Thoughts of a(n) (Aspiring) Linguist

How may I assist you?

2006-07-10T00:22:00.000-07:00

Well, how do you like that...a new post! Believe it or not, this may actually become a recurring thing, but don't count on it too much. In the event that I do reach a semi-regular posting frequency, I feel obligated to warn you that that will most likely be a result of somewhat "polluting" the subject matter with posts that aren't as hard-coredly related to language as they have been. In any event...

Working at a Hotel, in the Guest Services/Front Desk department, I get my share of stupid guests. However, sometimes I get questions or have scenarios that surpass even my comprehension of human idiocy. Presented for your enjoyment below are a few of the various incidents that have made me both laugh and cry over the last several months. Sadly, they are all true (if a bit paraphrased due to the lapse in time that has taken place between their occurrence and my recording them).

Me: We have a complimentary breakfast from 6:30-9:30 tomorrow...
Guest: Is that AM or PM?

Me: [I say this a lot] We have a complimentary breakfast from 6:30-9:30 tomorrow...
Guest: And that's free, you say?
Me: It is a complimentary breakfast...
Guest: [Gets indignant, as if I'm trying to swindle him] Yes, I'm sure we'll compliment each other very nicely, but how much is it?

Guest: I'd like a wake up call, please.
Me: Certainly; what time can I set that up for you?
Guest: Um...[pauses for about 15-30 seconds] I'm not sure. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Me: Guest services. This is Matt, how may I assist you?
Guest: Yes, how do I place a wake-up call?
Me: Oh, just call the front desk.
Guest: Okay, can you transfer me?
Me: Actually, this is the front desk, what time would you like that for?
Guest: 7AM. Say could you transfer me back to Guest Services; I had a few questions for them.

There are more, but I am tired. Perhaps I shall grace you with them at a later time.

Dead? Nope.

2005-11-11T00:44:00.000-08:00

Greetings readers! This weblog is not dead, contrary to logical assumption. It's just that I'm going to school full time and I've got to put bread on the table (which, ironically, I do by putting bread on other people's tables for twenty-five hours a week). Also, in an attempt to better keep up with my sister, I've created a myspace account, which you all may and should view, if you wish to get to know the man behind the genius which is this weblog (you already know he's a pompous bastard - now find out the rest). Anyway, I'll try to post real soon, but if you don't see anything here for a while, by all means check over there! One or the other will invariably be updated, barring the somewhat unlikely event of my death or total paralyzation.

Word of the...last two months.

2005-10-21T23:33:00.000-07:00

Yes, yes, it's been a while since the last post. But, more importantly, it's been even longer since the last Word of the Day. But worry not, dear reader; this is a word so phenomenal, so excellent, that it shall excuse the last sixty or so that were absent.
For those serious pedants out there (pedant being loosely defined as most of the people who didn't just have to dust off their dictionaries to find out what it means) it is possible that you may already know the word, and therefore not find it as interesting or fantastic as one who does not. I hope you will abstain from any complacent chortling at my expense over my choosing this word, and realize that to the rest of us it's pretty gosh darn neat.

1. Schadenfreude* - Pleasure or glee caused by another's suffering.

*Pronounced "SHAW-den-froy-duh"

Allow myself to introduce...myself

2005-09-05T11:29:00.000-07:00

The majority of the last several posts have started out with some comment or another on my low posting frequency. Apparently this one is no different. I hope to increase the frequency in which I post to at least two times a week, but we'll see how that goes; my powers of commitment have never been exceptional. Anyhow, onward and forward to today's excellent topic.

Most "educated speakers" have a tendency to try to break monotony in their speech. Too many "nices" in a sentence? Well, then whatever you're talking about, regardless of it's quality, becomes "excellent" or "superb." Though this can impact the accuracy with which you express yourself, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about it. It is quite another thing, though, to break the monotony of pronouns. Pronouns have very specific uses, which are outlined in a multitude of grammar books. Despite this, however, many intellectuals inadvertently misuse pronouns in an attempt to sound better. The specific misuse to which I am referring is that of the reflexive pronoun. The reflexive pronouns (myself, yourself, etc.) have a very specific use; they accompany (as strange as this may seem) reflexive verbs. They are not, then, as many people would have them be, direct object pronouns, and they certainly aren't nominative pronouns. Therefore it is incorrect to say "George and myself would like to play a round of golf." Nor is it proper to say "Between you and myself, I would like to buy the red car."

