Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Unless you've been hiding out in a galaxy far, far away, you know that this is an election year. Grant and Martha talk about current political slang. Ever hear of “glass pockets”? Or “horseracism”? Is there an etymological connection between “caucus” and “Caucasian”?
Audio for online listening or download will be available Monday, March 17th. To be notified automatically when downloadable audio is available, subscribe to the show via iTunes or another podcatching program.
A caller wants to settle a friendly argument: Is something not worth debating called a “moot point” or a “mute point”? Here's the scene from the Friends episode that Grant mentions, in which Joey misunderstands the term as “moo point.”
A listener calls from in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to say that in her native Spanish, she can use several different words for “love” to denote a whole range of feelings, depending on how close she is to the other person. She's frustrated that English seems to lack that same spectrum of words meaning various degrees of love.
What's a “barbecue stopper,” and how does it differ from a “marmalade dropper”?
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water…Quiz Guy John Chaneski presents a quiz about punny taglines from famous movies. For example, which Johnny Depp film's tagline is “His story will touch you, even though he can't”?
Back to political talk: Is there an etymological connection between the words “caucus” and “Caucasian”? A caller wants to know. Grant explains what politicians and watchdog groups mean by the term “glass pockets.”
A California man complains that the expression “grow your business” grates on his nerves.
A San Diego woman who's homeschooling her children wonders if there's a formula that explains why nouns like “teacher” and “writer” end in “–er,” while others, like “professor” and “conductor,” end in “-or.” She suspects it has to do with whether the words come from Latin roots or Anglo-Saxon roots.
This week's “Slang This!” contestant shares his favorite slang term, “teho,” (To Each His Own), then tries to puzzle out the meaning of the terms “karzy” and “low-bush moose.”
An upstate New York listener of Italian descent is curious about two favorite expressions: “fuggeddabouddit” and “bada-bing, bada-boom.”
A Texan says his grandmother used to refer to the thigh of a chicken as the “second joint.” Martha and Grant discuss whether it's a regional term. By the way, if you want to know the French term Martha mentions that roughly translates as “only a silly person won't eat it,” (literally, “the idiot leaves it”) it's “le sot-l'y-laisse.”
Regarding the comment by the caller about professions ending in -er vs -or. At one point she speculated that the -or denotes a more respectable job.
As a sports official, I receive most of my assignments from conference "assigners". At times, however, they spell their job title as 'assignor". Perhaps they too subscribe to the theory that the -or ending elevates the importance of the title.
During the discussion of "ba-da-bing" it was stated that this terms earliest use was thought to be 1972. In 1968, I worked in a boutique that had been taken over by people who were "soldiers" of Whity Tropicanno, the infamous Boston mob boss. The room used by the seamsteresses became a lounge for numerous unsavory types, inforcers, hitmen, etc. I frequently witnessed their small-talk and the term "ba-bing" was used accompanied by the unmistakable thumb-and-forefinger gesture indicating a pistol firing.
I understood the term to be essentially an onomatopoeia for the two sounds made by an automatic pistol, the report and the "ping"sound of the discharging shell casing. There is a closely-related expresion in British street gang/hip-hop vernacular popularized in the USA by Sasha Baron Cohen in his Ali Ji persona. It is: "Booya" which apes the sound of a sawn-off shotgun being fired. The extended version is: "Booya-kasha" which includes the sound of the pump slide chambering the next round.
“Grow your business”??!! Yes, you are going to hear about this.
Language should mirror the real world where it is appropriate. You can sit back and watch grass, marijuana or your beard grow, but it takes a lot more for a business to prosper. The idea that you can ‘grow' a business presumes that it doesn't take much for the action to happen.
Think about it. There are two ways that grow is inappropriate in this sense.
1)Businesses don't grow. They may be put together. They may be built. They may be nurtured, but even that is a misconception.
You might as well talk about growing nails or airplanes.
“Money doesn't grow on trees”, is an expression which relies on this very absurdity.
Should we perpetrate, “I'm sorry, businesses don't grow on trees, or even large bushes!”
2)Things which do grow, need to have favorable conditions set up for their thriving and frequently
need to be supplied with essential nutrients and appropriate tending.
I recall the late C. Stewart Smith* saying, “Yeah can'na grow a descent leak in Houston.”
In one respect growing a business implies there isn't really much one needs to do to make the action happen, which usually isn't the case. But that is exactly the opposite of the impression the speaker is trying to leave in the listener's mind. In fact they are pretending that they are super-human and have succeeded in turning something inanimate into a living organism! Now pretty much nothing else is needed
but to sit back and watch it grow.
The problem is not so much a problem with grammar, but logic or intellectual honesty.
* http://www.phantomranch.net/folkdanc/teachers/smith_c.htm
I can't agree, Leo. You're leaving out the possibility of a metaphorical use of "grow." Further, you seem to only be accounting for a brick-and-mortar understanding of a business. And, finally, you seem to be suggesting that the business world isn't the real world.
