Anonymous

>Why does the (shudder) George W. Bush phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" come to mind when I read how proud you were for not correcting those girls? It’s good nerdy fun to think of oneself as existing above the constraints of standard usage, and fun, too, to construct a straw man “Grammar Police” bad guy to worry about, but standard grammar would serve those girls better in life than using “who” for “how much” ever will.

Posted : Jul 12, 2007 07:35

Andy Laties

>Walter:
Fabulous citation! The concept that Grammar Police can find their comprehension of the language diminished through obsession with "correct" usage is hilarious! It reminds me (self-critically speaking) of myself standing at the cash register of my bookstore on Navy Pier in Chicago. I had an enormous number of customers from every conceivable walk of life and background. I used to "serve" groups of teenagers out roaming the shops (usually looking to steal: four kids would stand in front of the counter engaging me in aggressive conversation, four other kids would rapidly move through the store picking up and putting down products, and then all eight kids would suddenly leave the store together, with me stuck trying to figure out what had happened).

Well, the kids who were engaged in distracting me used to utilize a grammar attack that was particularly frustrating. It was an Ebonics Lesson. A girl picks up some little impulse item -- a Mood Ring, and says, "How much this?" I say, "Two-fifty." Her friend leans forward at me and yells, in outrage, "WHO??" I understand her of course to be using the word "who?" as an Ebonics stand-in for "what?" and I say, "Two-fifty." The original girl says to her friend, "I'm not payin' you two-fifty for THIS?" She throws it down and picks up a copy of the book "Free Stuff For Kids" and says, "How much this?" I say, "Six ninety-five." Her friends says, in an angry voice, "WHO??"...

Of course my rising frustration is related both to the fact that I can see these girls' accomplices off roaming around the store picking up and throwing down lots of different products and yet these girls themselves have got me pinned at the cash register -- but, ALSO, because I can NOT get over my Grammar Police instincts regarding this novel use of the word "Who?" to mean "What?"

It gave them such pleasure to deploy "Who?" in this manner. It made me so annoyed. Why did I always bridle? Why did I want to tell them that they were using the word "Who?" incorrectly?? This was an absurd emotion to be feeling at such an instant!

And yet, after the group of teens rush out of the store, abandoning me at my cash register -- I do have to say that I would often rehearse this new meaning of "Who?" as if I were learning a new language. Proud of myself for not actually coming out with a censorious correction of their "misuse".

I wonder if the dictionaries have caught up with this use of the word "Who?" yet.

Posted : Jul 03, 2007 12:44

Walter Underwood

>My dictionary (Oxford American) has yet another choice for the meaning of "factoid": "an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it is becomes accepted as fact." Hmm.

Perhaps your reviewers should try using the word "trivia", since "factoid" doesn't seem to be converging on a single meaning.

As for "hopefully", the real grammarians have a different view than the Grammar Police. Compare it to how "frankly" and "surprisingly" are used.

Posted : Jul 02, 2007 08:18

Andy Laties

>It's your party.

Posted : Jul 01, 2007 01:53

Roger Sutton

>I'm becoming of the opinion that "factoid" just needs to be retired. Even those who don't read it as a non-fact seem divided on whether it means a briefly-put fact or a trivial fact or a random fact--three very different meanings. I think it's beloved by Horn Book Guide reviewers because of the way such facts as, oh, "cod-canning is a major industry of Portugal" (I have no idea if that is true, btw) are scattered about the pages of series geography books in a way that makes them look like small planets orbiting the main text.

Posted : Jul 01, 2007 01:33

Disco Mermaids

>I always thought of "factoids" as interesting tidbits of useless information. My definition stems from my subscription to the magazine 3-2-1 Contact as a child. Each issue had a two-page spread (if I remember correctly) called "Factoids" with cartoonishly-illustrated fun facts.

And I just can't shake that definition...just like I can't get rid of that heavy box of magazines in my attic.

- Jay

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 10:23

Andy Laties

>Contronym is the correct spelling evidently (and Spellcheck STILL doesn't know that).

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 07:57

Andy Laties

>Contranym! That's what I meant. But I never knew there is a technical term for it (and evidently neither does the Spellcheck program).

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 07:50

Anonymous

>Perhaps factoid can become one of the small group of contranyms (also called auto-antonyms and Janus words) that mean both one thing and its opposite. Cleave, table, fast, and sanction are good examples of this type of word. Factoid could mean both a small fact and an unverified fact.

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 07:38

sdl

>Obviously the solution with your Guide reviewers is to coin your own word that means small fact and encourage its use--factette? And then "factoid" can revert to its original meaning and you and Norman Mailer both win.

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 06:52

Uma Krishnaswami

>I think Andy's right and "factoid" has come to parallel "humanoid" (something less than a human but like it in some ways) in its journey through the language.

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 04:43

Andy Laties

>Ok so this is a fascinating test case! I don't know what Merriam-Webster makes of it, but I betcha that the majority of Americans, if asked to define "factoid", would say, "an obscure bit of trivial but intriguing information" -- in other words, that Norman Mailer's original definition in fact has already lost out, in terms of popular usage.

In fact, I believe that there is a whole class of words which now have meanings exactly opposite to those they originally had. It's not too unusual, really!

How about the phrase, "You could have fooled me!"

Now -- if you really want Mailer's original definition to win the usage battle, you'd better start a viral email campaign on the subject.

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 04:10

rindawriter

>Factoid sounds, to me like something a wordoid automatically generated because some nerdoid got a software glitchoid inside of it...

Oooooh...jargon just gives me the creepie-jeepies!

Posted : Jun 30, 2007 02:00

Brian

>I'm embarrassed that I’ve till now only known the second definition of factoid, as a true but trivial bit of news. Somehow I associate it with USA Today -- this even though I don’t think I’ve read USA Today more than five times in my life. The other definition is more interesting and also lets you be someone who reads Norman Mailer rather than USA Today. I’m making the switch.

Posted : Jun 29, 2007 05:26

Roger Sutton

>Sure, Andy, but with "hopefully" you know what the writer means. With "factoid" you don't. I don't think the use of it to mean "small fact" is so widespread that one can use it without fear of being misinterpreted.

Posted : Jun 29, 2007 04:08

Andy Laties

>While I acknowledge that "factoid" means a "false fact" and a small fact should be called a "factette" -- unless I'm mistaken contemporary lexicography rejects prescriptive definitions and endorses a descriptive approach. Thus, if enough people use the word "factoid" mean "a small fact" then this usage is acceptable.

I noted a few months ago that you, Roger, used the word "hopefully" in a manner oft condemned by grammar police. Glass-house-dwellers beware....

Posted : Jun 29, 2007 03:11

GraceAnne LadyHawk

>Roger, I thought it meant sort of kind of a fact, like a fact but not really, and very trivial. Not small, almost non-existent.

In a different but related context, I am regularly amazed at the mean-spiritedness pretty much every reviewer I have read used to approach the new Hillary biographies.

Yeah, I like her. A lot.

Posted : Jun 29, 2007 03:09