I freely admit that even I myself have trouble with this at times, but by working together we can help to right this linguistic wrong.

Try and Correct This Title

2005-09-02T15:53:00.000-07:00

Bringing an end to much anticipation, I'm sure, this blog is now officially off of it's unofficial, and unplanned hiatus. Having twenty animals in a house that needs fumigating can be a fairly potent time-waster. With that said, I will move on to the day's post.

I recently received a magazine in the mail with an add on the back of it for a videogame called "Resident Evil". The tagline for the game was proudly displayed in large letters; "Try and get out alive." Although I have always been aware of the construction "try and" (meaning simply "try") I had never seen it in print until reading it in the magazine. After seeing it in print I began to seriously question for the first time whether or not that construction was standard, or at the least, an acceptable idiom. Days of wondering eventually led onto actual research, which was tantamount to looking it up in Theodore M. Bernstein's indispensable work The Careful Writer. I was able to find an entry dealing with the "try and" construction, and my suspicions of nonstandardism were confirmed. To avoid accidental plagiarism, and in deference to Bernstein's superior writing skills, I will quote part of the passage below, in lieu of attempting to explain the concept myself.

"...[T]he careful writer will cling to try to as the proper construction in the overwhelming number of situations...It should be noted that whether the locution is try to or try and only one action is contemplated: When we say 'try and be good' we do not mean two separate things as the and would suggest; we do not mean try to be good and be good. Therefore the try and idiom is not parallel, as one authority declares, with 'go and find one' or with 'come and get it.' In these instances two actions, although closely related, are indeed contemplated...The point being made here is that the go and and come and idioms are standard and logical, whereas the try and idiom is substandard...and illogical." (The bolding is my own.)

Once again we see that if a construction sounds odd, juvenile, or substandard, it's probably all three.

The Little People

2005-08-22T00:50:00.000-07:00

The faithful readers of this blog may have noticed that post frequency has slowed in recent weeks, and I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to all three of you. I recently got a job, and I must admit that it has put a quick end to most of my free time. However, whenever possible, I continue posting. You may be asking yourself why I spend some of my increasingly valuable free time updating this blog. I can only answer you thusly: the little people.

Some blogs have hundreds, even thousands of daily readers. I, on the other hand, have three guys who check in once in a while to see if anything's new. But believe it or not, I am happier with my three readers than I would be with hundreds or thousands, and I'll tell you why. The moods of the masses are easily moved; a sea of fans is treacherous and often torrential. One idiot says something and so say the rest of the sorry sorts. When writing for an audience of only three, however, the stakes are significantly smaller. Even a full scale revolt against your ideals would require nothing more than defending yourself from three people, as opposed to an unstoppable throng of thousands. Hence I am happy with everything as it is.

I will now take this opportunity to thank the three of you loyal readers individually (for you see, I have a very detailed invisible counter, which shows me who comes back and who does not). First, there is my good friend Shane who reads every post as soon as it comes out, making mention of many of my mechanical mistakes. Secondly, there is my fellow linguablogger (of the excellent blog Uneasy Rhetoric) who seems to read my blog once in a while, which I appreciate. And tertiarily - though certainly not third in order of importance - my unknown reader from Sunnyvale, who has been reading from almost the very beginning, and still doesn't appear to have left one comment (but worry not Sunnyvalite - your taciturnity is excused by your loyalty).

If I have forgotten to mention anyone, or there are more than the three people I mentioned above who read this blog on a semi-regular basis, please drop by and comment and let me know. Remember, if not for you, the little people, I would have given this up long ago.

