This Will Be Tedious

Without this Sametime Status, you would have spelled the word “Rigmarole” incorrectly

I don't know about that.  There's probably a better than average chance I wouldn't have tried to spell it at all.  

Well, therein lies the problem.  It's one of those words that's not used enough, and I think that's at least partially because people don't know how to spell it.  Quite frankly, people aren't entirely clear on how to pronounce it either, but that's nothing new.  

So, recently, in a work email, I was sent this word...although at the time, it was two words.  The author used the phrase "rigor maroll" to detail the steps involved in a project.  The author clearly meant rigmarole, but had no clue what it was he was actually saying.  It's okay with more complicated and less frequently used words such as rigmarole, but it's a problem that I see almost all of the time, usually in the comment sections of web pages. 

I should look at web page comment sections less, but that's beside the point entirely.  

I actually had to look up the word "rigmarole" once I had deciphered the email, and couldn't quite figure out for myself how to spell the word.  I thought there was an extra syllable in there, as if there should have been another "a" after the "g" or something.  That would probably involve putting in an extra "g" (no relation to my old calculus teacher's famous phrase "Hit it with the g function" which would be a great name for an album).  So I was incorrect.  As would you have been before I came along to help you.  You're welcome! 

CD Is Probably The Same

Why didn’t VCR become its own verb like DVR?  

VCRs really got the short end of the stick on this one.  I almost feel bad for these non-sentient outdated machines.  Almost. 

So everyone knows that DVR is an initialization (which is subtly different from an acronym in that it's generally not pronounced as a single word) meaning "Digital Video Recorder."  It's the thing you use to record TV shows so you can watch them later while skipping the commercials for crap you don't need and cars.  Lots and lots of cars.  Especially now that it's nearing the Christmas season...we're all supposed to buy cars for people.  Yeah, good luck with that, everybody I'm supposed to be buying presents for.  

Before the world had DVRs, we had these thingies called VCRs (Video Cassette Recorder) which played TV shows and movies on things called cassette tapes.  Nobody ever recorded TV on VCRs because nobody could ever figure out how to set them up properly.  It was the dark ages.  On the few occasions that somebody managed to actually record a TV show, they then had to go and "rewind" the cassette tape back to the beginning of the show, based purely on a guess of how much of the tape the show had consumed.  They then spent the next 15-20 minutes futilely looking for the show's start before giving up and going to bed instead of watching TV.  

The very basics of the actions were the same.  Instead of watching TV in real time, you preserve it for watching at a later date so you can work TV around your schedule (instead of the other way around) and skip commercials.  Both types of preservation have the same term for them..."recording."  Hence, both initializations ending in "R."  Makes sense, right?  

Only problem is that nobody ever called this process "recording."  In the olden days, people set to record something on their VCR would say they were going to "tape" a show, meaning that they were going to record it onto a tape.  Nowadays, with tapes being obsolete and basically non-existent, the verb "to tape" doesn't really apply.  Many people still use "tape" to blanketly describe any recording, including that on a DVR.  Most people, however, have adopted the verb "DVR" which isn't a very at all...nor is it a gerund of any sort.  It's just a new meaning of the initialization.  As in, "I'm going to DVR that new reality show, because I'm a total moron."  

Nobody thinks twice about the poor VCR, who got left out in favor of the Tape. 

 

This Happens Constantly

Disappointing that I have to specify which definition of the world “Literally” I’m using

Jeremy will now begin shaking his fist at "them darn kids" in addition to criticizing their grammar.  

So, there are these two words in the English language I'd like to talk about today.  Their meaning and proper usage used to be pretty cut and dry.  "Literally" and "Figuratively" existed as antonyms of each other, where one meant that something is precisely, to the letter, as described, and the other meant that an exaggeration or literary license was being taken.  Seems pretty simple, right?

Well, thanks to stupidity, people now say "Literally" very often when they are not, in fact, being literal about a description.  As in, "This happens literally 27 million times a nanosecond!"  As happens often in language, the dumbing down of usage of the words has literally caused the Oxford friggin' dictionary to Change The Definition Of Literally to include the figurative use of the word.  

