He's shouting in the second message because he doesn't think you heard the first one.
Was there any contact with Candidate X in the time between the two messages?
If that works I am totally using that on my c.v.
would like to be responded to about it
Well-connected people like me understand that you demand a response.
Was there any contact with Candidate X in the time between the two messages?
No, they were less than a minute apart.
My favorite excerpt from a cover letter: "... and I'm easy on the eyes." This was an attorney.
With some of these, I almost feel a duty to save them from themselves. You wrote "Winnows" where you meant "Windows" and although the rest of your resume is pretty good, no one on earth is going to call you. Of course, I'm so bad at this that my first thought was, "I wonder if that's software I haven't heard of."
Back on the veldt, this level of enthusiasm would have been rewarded with a generous chunk of singed wildebeast flesh. Ah, evolution.
Oh, the poor guy. His communication skills are weak, but this isn't that weird -- what he was going for was "Please feel free to contact me at [Redacted phone number] at any time," and realized that he'd left his phone number out of the initial email.
I don't get the problem with this.
Why is everybody assuming Candidate X is male?
9: Tell me you didn't hire them.
Totally OT: Glenn is on fire today. I love when he gets all Founding Fathers.
I actually don't know X's gender. Can't tell from the email or the sign-off. And LB, you softie, there was no resume, nothing. Just a "hey, call me back." You cannot be serious.
Can the mineshaft help?
Does "8 inches, cut." belong on the resume proper, or the cover letter?
No resume? That was the entire communication? Okay, that's freakish.
19: Oh, I thought the idea was that somehow the first email was fine but then the second one screwed up the person's chances.
NcProsecutor:
Agreed. Great article by Greenwald, as always.
Does "8 inches, cut." belong on the resume proper, or the cover letter?
The photo shouldn't be on the cover letter because you can't be sure who's going to be receiving the fax.
Yay! Ridiculous and/or sad applicant stories. (I'm so with ogged with the desire to save them from themselves.)
"Working on these campaigns I built a strong demeanor with volunteers, voters, and other campaign staff."
Bear in mind that this was for a job that included writing.
That was the entire communication?
Yup.
20: Cover letter, with photos. You have to put a personal touch on these things.
On an application form for a pharmacy where I worked"
"Expected duration of employment?"
"Until something better comes along."
I had someone attach her "Glamour shot" 8 X 10 to her resume. She was applying to be a paralegal.
I didnt hire her.
I actually don't know X's gender. Can't tell from the email or the sign-off.
OKAY I'LL SEND CV BUT DO YOU RESPOND TO MAC OR WINNOWS
Anyone applying to be a paralegal should proof the living hell out of their resume. I still feel bad -- I dinged a woman applying at my old firm; she was really smart (the "I'm right out of college and going to law school in two years" class of paralegal), and her resume wasn't that bad, just with inconsistent en and em dashes and hyphens, formatting choices that varied slightly from one paragraph to the next, and so on. I would have hired a lawyer with a resume that sloppy -- it was all minor stuff -- but most of what you want out of a paralegal is having a good eye for that kind of thing.
But I did feel rotten about advising that she not be hired.
On an application form for a pharmacy where I worked"
"Expected duration of employment?"
"Until something better comes along."
If it's a job that doesn't involve more than a couple hours of training, how could anyone say anything other than this and mean it?
Another one.
From the cover e-mail:
"I am an American because I believe in the greatness of this country. I strongly encourage you to appoint a lifelong servant of integrity and a standard of excellence. Please appoint me [Candidate X. Lastname] as the next [position]. NOTE: If you have any questions or concerns of my fitness, please contact me via return e-mail and/or you may contact me direct at my office @ [phone]. May God bless you and keep you, [Candidate X. Lastname]"
Now his writing sample, which is long, but must be quoted in full.
"I believe it is fair that you should know the 12 traits that I live by in you appointing a committed public servant . First of all, I am...
TRUSTWORTHY- people will not work or vote for someone they do not trust or is not sincere.
LOYAL- you won't survive if you sell out the people around you.
HELPFUL-Sometimes people need help to get a job done (And I need you now because I pledge to be there for you in the future!)
FRIENDLY- people respond better if you are in a good mood; I feel the best days is ahead of us. COURTEOUS- a little courtesy goes a long way in any situation; I owe a lot to you!
KIND- you will never know when you need someone's help;and at this time we need each other. OBEDIENT- one must learn to take orders before one can give them; I have been doing this consistently with my 40 plus of volunteer involvement and service in this area and my tenure as an Officer in the United States Air Force.
CHEERFUL-you will get to make a first impression once;for me-THIS IS IT!
THRIFTY-you will have to be able to think on your feet to stay on top. BRAVE-you have to be willing to try new things and new ideas.
CLEAN-the way you present yourself effects everything you do.
REVERENT-"NOTHING IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT GOD!"
Your earnest and positive consideration of this candidacy would be greatly appreciated and welcome. If you need to speak with me personally, you may contact me weekdays in my office @[number] and/or via return e-mail by logging in to [e-mail]. May God bless you and keep you."
Throughout the time I've been involved with recruiting, and I've done it a bit, I don't think I've seen more than one or two CV + covering letter combinations without some sort of grammatical howler. In many/most cases they were near laughably illiterate [and these were for skilled jobs].
Makes me fearful that somewhere or other there's a file with one of my own covering letters in it with someone else's scrawled sarcastic comments on it.
If it's a job that doesn't involve more than a couple hours of training, how could anyone say anything other than this and mean it?
They wouldn't. But you don't go into your i-banking interview saying that you plan on working hard for two years to make tons of money so you can get laid, either.
33: You do know those are the Boy Scout virtues, right?
Oh, wait -- one more piece from the same candidate. From his resume (which, needless to say, included absolutely nothing the slightest bit relevant to the position):
"Computer literate, calculator, office equipment and self-sufficient in the office environment."
Dude can use a calculator!
You do know those are the Boy Scout virtues, right?
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the Boy Scouts don't think that "thrifty" means "you will have to be able to think on your feet to stay on top."