WOTD, 8/19/05

2005-08-19T10:01:00.000-07:00

argosy 1. Nautical. a. A large merchant ship. b. A fleet of ships. 2. A rich source or supply: an argosy of adventure and lore.*

*Definition courtesy of dicitonary.com. Unless otherwise noted, all future definitions will come from dictionary.com as it is much easier than consulting that behemoth of a reference I have on my desk.

A Straight Up New Post

2005-08-18T18:18:00.000-07:00

I was working watchless the other night, and towards what my internal chronometer assured me was the end of my shift I became curious as to precisely what time it was. I moseyed on over to a watched guest and said "Excuse me sir, but do you happen to know the time?"

"Yep," he answered, "it's nine o'clock, straight up." I thanked him and went on my way, eager to be on my way (for it was indeed time to clock out).

However, in my car on the way home the linguistic unorthodoxy of his reply struck me with full force. Though at the time I understood what he meant unquestioningly, I realized in the car that by rights I should not have - at least not as automatically as I did.

As many people know the term "straight up" refers to a beverage (typically alcoholic) that is served sans ice. In recent years, though, it has come to mean something akin to "pure". However no dictionary I have access to (including the online dictionaries, which tend to give more up-to-date definitions for colloquialisms) includes a definition of this nature. Interestingly enough, though, Urban Dictionary (and yes, I tend not to count that as an actual dictionary) has four definitions of "straight up" that would compliment my secondary definition very nicely.

This emerging secondary meaning is not an illogical one, however. The original meaning of "without ice" simply seems to have expanded to mean "without anything else at all". However, while this meaning fits rather nicely in a such as "I'm gonna straight up murder your ass"* -meaning the action will be performed without any extraneous delays or non-murder related actions - it seems a bit more of a stretch in "nine o'clock, straight up". Nevertheless I do and did understand. In telling me "nine o'clock, straight up" the man meant to say that it was exactly nine o'clock, without any extra seconds or minutes to besoil its purity. The main thing that surprises about that kind of usage, is the versatility that the seemingly new saying has gained in such a short lifetime.

In any event it seems as though the fledgling idiom will do just fine, as it has received little criticism, even from the language purists and grammarians, which is no doubt due to it being a straight up natural evolutionary step in the overall life of the phrase.

*Quote provided courtesy of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

Painful Prepositions

2005-08-14T14:13:00.000-07:00

Though I have come to appreciate and love the various nuances that exist in language - to respect them even - I understand that this is not the case with everybody, and consequentially I am usually a tolerant listener. However I do have a few "pet peeves" that tend to boil my blood (perhaps more than they should, but such is the nature of the pet peeve). Chief among these is the flagrant use of unnecessary prepositions at the end of a sentence. Take, for example, the following question: "Excuse me, but is this where the pool's at?" Sadly I'm sure that this is not an unfamiliar construction to most English speakers. Whether or not you are guilty of practicing it, your ears have most likely been subject to it. Despite the seemingly obvious incorrectness of the construction it is widespread.
Another instance of the obnoxious extraneous preposition is found in a much less common but no less annoying sentence such as "This popcorn is for free, right?" Though I can't say for sure that it is a grammatical offense it is, in any event, painful to hear.
So if you've committed any of the aforementioned crimes, please stop yourself before you sin again. Or if, like most people, they are mistakes you left behind with your childhood, then keep up the good work.

You never listen to me!

2005-08-11T22:41:00.000-07:00

According to a Yahoo! News article the reason men don't listen to women may be caused by more than the simple fact that they never have anything important to say. The article states that female sound waves are more difficult to receive and comprehend than those of males. Only women could complicate something as seemingly simple as listening. My personal theory is that this is a divinely inspired defense mechanism, set in place by none less than the Great Creator himself in order to protect men from what is usually the mindless, emotional drivel which nigh incessantly effuses from the mouths of women. Either that or some product of Darwinian evolution and adaptation. But you can read the article and draw your own conclusions.

Disclaimer: In truth, my opinions on women are not as bad as one might assume after reading the above, and some negative aspects of women were exaggerated. After all is said and done the world is better off (however slightly) with women.

