I could do without "vet" (as in investigate) and "advert" (short for "advertisement"). What's the rush? Let's use the whole words.

How do you feel?

In today's Billings Gazette ("People," p. 2, 2/6/2010):

An Australian banker who was caught on live TV looking at scantily clad photos of model Miranda Kerr will not lose his job, the bank said Friday.

Chris Jones, the Chicago Tribune theater critic, is fond of the term "uber text." I have a guess as to what this term may mean, but I'll hold off sharing it for now so as not to influence anyone else. The dictionaries have been of little help. I do know that uber is the German word for over.

Here are two examples:

"Palin has turned into the ubertext of every female comedian in America."

In a review of Odets' Awake and Sing, a play about a dysfunctional family set in the late '30s and early '40s, he says, "Back then, people were in it together. To a point. The struggling Bronx family in this uber text of in-your-face American acting probably saw more of its neighbors out on the street than the average banker."

Can anyone provide a good discussion of the meaning of "ubertext" and the proper spelling? The Trib printed it as shown in the quotes (two different ways).

[Ring ....]

Hello? AnswerMan here!

W** d*** t** f****** g********* c*** i** t** f*** a "1***"?

Why does the federal government call its tax form a 1040? Well, see, it's like this: The feds figure there are 2080 work hours per year per working individual. So, when it's time to pay your income taxes, they simply take ....

And thank you for calling The AnswerMan.

Spell-check woulda caught this one, from an online ad by none other than the mighty, prestigious Washington Post, which is pitching a recently published book by one of their writers. Our sharp-eyed, share-the-credit-I-don't-need-it JoeB came across it and passed it along.
_____

"An Irreverant A-to-Z Guide to Washington and Beltway Politics."
_____

Unabashedly, that kinda reminds me of my favorite letter to the editor I ever sent to The Washington Post. (Over 27 years, I had about 30 letters to the editor published in the Post.) This one was back in the Clinton vs. Gingrich days when the latter was Republican royalty and in his prime. It seems that the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus had come to D.C., and, to publicize their arrival, the circus sponsored a mini-preview for Congress -- in Congress's own digs -- according to a blurb in the WP. I wrote:

"Clowns and elephants on Capitol Hill? Isn't that like bringing coals to New(t)castle?"


Yeah, I was real proud of that one. Forgive my bragging.


Claws, at least you're consistent.

This'll bring a sly smile or two.

http://www.good.is/post/The-Genius-of-the-...book/?GT1=48001

This sentence in the Austin American Statesman's Sports section today (02-01-10) [talking about college football]:

"Tougher schedules makes for tougher teams."

My immediate reaction was, "Duh?" in the same obvious realm as "the team that scores the most points wins."

That's exactly the way it was written, including " ... makes ...."

But, also, shouldn't it be " ... make ..."? What if we replaced "makes" with "means"?

I guess maybe he's saying that tougher schedules build tougher teams.

OK as is? Thoughts? Mountain-out-of-a-mole-hill? Nonetheless, meaning aside, I maintain that it should be " ... make ..." cuz schedules is plural.

An optimist and a pessimist are walking down the hall together, talking.

Optimist: "Things can't get any worse."

Pessimist: "Oh yes they can!"

Hey, Claws and Osea!

I was going through some old photos, and I found a couple of snapshots from the SuperBowl party we had last year. First one is at the sports bar we went to. Then Osea and I went over to Claws' place for a post-game celebration. Shall we do it again this year? Maybe we can get a bigger group this year. I think Pheas and the others would like that place we went to, too. It was a REALLY great bar.

http://home.comcast.net/~nbsale/GetTogether.htm

Hi, new member here!

So, I bought Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" so that I could keep myself grounded while trying to improve my wife's English (she's Brazilian). I also picked up "Grammar Scan," the book with all the diagnostic tests that are meant to accompany the reference book.

I have to say, I like it so far; however, after just a few "classes," I've already come across a sentence that doesn't sit well with me: "It doesn't matter whether we go by bus or train, it'll take at least six hours." This doesn't seem proper--it looks okay, sorta, but isn't it a comma splice? I see two independent clauses that should be joined together by a colon, semicolon, dash, or parentheses. Or just turned into two different sentences! But, it's listed as "right" in the answer key, which would make me "wrong"!

Now, the next sentence in the test, "Whether we go by bus or train, it'll take at least six hours," seems perfect. Right there, we now have a dependent clause and an independent clause, which can be switched around to read "It'll take at least six hours, whether we go by bus or train." And let me just say--this may not be relevant--that I wouldn't dare swap the clauses in the first sentence. That'd make this: "It'll take at least six hours, it doesn't matter whether we go by bus or train." OK, so maybe that wasn't relevant, but... maybe it is!

Anyhow, am I suppose to accept this as some sort of nonessential clause that's allowed to get tacked on like that? I don't know! Am I suffering from a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? This sort of a sentence wouldn't have bothered me before I started brushing up on my English!

Oh yeah, and the answer key just references a section in the book that states that "we can use whether...or... as a double conjunction, with a similar meaning to It doesn't matter whether...or...," and then gives some examples of how we use whether...or... but doesn't mention punctuation.

Anyway, if you can just give me some brief terms to read up on, that'd be really helpful! What am I missing!

Today I received my assignment back. This is the article about dogs and how to improve their communication skills. I don't want to give too much away, at first, because I want to see if the first paragraph is troublesome to anyone here. All I will tell you at this time is that the teacher did not grasp what I was trying to say. Here it is:

Imagine having an accident, while on vacation in Russia, and having your jaw broken. You’ve been studying Russian for years in anticipation of this trip. You know just enough language that you can understand everyone fairly well. Leaving the hospital, with your jaw wired shut, you immediately realize how hard it is to communicate. All you can do is nod and wave your hands wildly around. It’s maddening! Now, can you imagine what your dog is going through? He knows the words. But, he hasn’t the vocal capability to tell you those words. How many times have you told your dog to go lie down after he has sat up ten times in a plea for something? You don’t have a clue--you pat him on the head and tell him to go lie down. As he does, you hear a huge exhalation of frustration come from him.

Grins,
Diane

"The man has been charged with murder."

"Charged with" seems to be the common expression in the above types of sentences. However, is it grammatical to say "charged for" instead:

The man has been charged for murder.

When I googled "charged for murder/arson" etc, I have for more than 100,000 hits.

Can someone help me?

From the website of a marine company that makes brackets for outboard motors:

Our powder coating is done with the same process as our Navy's torpedoes are.

Ka-boom!!!

Q: What's almost a pound yet almost an ounce?

[highlight/drag just a half-inch below]

A: Pounce