This sucks.  

Basically, the only reason either of these two words exists is to distinguish themselves from the other.  When I say "Literally," I mean "not figuratively" and vice versa.  Now that one of the words means the other, there is no reason whatsoever for either to exist!  Why even bother with the word Literally now, since it can mean either literally, or not literally?  It's the Schrodinger's Cat of grammar.  

What's worse, is that now, when I use the word "literally" to mean "literally," I have to clarify that I'm using it in the literal sense, and that I don't mean "figuratively."  So now, I have to use more words to describe an adjective than I would have used otherwise by just using a single adjective.  Annoying. 

Much Like "Point Of Sale" Cash Registers

Pro Tip for restaurants: When food comes served in Brown Sauce, don’t abbreviate this to “B.S.”

Please tell me this didn't happen.  I really want to believe that this didn't happen.

I'd like to believe it too, but sadly, it's not the case.  

As you're probably aware, Brown Sauce is a very common ingredient in many dishes served in Chinese restaurants.  At least the Chinese restaurants in the US where what's served is not particularly authentic Chinese food, but that's beside the point entirely.  When I go out for Chinese food, I order stuff with Brown Sauce fairly often.  This happened not long ago when I went to the local Chinese restaurant for lunch, and one of the specials of the day was Chicken with String Beans in Brown Sauce.  It not only sounded delicious (and to be perfectly frank, I've had it before, and it is delicious), but it was cheaper, being the special of the day, so I pondered it.  

The important thing to note is that there are two different variations on this dish as served in this particular restaurant.  There is the Brown Sauce version, and there is a Chicken with String Beans in Garlic Sauce.  As much as I enjoy garlic, the garlic sauce in this restaurant doesn't do it for me.  So, I took a second look at the board to make sure that the specials version was the Brown Sauce variation.  The sign actually said "Chicken w/ String Beans in B.S."  My first reaction was, "Hooray!  Brown Sauce!"  My second, albeit later reaction was "Wait a second....the abbreviation B.S. is already taken, and not by something I want on my Chicken with String Beans."  

Fortunately for me and my lunch, I was served Brown Sauce.  It was delicious. 

It Should Be Like A Shenanigan, Right?

I find it sad that you can’t be up to a single hijink 

That seems strange.  What if people aren't into that much trouble?

I don't know!  This is a problem, everybody.  Apparently, hijinks is one of those strange unquantifiable nouns that just happens to end in s.  There is no such thing as a hijink.  I sincerely doubt that's going to prevent me from using the word anyway.  I mean...after all...isn't that how the definition of "Literally" got changed to include "Figuratively"?  Enough people kept using the word incorrectly all the time, that the people who make dictionaries just got tired of telling people they were wrong and changed it.  I think we're staring at another great opportunity to accomplish the same thing, but for a much greater benefit to the world.  

And if you're not into that...Watch This Video of a baby elephant charging at a truck full of tourists.  It's exactly as adorable as you think it is.  

Happy Easter, everybody! 

This Was Literally Painful To Write

Happy National Grammar Day, everybody!  

Hooray!  Its National Grammar Day!  Everybody love National Grammar Day.

Especially Kelsey.

Wait, what?  Also, don't you usually skip the Random Holiday posts in the Blag?

Usually, I do, and perhaps today I should of, but I decided to make an acception.  Grammar, when done good, is very important to me, as an amateur comedy writer. 

Its true.  Their are less and less people who take the time to right properly these days, especially on the internets.  

I know...and weather they do it out of ignorance or laziness, it really makes me nauseous.  

Your so right, Jeremy.  The affect that this has on people is truly unfortunate.  I'd really hate to think that we're loosing our grip on proper English.  Thank you for helping bring this to are attention.

I appreciate the complement.  I do like to stand on principal sometimes. 

 

Jeremy Never Thinks About Dignity

Silly Bob Seger.  “Less bolder” doesn’t make any sense

And because Rock and Roll Never Forgets, you're not going to let anyone forget about this lyric?

