve got this.
The post #45 – A Grammar Mayday Over “Mayday” & the Latest in Words You Should Know appeared first on Kris Spisak.
There are so many things these rubber bands can bind together, but what if they did their work a long time ago? Sure, their bright colors might fade, but what about the past tense of “bind”? One can bind a book or ropes around a villain. One can bind rubber bands around playing cards or two parties together in a legal contract. But if they did this yesterday, how do you write that verb? What is the past tense of “bind”?
Easy? Maybe. But let’s just double-check what you know.
“To bind” (present tense) has a few definitions, whether we’re talking physical bindings (as in ropes, rubber bands, or book pages) or emotional bindings (hello, love connections… and guilt … and fear… and so many others). But, in short, let’s define the verb “bind” as something that is secured by tying or fastening in some way, as well as by legal authority, by agreement or obligation. There’s also a connection we could make with constipation, but we’ll skip over that for now.
Logically, maybe you want to say the past tense of “bind” is “binded,” but if that was your thought, you’d be wrong.
Remember:
The past tense of the verb “bind” is “bound.” If it makes it easier, think about it along the lines of “find” and “found” or “wind” and “wound.” What’s up with this weird verb form? Well, it all stems back to the fact that “bind” is an incredibly old word. In fact, it’s been used in some form of English since before the 12th century. The Old English form was bindan, and if you really want to dig into word history, you can go back to the Old High German word, bintan, and even the Sanskrit word, badhnāti, which means “he ties.”
And old words sometimes love holding onto old verb forms.
However, that’s not the end of the discussion, because there’s also a different present-tense verb “to bound.” Oh yeah, let’s make things complicated, English language. Again. Thanks.
The verb “to bound,” which becomes “bounded” in the past tense, means to move forward by leaping or bouncing. So, for example, if you are really excited about a new book, you might bound forward to have it in your hands as soon as possible. But if you did this movement yesterday, maybe you bounded up the bookshop’s steps.
Feeling overwhelmed? I hope not. This wild English language binds us all together on our journey to speak and write as powerfully as possible.
And if you ever feel like you’re in a bind when it comes to the word “bind,” hopefully this makes you feel less tied up in knots. Or rubber bands for that matter.
Sign up for my monthly writing and editing tips and trivia email newsletter for more language answers like this.
The post Writing Tip 433: What is the past tense of “bind”? appeared first on Kris Spisak.
A few stolen minutes out of your day to talk words and communication, because our daily lives are surrounded by the evolution and influence of words. Forget the grammar police. There is so much more to this conversation.
Episode #44 – Pleased as Punchy Punch with a Drink & the Latest in Words You Should Know Approximate transcript: Welcome to episode number 44. I’m pleased as Punch that I’m back, though I’m, of course, not nearly as aggressive as the origins of that expression. “Pleased as Punch.” Sparked from violence? From a spiked party drink? No. Well, not quite how you’d think. Punch drunk. Feeling punchy. Punch lines.
So many stories, and we’re not pulling punches in today’s conversation, but first, after such a long break, let’s dive into…
The Latest in Word, Language & Writing News Now, you’d think when it comes to news about the English language, that a few months of summer break wouldn’t be that dramatic. This language of ours, or a version of it, has been around for an incredibly long time. Yet… we have so much to discuss.
We’ve talked about how artificial intelligence models have been advancing when it comes to natural language processing, how GPT-3 threw the world for a loop, being able to generate sentences, poetry, news articles, textbooks, and so much more. Some panicked. Many were excited. Many more were perhaps confused. Either way, GPT-3 from OpenAI will go down in the history books as a defining moment of transformation when it comes to machine-learning and language processing.
Now in August, (and I’m recording this in September 2021 so future listeners have that in perspective), in August 2021, Tel Aviv-based artificial intelligence startup AI21 Labs introduced a program they’ve named “Jurassic,” which released as an “open beta,” meaning there are far fewer restrictions for access, as compared to GPT-3, which requires wait lists and similar hurdles. With different parameters, “Jurassic” is said to have more “depth” and “expressivity,” but we’ll see what happens next.