And he can survive for days in the office environment with nothing more than a hatchet and a Zippo!
my tenure as an Officer in the United States Air Force.
Okay, so this person has a college degree. As does, presumably? the person who wrote Ogged.
1. How is this possible?
2. Please tell me that these people did not have decent gpas in high school.
I did once send a job application with a typo in the name of the state (which was part of the name of the school or the organization or whatever it was).
Needless to say, I realized this too late, and immediately knew I would not be hearing from them.
40 gets it right. I'd be impressed with that cover letter if it was from a recent immigrant from Tanzania, maybe.
"Computer literate, calculator, office equipment and self-sufficient in the office environment."
See, things like this just break my heart. People are trying so hard, but they're really guessing and don't stand a chance.
1. How is this possible?
English majors, probably.
re:40
I've had barely literate essays from people with 3 years of university education, so it doesn't surprise me at all.
so this person has a college degree
Yeah, and had done some graduate work in public administration & business, though he doesn't actually list degrees.
And one more thing about him (last one, I swear). The job included web strategy, working with web tech people on site design, etc. The HTML version of his resume was green & white courier text on a background that was black with strings of green sort of washed-out numbers (and not even binary code).
I do feel really sorry for the guy and mean for mocking him. But not enough not to do so.
You know, I haven't done much hiring, but I have to say that my impression is that the incapacity to generate literate prose, even on the level needed to write a cover letter, is common enough that I wouldn't hold it against someone who wasn't applying for a writing job.
"Sir, I apply for the position in your office, and refer you to my principals, [redacted].
Yours faithfully,"
Meanwhile, I have a gorgeous resume and write letter-perfect cover letters, yet spend half my day (just kidding, boss!) talking to youse guys. Back to work.
Sir Kraab, don't laugh at the guy -- it's hard to go back to being an office drone once you've entered the Matrix.
English majors, probably.
Not if they ever took one of my classes, dammit.
47: What, are you nuts? I would totally hold it against someone. Incoherent prose = incoherent thought.
re: 47
Yeah, certainly I've interviewed people for jobs despite their terrible cover letters.
Without getting all 'teh end of civilisation is nigh', I'd be surprised if more than a tiny percentage of even the educated population can write worth shit. The commentators on this site are way, way, way over at one side of the bell-curve.
* just before I hit post on this I noticed one major grammatical mistake [a typo, honest!] and one spelling mistake. Almost, but not quite, hoist by my own petard.
What I feel sorry for is the people whose strategy seems to be blind relentlessness. Sending the same resume and generic cover letter every time you advertise a new job, no matter the requirements. Calling even when warned not to in the advertisement. Etc. This can shade into the ineptitude of Ogged's correspondent.
re: 51
I suspect if you were recruiting for tech jobs, you genuinely wouldn't find anyone who met those standards for prose. Not until you were getting well into the higher pay brackets anyway.
I can't go into it for fear of getting Dooced but these examples of bad writing are nothing.
NOTHING, I tell you. I've seen things that would make you cry.
The last stack of resumes I got was weird -- there must have been 3 candidates out of 10 who had taken the last couple of years off to try day trading. I put them in the No pile for hopelessly bad judgement.
53: So they're using the same strategy they use in trying to pick up women?
33: He left out BRAVE and COURTEOUS. A very bad sign.
inconsistent en and em dashes and hyphens
You've been taking w-lfs-n too seriously.
I'd be surprised if more than a tiny percentage of even the educated population can write worth shit
Totally right. We're not filling a high-level job, so the pool is a little worse than others, but even so, out of 100 responses, 3-5 will be actually well-written.
What, are you nuts? I would totally hold it against someone. Incoherent prose = incoherent thought.
No, no, no, no, no. If you never write anything except when required to, you write stream-of-consciousness weirdness. Even if you're completely coherent and quick-witted in conversation.
You've never encountered a smart person who unexpectedly turned out to send emails that were lowercase, unpunctuated, full of runon sentences? People write how they speak if they aren't used to writing.
54: Aren't a lot of people here tech workers?
I do know intelligent educated people who write like shit (one was a good friend of ours when Mr. B. was in the AF, actually). But regardless, man; you have a friend who is literate look over your letter if you're that bad.
Incoherent prose = incoherent thought.
This was recently discussed re: John Locke. Verdict: not true.
English teachers keep telling themselves that, though.
Even less true is "Coherent prose = coherent thought".
So they're using the same strategy they use in trying to pick up women?
Yep. Same guys, I suspect.
People write how they speak if they aren't used to writing.
Actually it's the opposite; people who write like they speak write pretty well. It's the folks who are trying to write "formally" who screw everything up.
And yes, of *course* I know a lot of people write terribly. Nonetheless, incoherence or apparent nuttiness--as opposed to mild awkwardness--would totally land an application into the recycling bin.
inconsistent en and em dashes and hyphens
You've been taking w-lfs-n too seriously.
Sir, you insult the entire paralegal profession. My briefs went out with a nary a misplaced dash or hyphen.
Shit. I'm really trying to ignore this thread and work. Can't everyone start talking about w-lfs-n's boring music or something?
He left out BRAVE and COURTEOUS.
No he didn't.
61: Picture me making the little "W" with my thumbs and forefingers.
So anyway, I was thinking about buying some glasses. My YouTube video will be up shortly, so stay tuned.
Let me pre-empt the inevitable question about my glasses. I know I am lame-ass, but I WILL get a photo up this weekend.
re: 60
My 'day job' [the one that funds the doctorate] is a tech job, and I use to be a tech manager in an internet company. I'm pretty sure I'm right about the aggregate level of illiteracy. I've worked with so many bright people whose writing was just embarrassing to look at.
In fact, I'm fairly sure *I* am the only person in any of the tech environments I've worked in who could write coherent prose reports in ordinary English. That isn't to say that lots of the people I worked with weren't really good at their jobs, because a lot of them were, but writing as a specific skill is vanishingly rare.
One of my job duties is editing study reports written by PhD-level biostatisticians, and many of them couldn't write their way out of a paper bag.
68: So do I.