WOTD 8/6/05

2005-08-06T11:35:00.000-07:00

It should be noted (if it's not obvious enough already) that "Word of the Day" is short for "Word of the Day That I'm Posting". If I don't make another post, I probably won't put up a word of the day, unless I find a real doozy. Anyhow here's your "Word of the Day" for today:

apotheosis 1. Exaltation to divine rank or stature; deification. 2. Elevation to a preeminent or transcendent position; glorification. 3. An exalted or glorified example.

Definition courtesy of: http://www.tfd.com/.

Going Nucular

2005-08-06T11:09:00.000-07:00

I know it's been a while since the last post, but I have been busy with a new job, and, more importantly, and more relevantly to this weblog, reading a book. Witty political and linguistic commentator Geoffrey Nunberg has created a more than enjoyable read for fans of language or politics. He delves into aspects of language which few professionals tend to do, such as why "plastic" has developed a negative connotation, and why liberals use "and" less than conservatives do. The book is really a compilation of his various articles over the last few years, neatly organized into various sections, but it does not seem awkward or disjointed, and the format makes it very easy to read during any amount of downtime, however small. So go out and read the book, now. Go. Stop reading this. Just because there's text doesn't mean you have to read. Throw off the oppressive yoke of the established doctrine that is compelling you to read this and go! Go get the book. Stop reading. I'm dead serious. If you're still reading this, and you think this is overkill or stupid, then it's your own damn fault, not mine. I told you to stop reading a long time ago, and you're the one who chose to keep on reading. If you're reading this part all the way down here, then frankly I'm disgusted. I'm going to have to stop writing here on principle.

Dirty Soap

2005-07-28T13:28:00.000-07:00

The BBC has self-reported that it plans to launch an informative new soap-opera designed to teach viewers English "as it is lived and spoken." The project promises to be a unique and powerful tool for English-learners everywhere. However, a caveat to parents of younger prospective viewers: the BBC claims that "[the] [f]ans will decide what happens to the characters through online votes"; needless to say that a large portion of the online community tend to have some pretty sick ideas, hence some of what gets voted to happen on the show might not be appropriate for children under eighteen.

W.O.T.D. 7/24/05

2005-07-24T23:56:00.000-07:00

Note: from now on, the titles of all "Word of the Day" posts will be abbreviated to "W.O.T.D." for nothing more than the mere sake of my convenience. And you know what? At some point, I'll probably be too lazy to put periods in there and it will become simply "WOTD"; so don't be surprised when/if it happens. While I'm clarifying the nature of the "W.O.T.D." I'll add that I reserve the right to provide a phrase instead of the word without changing the title of the post to accomodate. To flex this newly-claimed power, the "WOTD" (it's already happening) today is:

je ne sais quoi 1 a quality or attribute that is difficult to describe or express*

* defenition courtesy of dictionary.com

Word of the Day 7/23/05

2005-07-23T16:53:00.000-07:00

obloquy 1 strong public condemnation: he endured years of contempt and obloquy 2 disgrace, especially that brought about by public condemnation

We Need to Have an Uptalk

2005-07-23T16:23:00.000-07:00

The redoubtable BBC reports that "uptalking" (the manner of speaking in which every last note of a sentence "rises") has taken the nation - and perhaps the world - by storm. Frankly, I have no idea how such a seemingly obnoxious speech pattern weaseled its way into America without our vast armies of intolerant and outspoken white people quickly putting an end to it. I suppose they were so busy proselytizing the non-WASPs that it just slipped by them. Understandable.

Schauen zum Vaterland

2005-07-21T18:13:00.000-07:00

In a nigh five year old article by the BBC the reason for German "grumpiness" is, to some degree at least, exposed as being nothing less than the German language itself. I myself am almost half German, and had often wondered why I did not suffer from (the assumedly genetic) chronic grumpiness myself. Upon taking a stab at learning the German language I found it to be gutteral and harsh. While it was enjoyable to practice with once in a while, I couldn't help but wonder what the long-term effects of perpetual self-expression with such a gloomy language might be.