There is so much to follow with AI language technology. Not only who the players are and what the technology can do, but what does this mean for the ease of creating fake news, the continuation of past biases captured in the many texts these systems are using as the foundation of their learning, and on the positive side, how these tools can be used to take storytelling and communication to heights not yet imagined. More on all sides of this conversation coming soon.
And speaking of discoveries that are transforming our understandings of things, did you hear that experts have recently decoded a 700-year old King Arthur manuscript, one of the earliest versions of the tales, which had its pages recycled into the bindings of four volumes of French philosophy texts?
The discovery was made in 2019, but the text has only recently been taken apart, with the roots of so much we know about Camelot, as well as some fascinating differences. A romance for Merlin? Oh yeah, that’s there and more.
There’s so much more to cover—and links to everything I’ve mentioned are in the show notes on my website—but I’ll save further explorations for the next episode. It’s time to dive into to today’s…
English Language History & Trivia Did you know September 20th is National Rum Punch Day? No? Well, as I’m recording this on September 20th, maybe I’ll just have to raise a glass when I turn off my microphone—nope, no ice cubes clinking in the background at the moment, but cheers to you all the same.
The word “punch,” as in the drink, most likely comes from a Sanskrit word (pañc), meaning “five.” Why “five”? Well, it’s said the drink was originally made from five ingredients: alcohol, sugar, lemon, water, and either tea or spices, depending on the source. High five to that? Or are you now thinking about being punch drunk?
Perfect association, I know, but the expression “punch drunk” doesn’t come from drinking too much alcoholic punch at a seventeenth century British literary salon or a twentieth or twenty-first century frat party. Much like “slap happy,” which first arose in the 1930s, “punch drunk” was first coined in the 1910s, in reference to mental impairment after repeated blows to the head. Yikes. I know there’s a lot of history there, but boxing is not my sport. Not my cup of tea—or should I say, not my cup of punch?
So “punch,” the drink, comes from Sanskrit, but “punch” as in a jab, as in a one-two punch, body blow, or any other version of a forceful strike, this word comes from a Middle English word (pouncen) meaning to “emboss” or “pierce.” Think about a hole puncher, and you’ll see the connection. Then jump that forceful piercing or embossing action into a verb form with your fist, and there you go… or at least that seems to be the story.
“Punch” actually shares a similar etymological root with the word “pounce.” The feline equivalent of a punch? Maybe. There’s a linguistic connection you might not have seen coming.
Are you feeling pleased as Punch that this is coming all together? Well, me too, but that saying with “punch” adds more to the conversation.
Pleased as Punch actually has a capital “P” with “punch.” And if that’s not enough of a hint for you, let’s go back in time and back to the U.K. to talk about “Punch and Judy” shows, as in marionettes and later hand puppet shows. Punch and Judy were once named along with double-decker buses, Sherlock Holmes and bowler hats, as icons of England.
Now the character Punch is famously violent. Hilariously so? Well, I’d personally put that one up for debate, but he brought generations of audiences to laugher.
But his name, “Punch,” didn’t come from his blows. His name comes from the a popular character in Italian masked comedy shows (“Punchinello”), and this character’s name likely came from an Italian word for chicken or chick—not because of any note of cowardice but because of his beak-like nose, which did also segue over to the British puppet “Punch.”
And the idea of a “punch line,” as in the end of a joke that brings it all together with hilarity, this also comes back to Punch of “Punch and Judy” fame. Punch was the one who always got the line to end the joke, so the “punchline” has nothing to do with a thrown punch to finish the bout. It’s all about Punch the puppet getting the final word. For better or for worse.
Though perhaps Charles Dickens punched it all up a notch, because rather than writing “pleased as Punch,” in David Copperfield, he wrote the expression “proud as Punch,” which could have been his own spin or it could have been a mistake that simply stuck… but either way, he added his name into this conversation as well.
Boom. Pow.