70: Really, truly, I know this. But first, coherent prose reports aren't the same as cover letters, and second, dude, I *know* a lot of tech people. They're not *great* writers, but they're not that bad. I realize many of them, perhaps even most, *are* that bad, but not all.
Also I am now wondering if you are acquainted with a friend of mine from the U. of Bath who is finishing (has finished?) his PhD in computer something or other.
31:
inconsistent en and em dashes and hyphens
This always annoys the bejeezus out of me. Almost as much as the errant double-space!
71: I'll have to get Mrs. NCP to try that. Can she sharpen her pen beforehand?
73: I've actually got a horribly bad eye for those things, but that's why I want a paralegal who's good at it. I wouldn't hire me as a paralegal.
73: I would blame Microsoft Word for that rather than any sentient entity.
Writing is a little weird in that we allegedly recognize that it is a skill for which one can have varying amounts of talent but act continuously surprised when we discover that people have varying amounts of talent in way that we don't with other disciplines.
I think I blogged this but it's worth repeating -- I once got a resume in Comic Sans.
Comic Fucking Sans.
Again, why is that bad, Becks? Why must you all hate Comic Sans?
77: Well, because most people can speak coherently. I sometimes tell people to literally write exactly how they would speak, or even to record themselves and then transcribe it.
It also helps, interestingly, to tell people to write as if they were writing a letter to a friend or grandma or someone. A lot of incredibly shitty writing is all about trying to adhere to some formal rules that one doesn't really understand.
Mrs OFE and I plan to set up a company in our retirement to rewrite documents for companies who employ a high proportion of illiterates, so that they occasionally win a contract. We intend to charge a lot.
I like Strunk and White. Simple writing is the best writing.
Along the same lines as Bitch's comment, people try too hard. They also do not proof read their stuff. On the internet, I think it is silly when people freak out about grammar. I have no intention of taking the time to proof my stuff.
Offline, proof reading is essential for grammar and for persuasive effect.
I had a friend who had a good career as a tech writer for Tektronix (early hi-tech firm in Portland). He claimed that he was their top writer because none of the other tech people could write and none of the other writers knew the tech very well.
A lot of smart people haven't learned the low-level conventions and practices of writing. Lots of dumb people have. I have known people who could write instantly, though, with very minimal training.
I HAVE PIGEON COOPS ON ROOF. PLEASE SEND SCROLLED ACCEPTANCE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Am I the only person who's purposely inserted typos to screen out employers who care about that sort of thing? I'm a EE, if that makes any difference.
80: I agree that 90% of the problem is trying to write formally without having an ear for it, but to be honest, most people don't speak in a way that would be impressive business writing. It's different than writing a composition or almost anything else.
If anybody here wants to hire me to do freelance editing, I promise not to embed cock jokes in the document's metadata.
Though on Becks' no day-trader thing--I do know someone who has been day trading for about five years (he's an artist, and he also runs/rents an art gallery) and he makes a pretty good annual income that way. He's quite a good writer, from what I've seen. If he fetched up in certain kinds of employment pools (art administration, for example), I think he'd probably be a solid hire. Categorical rules for sorting applicants aren't a good idea, by and large--but on the other hand, I have yet to have someone who wrote a bad or weird cover letter not turn out to be bad and weird in person.
Um, will, that's "proofread." One word.
52--
"The commentators on this site are way, way, way over at one side of the bell-curve."
well, that makes me feel proud. assuming i'm included. and assuming we mean the same end of the curve.
59--
"You've never encountered a smart person who unexpectedly turned out to send emails that were lowercase, unpunctuated, full of runon sentences? People write how they speak if they aren't used to writing."
i've tried to explain before that i write this way because i speak in all lowercase, but nobody believes me.
Am I the only person who's purposely inserted typos to screen out employers who care about that sort of thing?
Screen employers? Some people just live in a totally different world from mine.
91:
I was going to finish my post with "persuasive affect", but, that would be to obvious.
This is a fun game. How many punctuation mistakes can you include before w-lfs-n's, Kraab's, and Apo's heads explode?
92: I actually hear the no-caps thing as a tone of voice: squeaky and breathless, in a kind of cartoon mouse sort of way.
I ran a job search for a minister in a church that still nominally abides by the notion of a "priesthood of all believers." For ministerial positions in the denomination there's still a sizable of applicants who have, at best, 2 years post-high-school education at unaccredited preacher-training schools; there are even a few who apply based on their experiences alone. We received many applications from such candidates, even though we made it clear that the church was in a major college town and education was a big plus.
By far, the worst applications featured autobiographies, all of which could be summarized in two sentences: "I was born and baptized in Texas, then I married a godfearing woman who cooks me dinner. She would never think of doing anything but staying home to raise and home school our 4 straight children." The autobiographies ranged from 2-4 pages.
I actually hear the no-caps thing as a tone of voice
Do you read comments here in different voices?
This is the only place on the internet where I use caps.
Um, will, "proof read" is not a punctuation mistake. It's a misspelling.
['Head throbbing but not yet exploding']
still nominally abides by the notion of a "priesthood of all believers."
Heh. I recognize that denomination. Nominally indeed.
100: I thank you for restraining your inner barbarian for us.
Kraab, do you say "full stop" or "period"?
I actually hear the no-caps thing as a tone of voice: squeaky and breathless, in a kind of cartoon mouse sort of way.
I see it more as somebody mumbling really quickly in such a way that they don't actually expect anyone to listen to them.
"Period" unless I'm sending a telegram in 1944.
All you no-caps haters are missing out on all the fun of talking to teenage girls via IM.
102: Yes, I'm sure that in NC it's a lot more prevalent than IA.
It actually takes more effort for me to not use caps, having learned to type properly, a topic I think we already beat to death somewhere else.
(And don't anyone try to bust me for a split infinitive; it's a bullshit "rule.")
101:
I miss-spell all the time. MS Word has made me lazy.
every minute I use Word, I get weaker, and every minute Sir Kraab squats in the bush, she gets stronger. Each time I looked around, spell check walls moved in a little tighter.
111: Me too, actually. I don't have any problem with other people using no caps, though. Especially teenage girls.