When business people talk about "growing a business" I believe they are talking about tending to the kinds of human dynamics that make better workers and attract more customers. These are organic, social activities, and are directly related to our existence as social animals.
Growing applies perfectly to a business because business is above all a type of real-world human social activity, and is, therefore, susceptible to the kind of nurturing that can, for example, stimulate intellectual growth in its employees. The business and its employees can also lay foundations for what they believe will increase their business in a way that metaphorically resembles what a farmer does when she tills soil, plants seed, weeds, culls, and harvests.
I'd say resistance to language like "growing a business" represents a literal-mindedness that is a barrier to comprehension.
Grant,
I think you are earning plenty of air miles on your flight of fancy. Perhaps you can justify "grow a business" or "grow a company" on the grounds of providing a nurturing environment for the living things (people) that make up the business. But this kind of use of "grow" with a non-vegetable direct object goes beyond sure human-related nouns. For example, we have heard W speak of "growing the economy" (I know he's not a reference, but he's not alone... just Google it).
We can't even say "grow cattle", for goodness sake, and that's a hell of a lot closer to "grow corn" than is "grow the business".
We have a perfectly good expression that unites "grow" and "business": "make the business grow". Isn't that good enough? Now grow up and stop falling for every MBA fad!
Well, I must admit that I, too, was put off by the phrase “grow a business” when I heard it. It really grated on me. It REALLY grated on me! But, I had to think about it a bit to decide whether or not there is any real justification for that distaste, and I decided there isn't one, that there is no reason such an analogy couldn't be drawn between growing a crop and "growing" a business, even though I would tend not to use "grow" in that way myself. It still grates on me, and it still strikes me as just another example of odious "corporate speak," but I must admit it's legitimate, since I can think of no good reason why it wouldn't be.
I agree 100% with Grant and 0% with his detractors Hudden and Dudden (a.k.a., LeoKulonosen and MarcNaimark) who apparently think that growing crops/plants/etc. is just sitting around doing nothing. Think again, lads!
Can a relationship not grow? Even if you don't pour water on it? Can society not grow? Even though its growing members are not literally planted in the ground? And can a language not grow? Despite the fact that it shrivels up from time to time with the woeful misconceptions of usage Nazis?
@Wordsmith;
Yes to all your questions. And you will note that each of your examples is of "grow" as an INTRANSITIVE verb. The only traditional use of "grow" as a TRANSITIVE verb has been with plants, crops, etc.
And it has nothing to do with believing that growing crops is not work. Trust me, I know how much care and effort it takes to grow crops.
I think we don't have to simply lie down (or since we no longer care about the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs, "lay down") and accept every bit of nonsense the consultants of "corporate speak" throw at us.
Now let's all listen to the finale of Bernstein's Candide...
MarcNaimark said:
I think we don't have to simply lie down (or since we no longer care about the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs, “lay down”) and accept every bit of nonsense the consultants of “corporate speak” throw at us.
And yet... I'm no great fan of corporate speak either (anyone for a game of Buzzword Bingo?), but is it any less legitimate a source of language change than, for example, hip-hop or TV shows?
@MarcNaimark;
In English, many transitive verbs have become intransitive, and vice versa. I choose to say “lie (down)” for recline because “lay” is a different word with a different meaning. Moreover, when English creates new vocables it doesn't rely as heavily on transitive prefixes (e.g., be-) as it once did. Only time will tell whether or not the expression “grow a business” will last. If not: who cares? If so: who cares? (other than English-as-I-learnt-it-in-the-olden-days pedantic reactionaries such as yourself.) I guess facial hair could be considered a crop too; that is, if you can grow a beard—or do you suggest we use the tried-and-true (albeit hackneyed) “wear a beard”?
And, Martha, it'd be nice to know what you think. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it would be a boon to us all if you would give us your 2¢ on slightly polemic issues such as these, instead of just saying things like “LOL!”, “I like it, I like it!”, “I am so stealing this”, etc. I sincerely do not mean any offense. You are one of the most articulate women I know (honestly). Grant may hate your puns, but I find them exquisite. So, tell us whatcha think! 🙂
On a different thread related to the show, in the corporate setting in which I work, we use the term "coffee-spitter" for a shocking revelation or a provocative statement dropped at work, usually in a formal meeting. I'm quite fond of that expression.
Now, to join the fracas, since when has “grow” been only intrasitive? In the transitive sense used typically in farming it implies an activity that requires a lot of hard work, but also relies on factors beyond anyone's control. In my opinion, we do a lot more transitive “growing” in life than we like to admit, and a lot less “building” than we think.
Here is an example:
All this time, I imagined our challenges in growing the business had to do with beating the competition, finding qualified people to hire, winning over new customers, and our current customers increasing their marketing budgets.
Why not say:
All this time, I imagined our challenges in scaling up the business had to do with beating the competition, finding qualified people to hire, winning over new customers, and our current customers increasing their marketing budgets.
