Quick Quiz: Which Word Did Actress Glenn Close Have in Mind When She Misspoke and Uttered “Sublimated” During Her Golden Globes Speech? A Case of "Synaptic Malfunction"

Recall that at last month’s Golden Globes, when Glenn Close won best actress for her performance in “The Wife,” her rousing speech went viral, especially the following lament which she uttered tearfully and with indignation: “I’m thinking of my mom who really sublimated herself to my father her whole life and who, in her 80’s, said to me ‘I feel I haven’t accomplished anything.’ It was not right!”

Clearly, the word “sublimated” does not work in the above context—it’s the wrong word and you can see why by clicking here.

Question for you: What somewhat-similar-sounding word did Glenn Close have in mind when she misspoke?  Answer in the next post.

Incidentally, the above is a case of what I call “synaptic misfire,” just as happened to the uncommonly articulate Senator Cruz some time ago (click here for that quick quiz) and to President Obama during a “60 Minutes” interview when he mistakenly uttered denigrate in place of a similar sounding word. [See the “QuickQuiz” post of May 15, 2011.]

© Copyright 2019  V.J. Singal

 

Quick Quiz: Which Word Did NBC Reporter Katy Tur Have in Mind When She Misspoke and Uttered “Vociferously” While Talking About Donald Trump? Another Case of “Synaptic Malfunction”

At the outset, let me state categorically that this post has absolutely no ideological underpinnings. In other words, this “quick quiz” is purely to test your command of the language and it has nothing to do with politics.  

Now to the video clip below. After Katy Tur starts speaking (at about the 13-second mark), you will hear her use the word “vociferously” which is clearly inapplicable in the context. [If you’d like to review the definition of vociferous and a few examples illustrating its use, click here.] 

Can you guess which similar sounding word Tur had in mind? [Hint: the first two characters are “vo”] Tune in to this blog tomorrow--Monday--for the answer.  

[Here is a transcript of what you’ll hear from Katy Tur in that August 3, 2016, excerpt: “You know Donald Trump watches the news and reads headlines about himself vociferously, so it’s no surprise he is going to come out and push back...”] 

Incidentally, the above is a case of what I call “synaptic misfire,” just as happened to Senator Cruz a month ago (click here for that quick quiz) and to President Obama during a “60 Minutes” interview about five years ago, when he mistakenly uttered denigrate in place of a similar sounding word. [See the “Quick Quiz” post of May 15,2011.]

 

© Copyright 2016  V. J. Singal

 

Quick Quiz: Which Word Did the Extraordinarily Articulate Senator Have in Mind When He Misspoke and Uttered “Dungeon” During a Recent Speech? Case of “Synaptic Malfunction”!

The video clip below is a 24-second excerpt from a speech delivered in the U.S. Senate last month by the uncommonly articulate Ted Cruz. You hear the Texas senator use the word “dungeon” which is clearly inapplicable in the context.  

[Here is a transcript of what you’ll hear: “…gamesmanship. And I think the American people find it ridiculous that in response to an ISIS terror attack, the Democrats go on high dungeon that we’ve got to restrict the 2^nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. This is not a gun control issue…” ] 

Can you guess which similar sounding word Cruz had in mind? Tune in to this blog day after tomorrow--Saturday--for the answer.  

Incidentally, the above is a case of “synaptic misfire,” just as happened to President Obama during a “60 Minutes” interview about five years ago, when he mistakenly uttered denigrate in place of a similar sounding word. [See the “Quick Quiz” post of May 15, 2011.] 

© Copyright 2016  V. J. Singal

 

A Glaring Solecism: Dylann Roof, Perpetrator of the Charleston Church Shootings, a “Gentleman”?

In the six days since that stunning massacre of nine African Americans in a church in Charleston, leading South Carolinians have, justifiably, used such terms as “a hardcore white supremacist,” “an extreme racist,” and “an embodiment of evil” to describe the 21-year-old perpetrator, Dylann Roof. There has been an outpouring of equally strong denunciations from prominent Americans elsewhere.