This article lends yet another piece to the puzzle that is the German psyche - possibly one of the most revealing pieces yet. Both World Wars and widespread alcoholism are a bit more comprehensible when you take into account that they are phenomena stemming from a culture whose entire communications network is based on a language that "causes the mouth to turn down," (an important fact if you consider that "...when speaking, movements of the muscles in the face can change a person's mood").

This language bit may indeed prove to a very useful defense for the German people in future history books' lessons on the start of World War I and II. No amount of linguistic anomalies, however, can account for the holocaust - that was less the result of "grumpiness", and more the result of pure, unadulterated evil. In any event, though, the Germans are at the threshold of a milestone in self-understanding. Now all they need to do is go out and learn a language that will give them the capacity to enjoy it.

Word of the Day, 7/21/05

2005-07-21T13:05:00.000-07:00

maw 1 noun the jaws or throat of a voracious animal: a gigantic wolfhound with a fearful, gaping maw. 2 informal the mouth or gullet of a greedy person.

Gobbledygook

2005-07-20T22:10:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading the article "Why Do We Say That? Gobbledygook" from American Heritage and feel the topic to be of enough importance to (partially) reproduce it here:

"EVERY PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE ... SHOULD be (a) in English, (b) clear and trenchant in its style, (c) logical in its structure and (d) devoid of gobbledygook." So wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in a memo as an assistant to President John E (sic) Kennedy in 1963, to a State Department functionary after wading through "the latest and worst of a long number of drafts" sent by the department for the President's signature.
The striped-pants set are by no means the only people who indulge in gobbledygook. Over the years, the Pentagon has asked for bids on such items as aerodynamic personnel decelerators (parachutes), interlocking slide fasteners (zippers), and wood interdental stimulators (toothpicks); and a lieutenant of my basic-training company back in the late 1950s called the folding shovel with which I was all too familiar a "combat emplacement evacuator."

Far too many times have I been subjected to nonsensical jargon with little purpose other than to confuse and obscure. Please, do your part to end gobbledygook everywhere, whether it be by ceasing it personally or getting some friends and acquaintances under control. It will help to make the English-speaking world a better place.

Word of the Day, 7/20/05

2005-07-20T17:42:00.000-07:00

What kind of linguistics weblog would this be without a word of the day? Not a very good (or thorough) one, I'll wager. Hence from this point on, I shall post a "Word of the Day", with a definition courtesy of the New Oxford Dictionary Of English (I'd try to give the definitions myself, but that leaves far too much room for error, and more importantly, criticism). So, here we have the first word of the day (and a personal favorite):

eldritch adj. 1. Weird and sinister; ghostly. An eldritch scream.

A Modest Proposal

2005-07-19T22:44:00.000-07:00

I have often longed for a good alternative for the verb "to dirty". I am aware of those words that be (i.e., "besoil" and "begrime") but they simply don't have the right ring to them for every situation. However, during my study of Spanish I came across the word "ensuciar", which means "to dirty". I find this to be a more than ample substitute for the sometimes drab fundamental "to dirty" or any of its seemingly blue-blooded relatives. Therefore I propose (modestly) that we adopt the verb "to ensuciate" (pronounced en-SOO-see-ate) into the English vocabulary as a more respectable and exact synonym for "to dirty". I have already taken one step, but a word is nothing if the people don't use it. So please, indoctrinate "ensuciate" into your vocabulary so that people everywhere might be able to dirty with a bit more verbal flair.

Mastering "Mastery"

2005-07-19T10:09:00.000-07:00

What follows is no less than a desperate plea to my fellow English speakers. Many words in the English language can be modified in terms of extremity with adverbs such as "very", "greatly", etc. However, some words are so powerful that their degree of extremity is absolute and immutable. A perfect example of this is the word "dead"; it is impossible to distinguish something that is dead by degrees of deadness. As a result of its finality, the word "dead" has proven to be a very powerful and important word. As I have said, there are other words like "dead" which cannot be altered in such a way. But either through ignorance or apathy some of the less common of this ilk are constantly abused with fictional degrees of intensity. The word that most comes to mind at present is "mastery".