Part of why this makes me wince is that I know I have sent out some really bad job applications myself, including years where I made the mistake of sending near generic CVs and cover letters to any job vaguely related to my field. That sort of resume spamming can virtually ensure bad grammar in at least a few cover letters. The thing is, I had a skill set that didn't really fit anywhere, so everything looked kind of appropriate.
I don't have any problem with other people using no caps, though. Especially teenage girls.
Close: but "caps" should be "shirts"
97, 105--
i think you've got it between you:
i'm a breathless squeaky cartoon mouse who mumbles really quickly and doesn't expect anybody to listen to them.
i should be at the d-con in dc at the end of december. please drop cheese cubes in the corners.
On the boy scout thing: I could have sworn that the scout law included "honest" in there somewhere, but not according to the BSA's site. Which I am now assuming has been edited in an Orwellian attempt to re-write history.
Despite being a Chemical Engineering major, my brother is an oddly good writer (and enjoys writing, too--he's taking an upper-division Shakespeare seminar this semester just for kicks, partly because he ran out of Math classes to take.) I'm betting he'll do alright, considering how oddly literate he is for his field.
I guess "TRUSTWORTHY" is better than "HONEST".
They replaced "HONEST" with "HETEROSEXUAL".
I'm betting he'll do alright
Professionally, I mean, though I'm sure he'll do fine in the class as well.
spell check walls moved in a little tighter
Wear fewer wetsuits.
alright
Has that battle been lost already?
I regularly do an exercise in class where I compare lists of virtues, including lists from Aristotle, Plato, Jim Liszka, and the Boy Scouts. The funniest student remark I ever got about the Boy Scout list was "Those sound like what you look for in a dog!"
I certainly appreciate a courteous dog.
Has that battle been lost already?
For nigh on a century now.
If he fetched up in certain kinds of employment pools (art administration, for example), I think he'd probably be a solid hire.
But if he were socially eligible to climb the ranks in art administration, he would already have all the family money he needs.
(Maybe JL's experience is different, but art administration in my experience is a matter of legacy. The blood runs thicker and bluer than water in D.C.)
I'm thisclose to deputizing Sir Kraab.
alright
Has that battle been lost already?
I know. Sad isn't it?
Related: I have given up the ghost on "hopefully." I think the language has evolved to make it truly mean "I hope that in the future . . . ." Plus, it's useful to have such a word ("'Hopefully, I'll get laid soon,' said teo.") and less useful to have "teo waited hopefully to get laid."
But I'll defend "fewer" for countable nouns to the death.
just occurred to me, lb--your association of lowercase with squeaky cartoon characters may owe something to archy & mehitabel.
http://www.donmarquis.com/readingroom/archybooks/coming.html
drawings by the guy who drew krazy kat, too.
106. "Period" unless I'm sending a telegram in 1944
I had a boss who was quite elderly at the time of my employment (he has since met his ultimate reward). When he would send a fax he would always write "stop" at the end of a sentance like he was sending a telegram. Plus ca change.
w-lfs-n, I've already got the badge. I was on the grammar team in high school. But I thank you for your condescending approval all the same.
"'Hopefully, I'll get laid soon,' said teo."
It seems I am now an all-purpose example.
130: I'm OK with "hopefully" for exactly that reason. "It is to be hoped that..." really doesn't work. But "alright" continues to grate, as does the trend of verbing the hell out of every noun around. "Parent" as a verb bothers me a lot but probably shouldn't; "rear" doesn't work as well for that purpose as it once did. "Gift" as a verb bugs the hell out of me because it's so pointless, "give" being alive and well, but I suppose the point is to sound all legal and shit.
Grammar team?
There's a funny joke involving repurposing a 2-4-6-8 cheer, but I don't have it in me.
I will note, however, that 8 rhymes with "punctuate."
There are fewer sets of all sets that do not contain themselves as members mentioned in online conversation nowadays.
verbing the hell out of every noun around
This only bothers me when the noun in question is "party".
I got utterly pwned by my own fucking dictionary on loan/lend a couple weeks ago. I was ready to burn the thing.
The worst thing is that this disrespects my late mother, one of whose major grammar peeves (and she had plenty - second generation English teacher) it was.
Why do you need loan for a verb when you've got lend right there?
136: Yup. There's even a yearbook photo, which I should scan & post.
The Apostropher does not party hard.
"rear" doesn't work as well for that purpose as it once did.
Yeah, the rear has started to be multipurpose these days.
the rear has started to be multipurpose
Aww, Ned's ready for The Mineshaft.
The people sending me resumes in the mail could be making all manner of typos, but I don't know about it. I don't read them. I usually don't even open the envelopes.
I used to feel like I ought to do so, even though I'm not advertising, and not looking. But day after day, 4 or 5 resumes a day, it's just so pointless.
The woman sitting behind me just used "interface" as a verb. Would it be wrong to spill an extremely hot cup of coffee on her?
It's telling that this thread turns to grammar and usage and every other thread on the site instantly dies.
Spilling coffee on her would be a form of interfacing.
someone wanna explain to me their objections to 'alright'?
i mean, i'm pretty prescriptionist myself. prefer 'fewer' for count nouns. discourage split infinitives. smack people for confusing 'imply/infer' or 'compose/comprise'.
but i'm just not seeing what's offensive about 'alright'.
not only does it have the sanction of the oed, it even has the sanction of pete townsend.
so the problem is?
It's telling pathetic that this thread turns to grammar and usage and every other thread on the site instantly dies.
150 gets it right. Nobody uses "alright" in such a way that they are thinking of the words "all" and "right". So why keep wasting space and employing an adjective that awkwardly contains a space?
152--
eh. i'm not so worried about wasting space.
but i think more expressive options is better than fewer, and when there are expressive options in spoken language, it's nice to be able to represent them in writing.
"how did he do on his test?" "alright."
"how did he do on his test?" "all right."
those are different statements--different truth conditions--and in spoken english have different prosodies and stress contours.
the variation in spelling reflects that.
so the problem is?
As it turns out, the kids are not all right.
154--
exactly. and they can be alright notwithstanding that fact.