So, you can imagine my annoyance and indignation when, during yesterday’s edition of the “Diane Rehm Show,” the highly respected Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne used the word gentleman while referring to Dylann Roof.  “Unforgivably thoughtless of Dionne, considering his vast experience as a guest on NPR and other radio programs,” I immediately remarked to myself. When it comes to more appropriate words, Dionne had a choice of numerous alternatives—man, person, individual, fellow, killer, shooter…I could go on.

[E.J. Dionne’s exact words--“…it became very clear as the weekend unfolded that this gentleman was motivated by a deep racism...”--were in response to Rehm’s opening question and can be seen at the 10:08:25 mark in the transcript: https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-22/gun-homicides-mass-violence-and-racism-in-the-u-s]

Of course, E.J. Dionne’s solecism is not the first time I’ve heard a radio or TV guest apply the word gentleman for the perpetrator of something heinous. Time and again, I hear law enforcement officers commit the same “crime,” i.e., “murder” the word gentleman by using it when referring to, say, a terrorist, a rapist, or an armed burglar.

Bottom line--The thing to ponder for my blog readers is: Has society become so reflexive, so robotic, in its use of gentleman that the word has lost its complimentary sense and is now no more than a synonym for “a male adult”?  In other words, using the word gentleman for a criminal is no longer an impropriety?

 

© Copyright 2015  V. J. Singal

 

Botching the relatively common word “litigious”; Even you Frank Deford?

Among all the men and women who grace American radio and television, sports commentator Frank Deford’s command of the English language is perhaps second to none, a position occupied during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s by the late Louis Rukeyser. But this morning, while listening to Deford’s regular Wednesday segment on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” I realized that even this master of the English language has some glaring weaknesses in the matter of everyday American lexicon.

While discussing the LA Clippers owner, whose scandalously racist comments over the weekend have created a sensation, Deford said to NPR host Steve Inskeep: “Donald Sterling is known to be a very litiginous man. He’s not going to go softly into the night.”

Litiginous? Really? There is no such word in the English language! The correct word, and a pretty common one at that, is litigious, pronounced [luh-TIJ-us].

© Copyright 2014  V. J. Singal

Oscar-Nominated Film Director Alexander Payne’s Incorrect Use/ Mispronunciation of Highfalutin Words makes him look Bookish and Insular

First, my customary declaration for posts of this kind: The objective is NOT to denigrate or ridicule someone. Instead, I feature such posts in the belief that if a highly educated person is mispronouncing or misusing a particular word, there is a high probability that at least a few of my blog readers are making the same error. In other words, these posts are meant to serve as “pronunciation/ usage alerts!” And the reason why I name the radio or TV program and identify the speaker is solely to make this feature credible.

Did you watch the “Charlie Rose” interview last week (February 20, to be precise) with famous movie director Alexander Payne? [As you may know, his latest film, “Nebraska,” has been nominated for the best picture Oscar. I’ve watched all nine movies nominated for that award and, in my opinion, “Nebraska” is the best.] Well, during the approximately 16-minute interview, Payne threw out a number of high-caliber words, including oneiric, verisimilitude, and foment. The trouble is that some of those words were mispronounced or misused!

Take a look at the first of the two video clips below. You hear Payne pronounce oneiric as [oh-near-ik] when the only acceptable pronunciation for the word is [oh-ny-rik].  In the second video clip, you hear him say "...I feel like I am directing the creativity of others--fomenting and conducting their creativity..." I hope one of my blog readers has a direct line to Payne and can convey to him the following: the meaning of foment is to incite, instigate, or stir up something (such as trouble, violence, rebellion…). It is never used in the sense Payne had in mind.

It would be worth your while to revisit the concluding paragraph (the one titled “A reminder why correct pronunciation matters”) in my blog post of last year triggered by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's pronunciation of chasm as [chaz-um] instead of [kaz-um]. As I said then, please do not ever use a high-caliber word unless you are absolutely sure about its pronunciation and usage. Otherwise, you’ll come across as being bookish and insular. And some in your audience might even think that you learned about those highfalutin terms while preparing for the interview or presentation. 

