Monkey House

Short post, but might as well get it out while I’m feeling ranty.

Just visited a site that had the Registered Trademark symbol (®) after every single instance of the brand name that had the registered trademark. You will see this happen with “plain old” trademark symbol (™) as well.

Drives me nuts.

Unless a company has explicitly stated in their logo and brand name guidelines that this symbol must accompany every single instance, it’s not necessary. And even companies with that policy aren’t likely to notice you and bother litigating if you’ve handled their trademark in an acceptable way. But it’s one heck of an eyesore along with 99%+ of the time not being necessary, to see those danged symbols everywhere.

Here’s how it’s done in the vast majority of the business world, in one short sentence:

Use the ® or ™ symbol in the first or most prominent instance of the trademarked word or phrase.

If you’re using a graphical logo that includes the trademark symbol, you might want to play it safe and also add the symbol ONCE in the first or most prominent instance of the text trademark as well. Then you’ve been clear: “yes, that graphic is trademarked… but so is the name itself, even in plain text.”

That’s it.

If any of you ever decide to create a company or a product, for the love of God please do it this way. It doesn’t make your brand name look more cool or more legitimate to have that symbol everywhere.

/rant over

Saw via @absolutelytrue on Twitter a link to an article I wish I had written. Actually, an article I sort of planned to write more one-at-a-time in this space of the blog. The article was about commonly misused words and phrases:

32 most commonly misused words and phrases

I’m sure there’s been a bunch of articles like this… pedantic people like me litter (I mean, “beautify!”) the net. So I didn’t mind my thunder being stolen. Instead, I was anxious to see if the author was in alignment with me regarding the phrase “begging the question”. As it turns out, the list was a lot more appropriate to words used on a daily basis by all kinds of different people. Longer and less common phrases like “begging the question” were not part of the roundup.

Now I’m left with the opportunity—the duty, even!—to rant.

The phrase as it is most commonly misused:

…which begs the question, “why did he eat that strawberry if he’s allergic?”

What the speaker REALLY means is, “Which really makes me wonder,” or “Which causes me to ask…” or something similar. The problem is that if you hear enough newscasters and respected journalists use “which begs the question” too many times, it starts to sound like a reasonable phrase to use in those cases.

However, this is NOT “Begging the Question.”

Begging the question describes a particular logical fallacy, also sometimes referred to as a circular argument. It’s “shorthand” in discussing logic so that you don’t have to describe the whole fallacy… other logicians will know what you’re saying when you call someone out for “begging the question”. Just like, “that’s a red herring,” or “ad hominem”. If you’ve never pointed out someone’s red herrings or straw men, chances are pretty good that you also don’t know what “begging the question” really means… I don’t mean that to sound condescending, but it’s likely that you don’t. Bottom line: it is not equivalent to, “which really makes one wonder.”

Here’s a good way to know if you’re using it right: There is no question at all when the question is being begged. Only statements!

Examples of Begging the question… notice how they’re statements:

1. “Of course God exists. The Bible says so!”

Since the presumption is that God (through the hands of prophets) wrote the Bible, the question isn’t actually answered. It’s like saying, “God exists because God says so!”

2. “Solitary confinement is a morally justified punishment because it is a legal response to violent behavior.”

While this might ring true due to our personal sense of morality, it’s a logically flawed statement. Laws are created to impose concrete rules that might commonly align with the populace’s morality, but since they cannot reflect every person’s subjective and relative sense of morality, the statement cannot hold true in every case. Or by counter-example, it’s quite plausible and probable that someone could make the statement “Confining someone in a small cell for 30 days without human contact is morally reprehensible.” Or from a different tack: if you simplify the statement, it becomes, “Legal action is moral because it is legal.” Which is a circular argument (a.k.a. “begging the question”). The actual question of whether it is moral or not can never be addressed in such a statement!