O mighty, finicky Unfoggers! I have a question. I am preparing a document--to be posted on the wall, containing instructions--and I need the font to be imposing. The font must convey to people that they have no option but to do what is expected of them. No happy little Didot, no retro Futura--just a font with expectations. What do you suggest?
Fraktur is hard to read, but Helvetica is actually Nazi.
Everything that reasonably can be should be written in Garamond 11. Many many years from now this will be a court rule when I am a (traffic court) judge.
I once got a resume in Comic Sans.
Late as always, but yeah, we got one of those for a job posted earlier this year. It was made worse by the fact that, like so many poor applicants, the writer went on to dwell on how much she liked art, all the museums she had visited, etc. You could tell that she really wanted to work here (or in a place like she imagined this to be) even as her letter demonstrated that she was completely unsuitable to the position. It was rather sad.
"Gift" as a verb bugs the hell out of me
Yes.
I was surprise to read in an early edition of S&W a rant against "contact" as a verb. I have to admit I don't give it a second thought, and use it myself all the time. Maybe the tipping point was the web, and all of those "Contact Us" links.
My primary objection to "alright," I am slightly embarrassed to say, is that it looks lower-class. Ditto "alot." I have known a lot of middle/upper class people who were lousy writers, but that prejudice sticks with me.
the best complaint I ever heard against "alot" focussed on the fact that you would never say "alittle"
Impact can be good for headlines and Helvetica is good for text, assuming it's fairly short. Sans serif is harder to read.
Also consider Impact or similar (I love Franklin Gothic Demi Condensed, but it's not standard in Word) to bold a few choice words or phrases within the text.
Reverses are good (white text, black background) when used sparingly.
(Yes, I'm also a layout geek.)
162: Garamond is elegant, true, but no one around here gives a fig for elegance. And what is the mystery document, you may well ask?
You see, the lab has a lunchroom. I don't clean the lunchroom, because I am a secretary and not a lunch lady. Also, I eat at my desk and read Unfogged, and thus do not contribute to the amazing sea of detritus that builds up. We must, therefore, have a lunch-room cleaning roster. I do not myself care, but the director of the institute does.
Now, given my knowledge of the the lab people, I know that one or two will follow through; five or six will honestly forget; and the ones who are here for a year before they go to dental school and some of the grad students will consider it beneath them, because they are, like, professionals.
I am therefore trying to make it as compelling-looking as possible.
It's possible to be a layout geek and use Word? Who knew?
169, that's exactly what I was imagining it was.
Maybe the names of the people should be in a different font from the rest of the flyer. And a different color. And be blinking. Anything to not get ignored.
169: Be sure to include: "If you don't wash the dishes, don't fucking complain about the maggots."
Frowner--Arial bold small caps, maybe?
I still think Garamond 11 is lovely, but it is not imposing. I mainly use Times New Roman for everything these days.
I am somewhat sympathetic to stiff cover letters, because I hate writing them, and to typos in resumes, because I once managed to send out 27 clerkship applications containing a typo (they were due right after the bar exam & right before I had to leave town for a family obligation). But there are limits.
172: I bet you think you're kidding, don't you?
I am with Katherine. Stick with Times New Roman. 12 pt
12 pt? This is going to be posted on the wall. The size should be as big as possible .
The last place I worked had "Your Mother Doesn't Live Here" in the kitchen.
It's possible to be a layout geek and use Word? Who knew?
Possible, but excruciating. But no one will buy me Quark. I used to use PageMaker, but that has its own limitations.
I have developed a lot of workarounds over the years.
清扫!
Also, tie chair use to being on the cleanup roster-- no cleanup slot, no sitting down.
Possible, but excruciating.
I guess that's what I imagined....
176: That's why I said Helvetica. I hate it in a page of text, but for a large print sign, it's great.
173: Yay for small caps! TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS VERY HARD TO READ BECAUSE THE LETTERS DON'T HAVE DISTINGUISHABLE SHAPES. Small caps are better, and prettier, but also require a light touch.
I think there's a balance in grammar correction and punctiliousness. Applications and resumes we know to check and recheck, so that the person who doesn't either can't see the error, or doesn't care.
But in comments here, all sorts of errors creep in that are due to speed, and fluency, and being relaxed. Comma faults, spelling words by their sound, and the failure to distinguish its/it's, the varieties of all right and so on. I see them when others do it, or after I've posted in my own, much more than when I'm writing; I think we all do and don't think anybody needs to apologize for it.
But wanting within reason to be both fluent and correct has had beneficial effects on my writing, and I seem, to myself anyway, to be getting better at both the more I do it.
Unnecessarily long article, but I do love Clearview for road signs.
184: That is amazing -- the difference between Highway Gothic and Clearview does literally feel to me as though my vision grew more acute, rather than that the typeface changed.
But no one will buy me Quark. I used to use PageMaker, but that has its own limitations
I used PageMaker, and have used Quark for the Classic OS, never in OSX. Indesign appears to be PageMaker's successor, but I've never used it.
清扫!
Google translates this as "Dissection!"
And NCP? If you're reading, check your gmail -- I could use an NC defense attorney referral.
Sweet, LB's going to jail for smuggling tobaccy.
'Shine, actually. Had some problems with the revenooers.
Related: I have given up the ghost on "hopefully." I think the language has evolved to make it truly mean "I hope that in the future . . . ." Plus, it's useful to have such a word....
I love the Kraab, but it was a stupid rule in the first place. While "Ogged hopefully approached the lifeguard" has its place, "Hopefully, he'll be more discrete about staring at her ass next time" is no more objectionable than "Luckily, he was uninjured when she slapped him" or "Thankfully, he's giving it up to become a monk". I feel similarly about the objections to "literally" as a general intensifier ("really" or "truly" don't cause any of the same sniping), although the original meaning is a useful one.
I used babelfish, and asked for "Clean up!" A grad school friend would sweep detritus from the table onto the floor after a meal ( he had grown up in India in a house full of servants) and when called on it, reply "man, what can I do?" in all innocence. One of the recent Chinese premiers had a rare character in his name-- Deng, I think, and there were complications.
If SK objects to those other sentences as well, I duly applaud her for consistency.