© Copyright 2014  V. J. Singal
 

  

 

Quick Quiz: Which Word Did the Speaker Have in Mind When He Misspoke? Case of Synaptic Malfunction

While researching my database for past usage of “miasma,” a word that will be featured in the next edition of “Words of the Month,” I came across the following from a long-ago interview on NPR:

“What they have is a miasma of half-baked ideas and proposals without a central unifying theme.”

Clearly, miasma is not what the speaker meant. [Definition of miasma in the American Heritage dictionary: 1. a noxious atmosphere or influence. 2. a thick vaporous atmosphere or emanation.]

Can you guess which word the interview guest had in mind, assuming that it too began with the letter “m”?  Tune in to this blog tomorrow for the answer.

© Copyright 2014  V. J. Singal

“Serendipitous Tragedy” – Kenneth Feinberg’s Oxymoron on NPR This Morning

If you heard the “Sunday Conversation” feature on this morning’s NPR “Weekend Edition,” you were probably as taken aback as I was by the extremely articulate and well-spoken Kenneth Feinberg’s erroneous choice of words toward the very end of the interview, when he referred to recent American tragedies such as Sept. 11, Virginia Tech, Aurora (Colorado), and the Boston Marathon bombings as “serendipitous.” 

The adjective serendipitous is inapplicable when describing those horrendous and deeply unsettling events because it strictly refers to something that happened or was discovered by chance in a happy or beneficial or agreeable way. Serendipitous is not one of those descriptors that are packed with multiple or ambiguous senses—words such as fulsome.

BTW, I am an admirer of Mr. Feinberg. For instance, while profiling the word “stolid” in the March/April 2013 edition of my “Words of the Month,” I wrote the following:

  

·        Kenneth Feinberg, who has become America’s go-to guy for administering victim assistance funds (including the one just set up for victims of the Boston Marathon bombings) partly because of his stolid disposition--a personal quality that is essential for the fair and dispassionate handling of claimants whose stories are brimming with intense pain and suffering

© Copyright 2013  V. J. Singal

Quick Quiz: What’s Wrong With POTUS's Use of the Idiom “A Shot Across the Bow” in the Context of the Proposed Military Strike on Syria?

Earlier this week, while talking about his intent to take military action against Syria in response to that nation’s recent use of chemical weapons, POTUS (i.e., Barack Obama) told PBS interviewers Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff: “…in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we will send a shot across the bow...”

Keeping in view that the intended U.S. action will be, at the minimum, the firing of cruise missiles to destroy several Syrian military sites, Obama’s above statement is a misapplication of the idiomatic expression “shot across the bow.” Do you know why? 

Tune in to this blog tomorrow for the answer.

© Copyright 2013  V. J. Singal

Quick Quiz: Which Word Did the “Washington Week in Review” Panelist Have in Mind? Case of Synaptic Malfunction

In the May 11, 2012, edition of “Washington Week in Review,” while discussing why Senator Rich Lugar was defeated in the Republican primary in Indiana earlier this month, USA Today’s Susan Davis said, “… He bumbled the response to (questions about his not having owned a home in the state since 1977). …He was also hit by a fuselage of negative attack ads which defined that race….”

Clearly, fuselage, which refers to the central body of an aircraft and which accommodates the crew, passengers, and cargo, is not what Ms. Davis meant. Can you guess which similar sounding word she had in mind? Tune in to this blog tomorrow for the answer.

Incidentally, the above is a case of “synaptic misfire,” just as happened to President Obama during his “60 Minutes” interview about a year ago, when he mistakenly uttered denigrate in place of a similar sounding word. [See the “Quick Quiz” post of May 15, 2011.]

© Copyright 2012 V. J. Singal

Yes, “Irregardless” is a Word. Of Course, Using it is Not a Good Idea Because...

The featured word in yesterday’s edition of Merriam Webster’s “Word of the day”—the most worthwhile of the various word-of-the-day emails that fly around in cyberspace—was “regardless.” I was immediately reminded of how indignantly some in my seminar audiences have reacted when, as a teaser or in a moment of frivolity, I have uttered the word “irregardless.” “V.J., there is no such word,” they say vehemently.