I grant your point. Grow is more poetic. But when you are hiring people and getting more customers and expecting that alone will somehow beat the competition, I grab for my wallet! We start entering the netherworld of Frank Luntz. Enron was going to bring cheap energy to the masses; don't go too deep into the particulars, only us financial wizards understand that.
@Wordsmith
Please don't tar me with the brush of the fuddy-duddy. I really don't see how posts on one thread give you enough background to judge my mindset. I do find that new vocabulary introduced via corporate consultant-speak is often pernicious, as it seeks to obfuscate rather than clarify and enrich (remember "downsize"?).
Just what does it mean "to grow" a company? Does it mean increase its payroll? Its number of employees? Its geographical range? Its product lines? Its contribution to reducing global warming? Its social policies? Its stock market capitalization? Earnings per share? Income for management? Of all those possibilities, the one I'm sure that corporate leaders mean when they talk about "growing" their company is the last.
It depends. I think the context can make it clear. I'm not saying we should always use “grow” and use it only. There are plenty of words that have to do with the increase of a business. On the other hand, many of those are open to misinterpretation as well. “Downsize”, for example, seems just as vague as (if not more so than) “grow”. I am aware that people can use words poetically to appeal to our emotions but it's very difficult to be 100% literal, even in science. For even there, terms that now have a specific meaning once had a very general sense. Take “testa”, for example. In English, this refers to the coat of a seed. In Vulgar Latin this meant “head” (as in “noggin”) and before that, it meant “pot” (as in “vessel”). True, “grow a business” is relatively new, but who knows whether it will go the way of “23 skidoo” or remain in our language as has “OK”? Only time will tell. (Doh! There's another one them doggone crazy clichés!)
Re: “scaling up”. Are we climbing the business? Are we attaching objects such as shingles to it? Are we fattening it up so that it will weigh more? Ay-ay-ay!
Why don't we just ask some CEO's and high-ranking staff members what they mean by “growing a business”? Doing so may yield some valid points that we may have missed here.
On the lack of different meanings for “love”:
I've often been flummoxed by this, too, and I'm a native English speaker! I served in AmeriCorps for 2 years and worked with Head Start, an early childhood & family education program, and a summer day camp for "at risk" kids (mostly kids whose families had experienced domestic abuse). As a male, though, with all the paranoia out there about pedophilia these days, I find it difficult to say I "love" kids, even though I do (but not "in that way," of course). I even had one of the parents of a child in the early childhood education program ask my supervisor there about me, apparently just because I was (and still am, for that matter) male. (Well, my beard might've had something to do with it, too, but I won't go off on a tangent about unfair stereotypes about us bearded folk. Beard wearers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your facial hair!!) My supervisor told them that I had to pass a background check to be accepted into AmeriCorps, especially if I was going to be working with kids, and there was no more problem after that, fortunately.
So, I'd definitely prefer to have some more precise words for "love" in English, especially for the purposes of distinguishing between "love" with and without any sexual connotations. I even find it hard to say I "like" children. I sometimes wonder if we're going to become so paranoid that we hardly let our children have any contact with other adults, even though such interaction is a crucial part of growing up. I think a little basic common sense (and teaching kids a little basic common sense) goes a long way.
I think we see the same sort of problem in the construction of words like "pedophilia," i.e., using the suffix "-philia" in that way. After all, in other areas, the suffix basically just means "to like," as in "bibliophilia." We don't assume a bibliophiliac wants to... well... However, if we break down a word like "pedophilia," "pedo-" means "relating to children," and "philia" means "to like" or "to have an affinity for," but, obviously, that word has a rather different meaning than what we might expect if we just broke it down.
This all reminds me of grade school, when "liking" someone meant a whole lot more. It was as if you weren't allowed to just like someone as a friend -- you had to either hate them or "like" them, with nothing allowed in between, it seemed.
Perhaps this all has to do with the puritanical shame we seem to have about anything sexual, leading to euphemistic language, which makes our language much more fuzzy and blurry. In my opinion, euphemistic language really diminishes the language, damaging the very purpose of language, i.e., effective communication. When you have to play a lot of guessing games and "read between the lines" to figure out what someone "really" means, the language is clearly not serving its ultimate purpose. (Of course, I realize that language is imperfect by its nature, as it serves as an intermediary between one mind and another, and perfect communication between two minds is impossible without a Vulcan mind meld, or something else along those lines...)
felixblackcat, I agree with you!—even though I'm not fully-bearded at the moment… I shaved a week or so ago, so I don't have a full beard. Seriously though, I agree with what you are saying in general, beards or no beards.
I suggest you read (if you haven't already) Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue (ISBN-10: 0-888-07895-8), particularly the chapter 14: Swearing. He talks there alot about euphemisms. You'd enjoy it, I think. The whole book is a fun read. I recommend it to all listeners of AWWW.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)