I got dinged once for "hopefully" in college. Now I'm thinking I should write the prof and tell him he's a dinosaur. I think it might amuse him.
184, 185: I watched the slideshow and see the virtues of Clearview, but in the first, Hellertown Bethlehem example, the Gothic was somehow a little easier for me see. Possibly just familiarity.
191: I'm with you on 'hopefully' (that is, it's the same construction as one that's completely unobjectionable with respect to a whole bunch of other adverbs), but I'm still going to bitch about 'literally'. If that distinction goes, it's nothing more than another synonym for 'really'. (Admittedly, the process may have gone too far already -- I have to watch myself on 'literally' and do screw it up on occasion.)
194 - Sentence adverbs shall not kill ape!
Oh, snarky, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
If that distinction goes, it's nothing more than another synonym for 'really'.
But it's not more than another synonym for "really"! "Really", "literally", and "truly" are meant to designate that something is the real, literal truth, right? I see what you're saying about the value of preserving the meaning, but it's bizarre to me that this has become a marker of poor writing to some people; I think rfts found an example of Austen using it once. (I hope I am not misremembering an example of J.L. Austin's usage.)
I literally never misuse "literally."
(Someone's going through the archives right now looking for my errors, aren't they?)
199: I'm not understanding you. 'Literally' means to me that 'the following statement, which might appear to be hyperbolic or metaphoric, is not, it is straight factual reportage.' When it's used in front of a statement that is actually hyperbolic or metaphoric, as so many people do but I wish they wouldn't, what does it add other than emphasis, like 'really'?
People sometimes use "literally" when what they're saying is actually metaphorical or is some way less than literal. That's the error.
The one that bothers me is "pitiful," even though the definition that should follow from breaking the word into its parts is now considered archaic. That, and nauseous/nauseated. Stupid evolving language.
soon once meant right now, immediately. Literally followed by a simile gets me; googling "literally * like -feel " turns up a bunch of these.
I'm literally dying over here at the fact that we have yet another fucking grammar thread.
The grammar of fucking; now that's a whole different topic.
I know what the error is, I make it myself pretty frequently. Snark seems to be saying that even in the erroneous usage, 'literally' still has some value as distinct from 'really', and I'm not sure what that value is.
I like this from Snarkout's link "to some, efficiency apparently smacks of haste and compromise"
200: ANOTHER apostropher? I should have trademarked the damn word.
That, and nauseous/nauseated.
What's the difference?
Should "nauseous" mean "nauseating" instead of "nauseated"? Maybe it's an unnecessary word no matter what it means.
nauseous/nauseated is a lost cost, although I teach it to my kids. I try not to make these mistakes at the same time I try not to judge them too harshly.
I am saying that "literally" is evolving in the same way that the adverb forms of "real" and "true" did. Unlike my pro-sentence adverb stance, this one is straight descriptivism on my part, but if Sir Kraab said that my lexical laxity were "genuinely staggering", would you expect her to genuinely have staggered about the room?
Should "nauseous" mean "nauseating" instead of "nauseated"?
Yes, it most certainly should.
"Nauseous" and "nauseating" are a particularly annoying pair when someone corrects your usage as you're trying not to retch.
210 - Ah, no; I'm saying that in the original usage, "literally" has value, but that it's hardly surprising that the word is being used the exact same way that every other word meaning "truly" has been (that is, to mean "metaphorically").
"No, pumpkin, you're puking your guts out right now because you're nauseated. The 3-day-old sushi was nauseous."
There are two ways to misuse literally:
(1) to mean "really":
"I literally hate you"
(2) to mean "figuratively":
"Ahmadinejad literally comes to Columbia with blood on his hands"*
*actual quote.
215: I understand you now. I think there's a real difference there, but I'm getting stuck figuring out why.
There are two ways to misuse literally:
(1) to mean "really":
"I literally hate you"
I've never heard this. If I had, it wouldn't bother me like the other one does.
"Literally" isn't quite a general intensifier (like "really") -- instead, it signals that the speaker considers the phrasing of the modified word/phrase/whatever to be especially apt.
I think that it's time for a masturbation thread, or something about the coot migration. This thread is literally inconscionable. Also, it will soon be the unique Google hit for "literally inconscionable".
I think the difference is that "literally" is our last stand. If that goes the way of "truly," "genuinely," etc., we'll have no word left that means "actually, truly, in the real word did in fact happen." Though maybe "actually" is still in the race, come to think of it.
In the '84 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, Mario Cuomo remembered his father "literally bleeding from the soles of his feet." Context and his unusual rhetorical competence meant you understood that to be the original meaning, even though the use as a simple amplifier was already common then.
195: Agreed. Clearview looks bunched up and dim to me in the Hellertown Bethlehem example, as compared to Highway Gothic. Familiarity may well account for the difference, but I'm not so sure...
227: This kind of precession is normal, because people routinely lie and fudge. A new word would have to be invented, except that pomo has taught us that literally nothing is actually true or real.
Duh.
215: what do you mean? Was there a time when "genuinely staggering" WOULD have meant "actually making me physically stagger"? If not, isn't this just more evidence that there's no good substitute for "literally" as in "not figuratively"? Whereas you have "genuinely," "really," "truly", etc. to choose from if you want a more general term.
I think that it's time for a masturbation thread
Sounds like somebody needs a little anal massage.
I think the difference is that "literally" is our last stand. If that goes the way of "truly," "genuinely," etc., we'll have no word left that means "actually, truly, in the real word did in fact happen."
We still have "I shit you not."
195, 229: Honestly? That's weird -- I wonder if I was looking at the right labels for the two signs. Clearview looked night and day easier for me to read; as if I'd cleaned my glasses between the two signs.
Hey, I don't complain when you blather on about anal massage. I just stop reading.
Damn, pwned by apo on preview.
234: Clearview was the top example, right?
236: No, it was the bottom. You agree with everybody else, Nick.
Goddammit. That was inevitable.
I mean: Clearview was the bottom example, right?
231 - The OED makes it clear how hard drawing these distinctions is. From "truly":
5. a. Genuinely, really, actually, in fact, in reality; sincerely, unfeignedly.