Well, of course “irregardless” is a word--after all, it is featured in all dictionaries. But, yes, it is considered “non-standard” and its usage not recommended. It’s best to reproduce the relevant comment from that “Word of the Day” email from Merriam Webster’s: "Irregardless" originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century, and usage commentators have been decrying it since the 1920s, often declaring "there is no such word." "Irregardless" does exist, of course, but it tends to be used primarily in speech and it is still considered nonstandard. "Regardless" is greatly preferred.

Summing up: Yes, “irregardless” is a word but using it is not at all a good idea because first, it is non-standard, and second, its use will provoke angry glares from many in your audience--not in your interest if you want to be endearing.

© Copyright 2011 V. J. Singal

Quick Quiz: Guess Which Word the "60 Minutes" Guest Had in Mind When He Misspoke and Uttered "Denigrate"; Case of "Synaptic Misfire"

At one point during his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday, President Obama was asked to respond to the many “influential people on both sides of the aisle” in Congress who were saying that with Osama bin Laden now dead, we should hasten our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Obama replied by pointing out that the U.S. had increased troop levels in Afghanistan to “blunt the momentum of the Taliban and create platforms that would allow us to go after al Qaeda directly.” He then added, “We’ve denigrated al Qaeda significantly even before we got bin Laden and I think it’s important for everybody to understand that the work that’s been done in Afghanistan helped to prepare us for being able to take bin Laden out……”

Clearly, the word denigrate does not fit into the context at all. See for yourself by playing the video clip below. In fact, as soon as I heard this sentence while playing the recording on my DVR, it was apparent to me that Obama, whose command of the language is stellar, meant to utter a similar-sounding word which has a completely different meaning and that he had fallen victim to what I call “synaptic misfire” or a “synaptic malfunction” – something that happens once in a while to even the best of us.

As an intellectual challenge, I urge you to try and guess the similar sounding word which would have correctly expressed Obama's thought and which would fit into the context perfectly. Feel free to email me or call me at 281-463-2500. My next post—about a week from now—will have the answer to this "quick quiz."

© Copyright 2011 V. J. Singal

Hyundai’s Sonata and GM’s Malibu “Cannibalizing” Sales of Toyota’s Camry and Corolla? An Erroneous Use of the Word "Cannibalize"

You’ve probably heard about the increase in sales last year of some cars such as Hyundai’s Sonata, Ford’s Focus and Fusion, and GM’s Malibu, thanks to Toyota’s high-profile safety problems hurting the demand for Corolla and Camry. Last week--on February 8--I was disappointed to hear Nightly Business Report’s reporter extraordinaire Diane Eastabrook describe the situation as “Sonata has probably cannibalized sales from Camry” and “Malibu has probably cannibalized sales from Camry and Corolla.” This is an erroneous use of the term “cannibalize.” Before I explain why, let me point out that Diane Eastabrook is one of my favorite reporters on all of television because her presentations are tight, cogent, extremely well delivered, and gripping.

First, a bit of insight into the word “cannibalize.” As you probably know, to cannibalize is to eat one’s own kind. In a business context, cannibalization occurs when, in an effort to push a particular product, a company uses parts or resources meant for another product, thus letting the production/ sales of the latter suffer. Alternatively stated, a product is said to have been cannibalized when its marketer lets the sales of that product decline as a direct consequence of that firm pushing the sales of another of its products. So, for instance, if Nissan was facing capacity problems on its production lines and decided to divert some of the resources essential for the manufacture of the Maxima toward the production of higher-priced Infinitis, that would be a case of the company “cannibalizing” the sales of Maxima.

Summing up, Hyundai selling more Sonatas and GM selling more Malibus because of Toyota’s travails is nothing but a manifestation of the everyday competition in the marketplace. It’s simply a case of one company taking market share away from a rival firm, something that can arise because of a number of factors. To name just three: (i) the gaining product being superior, (ii) the losing product’s manufacturer acquiring a taint, (iii) a product shortage, because of manufacturing or distribution problems.

© Copyright 2011  V. J. Singal