Wow. And I think that’s all I’ve got today. Oh, it feels good to be back.
Turning to this episode’s…
Language Challenge Let me tell you something that doesn’t jive with me…
Or should I say, let me tell you something that doesn’t jibe with me…
Oh, I could finish this sentence in so many ways! But if I was going to talk about something I just simply don’t agree with, how would I spell that word? If something doesn’t jive with you… If something doesn’t jibe with you…
I know there’s a lot of conflict in the media these days, but I’ve caught this expression wrong in more news reports and opinion pieces than I can name lately. Do you know the answer? Double-check yourself.
The answers, as always, can be found on my website, at GetAGripOnYourGrammar.com.
Personal Update: I’ve been referencing, for a while, a big projects on the horizon, and folks, I cannot contain the excitement to announce here that my debut novel is coming in 2022 from Wyatt MacKenzie Publishing. Yes, this is my fourth book, but it’s my first in fiction. The Baba Yaga Mask is a tale of two contemporary sisters on a wild goose chase across eastern Europe to find their lost grandmother, who is obsessed with Baba Yaga folktales and how they can solve all the world’s problems, and in these sisters’ chase, they not only uncover their family’s the World War II past in Ukraine but also a greater understanding of themselves, each other, and so much more.
Everything I love is wrapped up in this novel. Language. The power of stories. Words that change the world. Family histories. Stay tuned for more details.
And no matter whether it’s National Rum Day when you hear this or not, I’m raising a glass to how powerful storytelling and communications can indeed change the world when we give it our best shot.
Sign up for my English language tips and trivia email newsletter for more articles and podcasts like this.
If you like what you’ve been hearing, don’t forget to subscribe to this podcast (via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Android, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, or RSS) so you’ll never miss out on another word you should know. Many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to rate my show wherever you listen.
Words. Language. Communications. We’ve got this.
The post #44 – Pleased as Punchy Punch with a Drink & the Latest in Words You Should Know appeared first on Kris Spisak.
If we’re talking dancing in the street, maybe this doesn’t jibe with you, or maybe you won’t jive with me… let’s dig into the possibilities. Let me tell you something that seriously doesn’t jive with me…
Okay, how do you think I could finish that sentence? Where do you think I’m going? What actually makes sense? Do you know the difference between “jive” vs. “jibe” vs. “gibe”?
There’s a chance I see this incorrectly written more frequently than I see it correct, so let’s talk this out:
- To “jive” means, most commonly, “to dance” (hello, ABBA’s “Dancing Queen” lyrics) or sometimes “to kid” or “to say something that’s not serious.” You can thank 1920s slang for this term.
- To “jibe” means “to agree” or “to be in accord” and is usually followed by “with.” There’s also “jibing” in reference to sailing, as when there’s a sudden change of direction, but a practiced sailor could likely give a better definition on this meaning than what I can provide. These forms entered the English language in the early 1800s and the late 1600s respectively.
But just to keep you on your toes…
- To “gibe” means to taunt, and this sarcastic and snarky word has been in use since the mid-1500s.
The only problems here are that “jive” has been confused with “jibe” for so many decades (yes decades, nearly a century of this mistake in fact!), you see it in writing all of the time. Similarly, some dictionaries even accept “jibe” as an alternate spelling of “gibe” because of similar confusion.
You have to pay extra attention with this trio (“jive” vs. “jibe” vs. “gibe”).
So remember, if something doesn’t jive with me, that means it’s not willing to boogie. There may be many out there who don’t want to dance with me, but that’s okay. I’m all right with that. As for things that don’t jibe with me, maybe I should simply start with common language mistakes. How’s that?
Of course, I won’t gibe you about it. That’s not my style.
Because I know we can do better. And then we can dance about it. And it all comes full circle, doesn’t it?
Sign up for my monthly writing and editing tips and trivia email newsletter for more language answers like this.
The post Writing Tip 432: “Jive” vs. “Jibe” vs. “Gibe” appeared first on Kris Spisak.