TROLL ALERT 236
A road sign in Highway Gothic, top, and one in Clearview.
"I shit you not" does not mean "I sound like I could be using a metaphor, but I'm really not."
For god's sake, I really did mean that I found the bottom example in the linked article to be bunched up and dim. I will now return to my usual seat in the balcony.
It does kind of mean "the following may sound hyperbolic, but isn't meant to be", at least sometimes.
Alot and alright are abominations and people who use them should be shot. Literally.
Nauseous/nauseated, sadly, is an error I make all the time.
That said, I am tired of feeling nauseated, but after the chiro and the massage, my shoulder feels somewhat better. No idea how the spider bite on the ass is doing, though.
Jack Paar's "I kid you not" was a cleaned-up-for-tv version of isyn. Adults got it, children didn't. It meant "this is funny, but it's not a joke, although it should be."
More OED -- "literally":
b. Used to indicate that the following word or phrase must be taken in its literal sense.
Now often improperly used to indicate that some conventional metaphorical or hyperbolical phrase is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense. (So, e.g., in quot. 1863.)
English has always been on the decline. I blame the goddamned Normans.
Typical meanings of I shit you not.
1. "It looks like I am exaggerating or speaking metaphorically, but I am being quite literal."
2. "It looks like I am pulling a joke on your, but I am not."
3. "It looks like I am pouring feces on your head, but really it is just chocolate."
Alot and alright are abominations
I'm with you on alot but
alright:all right::altogether:all together
Alright and all right have different meaning from in precisely the same way that altogether and all together do.
Ok, I'm just yanking your chain.
Apo is hinting to us that he's naked.
"I shit you not" can also mean "I shit you". But you're supposed to get the joke. Like "Would I lie to you?"
"Who do you think is shittin' you, me or your shittin' eyes?"
255: If de Man had used "I shit you not" in his debunking of the arche bit, the world would be a better place.
253: Read the usage note here. That's precisely the difference between alright and all right.
different meaning from in precisely
That, however, was indeed nonsense.
Well, I'm off to massage coot assholes. Thanks a lot, motherfuckers.
You can't resolve questions like "alright" with the dictionary on your desk as you once could, for reasons Dwight Macdonald explained in his essay The String Untuned It was a review of sorts of the Webster's Third International, on which most desktops are based. Macdonald pointed out that Webster's had switched from "prescriptive" to "descriptive," under the influence of linguistics. He thought the change baneful, and entirely ideological. The upshot is that "alright" will be listed as a synonym of "all right," simply because people commonly use it that way.
259: You de Man, Ned. I shit you not.
IDP: It makes perfect sense to use dictionaries who gather information descriptively for prescriptive purposes. Your goal in writing is to communicate with your contemporaries. A snapshot of how language is used at the time will give you a good sense of their expectations. It can, for instance, let you know that your reader will be alright with you distinguishing "alright" and "all right"
Eh. 'Alright' still sets my back up as an unnecessary colloquialism -- I don't like it in writing. But I'm sure in fifty years you people will have won.
264: but some of them won't be alright with it. They will literally flip out on you.
I don't really have a problem with "alright", though I don't think I use it. I get annoyed when I think a change is making the language function worse. When people start using "literally" to mean "figuratively" or "begs the question" to mean "raise the question," you're changing the meaning of terms for which *there isn't an adequate substitute*. Whereas with "nauseous", well, people can always say "nauseating" & they're more likely to be understood. And with "hopefully", the "corrupted" version actually seems like a more useful word.
I also have a problem with words that I think serve no useful purpose: what does "utilize" tell you that "use" doesn't? Why "enplanement" rather than "boarding"? (Though I can be a hypocrite--I love "defenestrate", and hate "detrain" and "deplane", even though they're sort of similarly constructed).
266 - Hopefully most of them won't care.
But they aren't using "literally" to mean "figuratively". They're just using it in a way that doesn't exclude applying it to figurative language.
Getting upset about 'literally' indicates poor understanding of the literal/metaphorical divide in the mind
I get annoyed when I think a change is making the language function worse.
One of the few usage nits I pick is misuse of "comprise," precisely because I think the complementarity of comprise and compose is rather nice, and worth preserving. All though the battle is clearly lost.
Reading a cover letter that used "umbrella" as a verb...
272: May we see the sentence? I'll be away, but it seems interesting.
My position umbrellas a wide multitude of responsibilities
Reading a cover letter that used "umbrella" as a verb...
Opinionated Grandma is applying? WHEN THE YOUNG HOOLIGAN WOULD NOT TURN OF HIS WALKPOD I UMBRELLAED HIM.
My position umbrellas a wide multitude of responsibilities
Whitmanesque! I umbrella multitudes!
"Umbrellatize" is of course the more professional usage, or "umbrellate."
I do know an eccentric lady who umbrellaed a bus.
258--
i agree with apo. see the contrasting pair in 153.
no one has yet given any argument why there is something wrong with 'alright' except vague nose-in-the-air pronouncements.
i agree with katherine in 267 that the test has got to be:
does this make the language work better or not?
confusing "compose" and "comprise" makes it work worse.
having different spellings for "alright" and "all right"-- two different words that we already have in *spoken* English, witness the difference in pronunciation and meaning--makes the language work better.
So that's what it means to take umbrage.
My calendar has a list in the back titled Commonly Misused Words. Most of them are familiar: affect/effect, complement/compliment, passed/past.
They also list discover/invent. Is this really something that people commonly confuse? I have honestly never run across usage complaints about it, and I know a lot of language geeks (in addition to you all).
And while I"m keeping the thread alive: I was an adult before I heard anyone confuse antidote and anecdote. Now it seems to be reasonably common among a subset of the population. Is the problem getting worse or am I just around different people?
I'm not getting the purported difference between "alright" and "all right." Examples?
(a) Your answers to these questions are all right! A+
(b) Your answers to these questions are alright. B-
purported difference between "alright" and "all right.
Alright = okay
All right = correct
A'ight?
285: It's not nearly so subtle as that between "y'all" and "all y'all".
