Kirk Mahoney . com

I saw this in a message from a company.

Problem:
The hyphen does not belong in this phrase.

Explanation:
The company in question was announcing that it had agreed to exchange some assets with another company.

The company stated in its announcement that the deal had not been approved by regulators.

So the company was emphasizing to readers that it would have to continue to operate as if the deal had never been made.

(Quote) “at arm’s length” (unquote) — with no hyphen — is the phrase that essentially describes a business/legal relationship in which the two parties make sure that they treat one another in the same way that they would treat other competitors.

While it is true that “arm’s length” must be hyphenated to form a compound modifier of a noun — as in (quote) “an arm’s-length transaction” (unquote) — it makes no sense to insert a hyphen in the phrase (quote) “at arm’s length from” (unquote).

I believe that attorneys were involved in approving the aforementioned company’s announcement and that these attorneys included the hyphen between “arm’s” and “length” because they are very accustomed to using these two words to modify a noun.

Solution:
“… as a separate business at arm’s length from …”

My wife and I saw this at the bottom of an invoice a few weeks ago.

Beyond noticing that the preposition “For” should not have been capitalized, we both had a gut reaction to the hyphen in “Thank-You”.

The reaction was that the hyphenated form of the imperative “Thank You” felt like something that we used to see a few decades ago.

Of course, she or I today would use the hyphenated “Thank-You” when those two words together modify a noun, as in (quote) “Thank-You Cards” (unquote).

But neither of us would hyphenate “Thank You” when using those two words as an imperative (in, say, a headline).

I saw no matches when I searched Google for the use of the hyphenated “thank-you” as an imperative, but I admit that it was not a very deep search.

What I now wonder is whether the hyphenated imperative form in my wife’s and my memories comes from seeing typesetters’ mistakes or is based on a style that has gone out of favor.

Do you recall seeing the hyphenated imperative “Thank-You” years ago?

Do you believe that this form was a mistake or that it was a commonly accepted form?

Please let me know, and I will elaborate on this topic in a future post.

I heard this on TV the other day.

Problem:
The modifier “quality-built” is truly meaningless.

Explanation:
I heard (quote) “a quality-built Ford” (unquote) spoken by a narrator during a television commercial run by Ford the other day.

When I blogged two months ago about (quote) “a quality product” (unquote), I pointed out that the word “quality” was meaningless in that phrase.

Ford was trying to say that it makes high-quality vehicles.

But (quote) “high-quality-built” (unquote) is awkward.

The solution comes from appreciating that high-quality vehicles are vehicles that are built well.

Solution:
“a well-built Ford”

I wrote a blog post in November 2007 about “Nauseous” vs. “Nauseated”.

I recently heard an actress on a TV drama say that she felt nauseous when she should have said that she felt nauseated.

She made me think again about the two words.

And I realized something: Saying “nauseous” when one should say “nauseated” instead is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

Many Americans say “nauseous” as if it had only two syllables, as in NAW-SHUHS, instead of pronouncing all three syllables, as in NAW-ZEE-UHS.

Either way, it is simpler to say the two- or three-syllable “nauseous” than it is to say the four-syllable “nauseated”.

I saw this in a corporate announcement.

Problem:
The noun should be singular, not plural.

Explanation:
The full sentence was (quote) “If we all row in the same directions, we will ultimately climb the mountains and be successful.” (unquote).

Beyond this sentence’s mixed metaphor (more on that in tomorrow’s post), there is a problem with the “If” clause.

First, we must agree that anyone can row in only one direction at any given time.

Now, suppose that you are rowing in a direction and that I am rowing in a direction.

Suppose further that these two directions are identical.

Then there is one and only one direction in which the two of us are rowing.

We would call this (quote) “the same direction” (unquote).

By the way, it is incorrect to say that the adjective “same” always modifies a singular noun.

An example of the adjective “same” correctly modifying a plural noun appears in (quote) “Jack and Jill like the same fruits.” (unquote).

Solution:
“If we all row in the same direction, …”

My blog post yesterday made me remember this slogan from Apple.

Problem:
The Macintosh computer maker used an adjective where an adverb was required.

Explanation:
Apple Computer used (quote) “Think different.” (unquote) in the 1990s as one of its advertising slogans.

The word “different” is an adjective.

Adjectives modify nouns, not verbs, but Apple used “different” to modify a verb (”Think”).