That's right.   

Today's Sametime Status deals with the 1976 Bob Seger classic "Rock and Roll Never Forgets."  It's a song about...uhmm...well, I don't remember.  

Awful joke.  Just awful.

The first line of the song is as follows, "So you're a little bit older and a lot less bolder than you used to be."  This is nonsense.  Less bolder?  Adding the suffix "er" to something means to make it more of whatever the adjective was in the first place.  This seems to completely counteract the adverb "less" in the same sentence...in fact, merely one word before.  So, is this person the same amount of bold now than they used to be?  Or is the even more superfluous "a lot" quantifier mean that the less is more less than the "er" is more?  I'm confused.  

Not the first time you've been confused about something, Jeremy.  You're also now confusing everyone else. 

So anyway, I guess I'm asking Bob Seger for a little clarification here.  So, how about it, Bob?  Leave a comment with the link below.  Thank you in advance.  

It's Going To Be Super!

Are you ready for Supermoon 2012?!

Do you mean Superman?  That movie's not supposed to come out until 2013.

They're making another Superman movie?

Why not?  There's still money to be made in superheroes.  

Either way, I'm not talking about Superman.  I'm talking about Supermoon.  It's the time of the lunar cycle when a full moon coincides with the perigee of the moon's orbit.  Thus, the moon looks as large as it's going to.  When Supermoon takes place this weekend, not only will it coincide with a meteor shower caused by Halley's Comet debris, but the moon will be the closest it's been to the earth during a Full Moon in over 100 years or something.  

In unrelated news, Microsoft Word sucks at grammar.  It's true.  As some of you may know, I keep all of my Sametime Statuses, past, present, and sometimes into the future (I've already written those for tomorrow and monday), in a Word document on my computer.  Not long ago, I wrote a Sametime Status that never made it into Blag form due to a plethora of meetings I had that day.  (Sadly, my actual job takes precedence over writing this stuff)  It "celebrated" the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion and pointed out that with current cleanup methods employed, it would only take another 53 years to recover.  Exciting stuff, I tell you.  

Anyway, Word was displeased with my choice in wording, and it threw up a grammar check for me to review.  I post it here for you to review:

I'm Right, But I Don't Know Why

“There is a lot of reasons to…”  Grammatically correct or not?  Discuss

Seems pretty obvious that it's not correct.  Why is this even a discussion?

It's not so much that I'm concerned with which whether this is correct or not.  Obviously, most people would "correctly" say "There ARE a lot of reasons to..." given that 'reasons' is a plural countable noun.  Therefore, the above statement would be considered grammatically incorrect...I'm just searching for the correct explanation as to WHY this is the way that it is.  Here's what I mean:

My issue stems from the grammatical differentiation between quantifiers and collective nouns.  The way I see it, "of reasons" could be considered a prepositional phrase, making the object of the sentence the singular collective noun "Lot" as in "There is a lot."  The addition of "of reasons" merely described the Lot, thus making the use of a singular predicate form "Is" correct.  This would be using the word "Lot" as a collective noun similar to talking about a flock of geese.  You would (correctly) say "There IS a flock of geese outside my window."  In that case, "Flock" is the singular object of the verb, therefore, the singular verb form "is" would be appropriate.  

All that said, the phrase "A lot of" is considered a part of speech called a "Quantifier," which when looking at sentence structure is a complete add-on.  In that case, the object of the predicate in the above example would be the plural noun "Reasons," making the proper verb form the plural "Are."  As in "There ARE reasons."  You add in the quantifier "a lot of" and you get "There are a lot of reasons..."  

I'm okay with this.  

What I'm not okay with is any explanation that's available for why a flock of geese is different from a lot of reasons.  Sure, there are grammar lesson websites on the internetz, and I've scoured a couple of them looking for a clear-cut answer, but I get nothing.  I more or less get "this is the way it is, so say it this way," and that's the end of it. 

My old statistics professor used to say, "People in most parts of the world speak broken English, except the United States where it's been ground into a fine powder."  I'm not always surprised because English can be really confusing sometimes.