The Question of Evolving Language

Smartarses out there always say, “Yeah, but language is dynamic and evolving. New words and phrases are added and changed all the time.” Sure, but they’re misunderstanding the phenomenon of language in evolution. The problem lies in the loss of the original meaning, not in the addition of a new one. For a time, it was fashionable to refer to something really good as being “dope” (i.e. “This album is dope.”). “Dope” can also be defined as “narcotics” or “a stupid person.” But these definitions haven’t disappeared. You can say, “She used to sell dope down on the corner,” or “That guy is a real dope” and enough people would know what you meant.

If “Begging the Question” eventually comes to mean only “Which raises the question”, then its utility in describing a logical fallacy is lost (self-note, I guess I could always fall back on Latin equivalents or “circular argument”). So, the problem for me isn’t wholly in its new usage (though it DOES piss me off), but rather in the fact that the new usage is replacing the old one, not existing in parallel. I don’t want to lose that “shorthand” to describe a particular logical fallacy. It’s useful.

I liked an example I read once, where the author explained that if the word “love” came to only mean “sex,” there would be two negative consequences: first, saying “Son, I really love your mother” would be a pretty inappropriate thing to say; second (and more importantly), there’s no other word out there to describe what “love” is. Our best word for describing a particular emotion would be lost.

I love the term “begging the question.” It’s dope.

Addendum: someone is doing it better than me, in fewer words, and with a more humorous/less pedantic approach!: begthequestion.info

Image Credit: beats me… it was on begthequestion.info… I assume they have credit? If anybody is upset, I’m happy to scribble on one of my own legal pads.

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen this easy-to-avoid grammatical error. Almost once daily at least, someone writes something that uses one of the following incorrectly-spelled words:

infinate, definate, infinately, definately

I sort of “get it.” But there are two things that should make it obvious quickly that those are the incorrect spellings:

1. When there is a vowel, followed by a single consonant, followed by a vowel, that first vowel takes the long form. The above incorrect words, the “ate” part would be pronounced like the past-tense of “eat”… (as in, “I ate a burrito for lunch”), or like the number eight.

Which is obviously incorrect… you would never say, “in – fin – eight”.

2. To me, this is the more important one. The base word for those misspelled words is “finite”, which is something having a limit. Even though a lot of people have heard this word, they don’t make the connection. Part of this is because of the difference in pronunciation. “Finite” is pronounced “fie – night”, whereas “Infinite” is pronounced “In – fin – it”. Long “i” for both in the former, and short “i” for both in the latter.

But if you remember that things can be “finite”, you should be able to remember that by contrast, other things can be “infinite”. You don’t change the spelling of the base word just because you add a prefix to it. It still contains the word “finite”, as does “definite.”

Image credit: DMTek Group, digital art by Ariel Duren

The word “unique,” by definition, means exactly this: “one of a kind.”

Imagine saying to someone, “Wow, great outfit. It’s very one of a kind.” Or “Hey man, you have a REALLY one of a kind songwriting style.” It makes no grammatical sense.

Is it one of a kind or not? If it’s kind of like something else you’ve seen before, it’s not unique, period. If it’s kind of like something you’ve seen before, but with something different to it, then it has a unique approach (or whatever). And if it’s truly one of a kind, such that you want to enthuse about it, it’s “unique”.

Not “very” unique. Not “really” unique. Just unique.

Rant over.

I would by lying if I said I have completely purged my own workplace of this particular error. I’m working on it, honest! The question is:

Do I use “login” or “log in”.

The answer is surprisingly simple. Or at least, if you work it out in practical terms, it is simple… I’m going to throw in some good ol’ fashioned grammer(sic) terminology as well:

Login

Use “login” when it is an adjective (there’s the grammar term). This means, quite simply, use it when you’re describing something. “What kind of page am I visiting? Oh, a login page!” Note: if you prefer logging ON instead of IN, the same rule applies. “What kind of credentials are these? Oh, they’re my logon credentials!”

Log in

Use “log in” when you using it as a verb (terminology, yay!); ie., you are talking about the action of logging in. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad jumping-off point. You would never say in one word, “I am loggingin”… it’s always “I am logging in.”. By the same token, you would tell someone that they need to “log in”. Note: as per above, you would also tell someone to “log on”.

Log in at your login page.
Log on with your logon credentials.

Pedantic? You bet!