Apple was trying to tell the viewer how to think.

This requires an adverb.

Many adjectives can be converted to adverbs by appending the L-Y suffix.

“Different” is one of those adjectives.

This gives us the solution.

I suppose that Apple and its advertising firm were trying to be catchy or edgy by using an adjective where an adverb was required.

But I view this grammatical mistake as encouraging the decline of the distinction between adjectives and adverbs.

Solution:
“Think differently.”

My wife saw this yesterday in a TV commercial for Outback Steakhouse.

Problem:
The restaurant chain used an adjective where an adverb was required.

Explanation:
Outback Steakhouse now has (quote) “Live Adventurous.” (unquote) as one of its advertising slogans, as my wife saw yesterday in a television advertisement from the chain.

The word “adventurous” is an adjective.

Adjectives modify nouns, not verbs, but Outback is using “adventurous” to modify a verb (”Live”).

Outback is trying to tell the viewer how to live.

This requires an adverb.

Many adjectives can be converted to adverbs by appending the L-Y suffix.

“Adventurous” is one of those adjectives.

This gives us the solution.

I suppose that Outback and its advertising firm were trying to be catchy or edgy by using an adjective where an adverb was required.

But I view this grammatical mistake as encouraging the decline of the distinction between adjectives and adverbs.

Solution:
“Live Adventurously.”

I saw this yesterday in a message about story-related evidence.

Problem:
The adjective “antidotal” has nothing to do with story-related evidence.

Explanation:
The word “antidotal” is the adjectival form of the noun “antidote”, which means a medicine for counteracting a poison.

The word “anecdotal” is the adjectival form of the noun “anecdote”, which means a short account of an incident as an unpublished narrative.

Those who confuse these two adjectives probably are distracted by

1. the fact that both adjectives have “dotal” — spelled D-O-T-A-L — in them because both nouns have “dote” — spelled D-O-T-E — in them,
2. the fact that both adjectives start with A-N, and
3. the fact that both adjectives are nine letters long.

The noun “antidote” is constructed from the prefix “anti-”, which means against, and “dote”, whose origin essentially means given. In other words, the roots of “antidote” when assembled mean given against.

The noun “anecdote” is constructed from the prefix “an-”, which means not, and “ecdote”. The “ecdote” part of “anecdote” is a combination of “ec”, which means out, and “dote”, whose origin, as just noted, means given.

So the “ecdote” part of “anecdote” essentially means published. In other words, the roots of “anecdote” when assembled mean not published.

Solution:
“anecdotal evidence”

I saw this in the subject line of a spam email message a week ago.

But this statement means nothing except for the positive implication that the spammer wants to give it.

Someone usually says (quote) “It is a prestige product.” (unquote) to tell the listener that “it” is a high-prestige product.

But the noun “prestige” by itself has no positive or negative value.

Can you imagine someone, such as a non-native-English speaker, first reading or hearing (quote) “A prestige watch is part of your image.” (unquote)?

This statement would be meaningless to such a person.

The noun “prestige” must be hyphenated with an adjective to form a compound adjective that can indicate the value of the noun — in this case, “watch” — that the compound adjective modifies.

In contrast to the inherently meaningless statement (quote) “A prestige watch is part of your image.” (unquote), here are some meaningful statements:

• “A high-prestige watch should be part of your image.”
• “A low-prestige watch should not be part of your image.”
• “A prestigious watch should be part of your image.”

I believe that the use of the noun “prestige” in place of the adjective “prestigious” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to speak or write the two-syllable, eight-letter noun than it is to speak or write the three-syllable, eleven-letter adjective.

So respond with a “Huh?” the next time that someone says to you (quote) “It is a prestige product.” (unquote), and see what happens.

I heard this in a TV commercial ten days ago.

Problem:
The word “other” does not belong in the statement.

Explanation:
The complete statement in the television commercial was (quote) “Honda has the highest residual value of any other car company.” (unquote).

The commercial was produced by Honda to promote Honda automobiles.

But the statement talks about Honda as if it were one of the “other” car companies.

In other words, the statement implies that there is a car company that could have higher residual value than Honda and all the “other” car companies and that Honda has the highest residual value among those “other” car companies.

If Honda’s desire was to say that its automobiles have the highest residual value among all car companies, then the solution comes from removing the adjective “other” from the statement.

Solution:
“Honda has the highest … of any car company.”