Hey, type people from back in the 160s and 70s: Go see the Helvetica documentary! It's awesome! It's also out on Netflix at the beginning of November.
Really, it's good. Though you'll be seeing Helvetica everywhere for weeks afterwards.
Is the Nazi question addressed? The information I've been able to find is inconclusive. Apparently the Nazis did prefer some proto-Helvetican sans-serif.
All together now: "Madeleine All Right and Madeleine Alright are entirely different people altogether."
I'm just going to read this thread backwards and make easy puns.
What's the plural of antidote?
The peoples of the Confoederatio Helvetica used to make incursions into the Times New Roman Empire.
Argh argh argh. Partner: "You haven't cut anything substantive, have you? Just make a first pass through it, and then circulate it to me and the client so we can decide what to cut."
Dude, if you don't want me to do the work, don't tell me to do it. Anyway, it's down to 22 pages and not missing much of interest. And I'm going home. Bleah.
OK, 286 makes sense, but somehow I've managed to use the language for several years now without ever needing to distinguish those usages in a way that context couldn't handle. And I still think "alright" is ugly as hell. Will ponder.
"Impactful" is another one I hate. And I hate Webster's for not putting up any resistance at all.
Though I assume there's some limit to descriptivism--they're not going to list "anecdote" and "antidote" as synonyms no matter how many people confuse them, right?
294: Definitely not just communication issues.
I plan to write a memoir entitled: "These People Can't All Be This Bad, It Must Be Me" at some point.
Academia kind of sucks, but the law associate/partner system is like German academia: the partners are full professors and you, as the assistant prof, must not only be deferential to, but also actually do work for.
Nazi question? Helvetica was 1957. Don't know about any Nazi connection, John. But Akzidenz Grotesk was the favored sans serif before Helvetica.
IME partners don't so much care about deference for its own sake. The hierarchy in law firms is clear enough that they don't need the sort of precision penis-measuring that academics do.
Whew! I'd be out of luck if it came down to penis-measuring.
I don't know how they do it exactly, but women win those contests with some regularity.
Actually, the world has firmly and decisively rejected the Nazis' beliefs about typeface.
Go see the Helvetica documentary! It's awesome! It's also out on Netflix at the beginning of November.
The netflix thing is good, because theatrical screenings seem quite short-lived. A few days in one city, then gone!
I suck at writing cover letters, so all the on-topic portions of this thread freak me out.
I suck at writing cover letters
This surprises me.
I just thought I'd gift you some North Dakota shit. Norht Dakota: where Swedes are exotic.
306--
but i'm pretty sure you are wizard wicked at editing them once someone else hands you a draft.
so just get someone else to do your first draft, and then you can put the final touches on.
in fact, we could compile the first draft as a group project right here on unfogged!
deer sirz,
i is named ben. i wantz a job. in acadeemia, please. big thouts, prefurrd.
Have you seen his About page, apo?
On the front page, in his response to his persecutors, he gives a list of his flaws, including "I am an orphan." His subsequent clarification as to when, exactly, his parents died suggests something of a stretch in the definition.
Antiqua Roman was apparently the preferred Nazi typeface. NOT Fraktur. However, some proto-Helvetica was also favored.
This is important because The Valve covered it. Apparently Star Wars used Helvetica because it seemed fascist.
"I am an orphan."
I meant Ben's About page, but don't let me stop the fun...
Well I'm sure Ben as at least been disowned.
I see I'm also in the wrong thread. I blame the wine and the dinner and the small child I am trying to attend to. Most of my energy is devoted to not putting the wrong one of these in the oven.
As long as the oven is off, you can put any of them in there.
305 is beautiful. I imagine Hitler getting his friend to furtively pass the note to Austria. "Do you like Adolf? Check yes or no."
But 305 is wrong, wrong, wrong!!
Fraktur is a Jewish typeface, as #312 explains. The Jews forced them to use Fraktur before their takeover of Austria. Afterwards they set things straight.
Apparently Star Wars used Helvetica because it seemed fascist.
Well that is just dumb.
305--
nice touch--it's not just a vereinigung, it's a weidervereinigung.
back together again, the way it used to be.
kinda like a hall and oates reunion tour. or peaches and herb.
I don't know how they do it exactly
Yes you do: follow the money.
Does anyone else have to deal with colleagues who use the verb "to incentivize"? And do it seriously?
I've just found my father-in-law's Webster's Collegiate, 5th edition, based on the Second Edition of Webster's New International Dictionary, 1934. The Third, on which most copies I have in my house were based, was published in 1961, and is what Dwight Macdonald was reacting to.
al'right', adv. All right;—a form commonly used but not recognized by authorities as proper.
and
al•right adv (or adj) : all right
See the difference? The usage hadn't changed much, but the attitude toward it had, and now they're in fact withholding information most people would like to have, because they no longer approve of that way of thinking.
One of those pre-war Collegiates might be worth looking for in a used bookstore.
Whee. I was reading 324 and thinking, "Ya know, I think I've got that..." and yes, I do! Blue-backed Websters New Collegiate (actually the 6e of Collegiate), published 1959, which gives the definition of alright as: "All right. The form alright, though often used, is not recognized by authorities as proper." I guess they changed it slightly. So someone wouldn't have to buy pre-war copy, the copy would need to be merely pre-'61.
I got my first copy from my mother when I was a kid, and I inherited my grandfather's copy when he died, and I have long preferred it to all others. ("I'm gonna look it up in the blue dictionary, the red one sucks.") Now I know why!
For your amusement, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica dictionary gives the definition of alright as: "All right: a spelling not yet considered acceptable."
max
['Cool.']
(a) Your answers to these questions are all right! A+
(b) Your answers to these questions are alright. _______ B-
Okay.
Adequate.
Acceptable.
Fair.
Fair enough.
Fine.
Decent.
Good enough.
Not bad.
So-so.
You people are trying to make up excuses for "alright," which gets used for "all right" by people who do not know how to spell. Not. Okay.
(Aight, on the other hand, is fine; it functions basically as a casual greeting or agreement, and the point is that it's oral slang, rather than people just being stupid.)