Much to my chagrin, many is the time that I have been instructed by a teacher to work on improving my "level of mastery" of their subject. Consequentially, many is the time that I have felt compelled to verbally bludgeon my teachers into linguistic propriety by explaining to them the definition of the word "mastery". In the interests of diplomacy, I chose not to, but now that the school year is over I feel obliged, as a lover of English, to take a stab at reducing this gross misuse. Therefore, dear reader, I present to you the definition (courtesy of the indispensable dictionary.com) of the word "mastery".

1. Possession of consummate skill.
2. The status of a master or ruler; control.
3. Full command of a subject or study.

As you can see by the two most relevant definitions, "mastery" means to have achieved the highest level of understanding and skill. It is impossible to have varying degrees. It's just that simple. So the next time you hear somebody make such a grievous error, please, educate them yourself or direct them to this website. We can make the difference - united we stand, my brothers, divided we fall.

Ask a stupid question...

2005-07-18T19:02:00.000-07:00

In many respects the English language is an entity unto itself. The fact that it is sustained by (in many cases lesser) other organisms is irrelevant - why even we human beings cannot survive without the various bacteria which live inside us and are indispensable to many aspects of our existence. In any event, as such an entity English is disposed to having its various quirks and idiosyncrasies. As a(n) (aspiring) linguist, I accept most of these without much trepidation. However, once in a while one of these foibles proves to be so obnoxious to me that I am obligated to rebuke it. This, dear reader, has proven to be the case (after much silent endurance on my part) with the current habit English speakers have of inserting what is best referred to as "a positive negative". If it has a grammatical name I am unaware of it, as I seldom consult grammatical references in order to maintain my objectivity. However the positive negative, grammatically sanctioned or not, is, I assure you, a nuisance. In the likely case that you are unsure as to what I am talking about, I give you an example below.

"We're going to the market tonight, are we not?"

This kind of question makes it difficult, if not impossible, to reply with a simple "yes" or "no". To say "yes" might be taken as a response to the "are we not" portion of the question, while saying "no" might be taken as an answer to the "we're going to the market tonight" portion. The end result is a question shrouded in confusion and whose purpose is at best unclear. Though the question sounds a bit more proper and refined in this form, in the end the apparent trappings of sophistication give way to the inescapable confusion of such a bastardization of the inherent nature of a question (i.e. , to clarify, not confuse).

Instead of this debauchery of question's nature, I implore the entire English-speaking community to ask questions in a straightforward, no-nonsense way. You will make life - and English - a bit easier.

Choose Your Words Carefully

2005-07-16T23:31:00.000-07:00

There can be few bones made about it - in language, be it speaking or writing, German or English, word choice is key (or should I say "paramount"?). The hundreds upon thousands of synonyms in the world's languages exist for a purpose a touch loftier than mere entertainment. Using big words for big words' sake is commonplace in contemporary writing. The desire to parade about one's assumedly impressive vocabulary often supercedes the true nature of so-called "big" words; precision. But don't get me wrong; sometimes using big words can be highly advantageous. Say, for instance, that you were the President of the United States of America. In that case, throwing in the occasional big word might help you avoid...how shall I choose my words delicately here?...seeming like a total idiot. Below I give an example of just how a big word here and there might be able to save the day.

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." - George W. Bush, April 23, 2002

"I find the complexity of international diplomacy to be an enjoyable challenge." - Cleaned up version of George Bush's quote.

While the first quote seems like something a fifth grader might say while losing a game of Risk, when reworded with a slightly more positive if pedantic spin, it sounds like something worthy of a leader.

However big words are not only useful for seeming intelligent; in fact, that is one of their basest uses. The true joys of using big words are precision and connotative meaning. I shall illustrate both by rewording the same sample sentence below.

"You're making it worse!" A very unremarkable sentence, not worthy of any educated speaker.

"You're worsening it!" More concise, better than the first, but essentially the same in connotative meaning. An almost imperceptible increase.

"You're debasing it!" As concise as "worsening", and stronger in connotative meaning. But debasing is best reserved for people, so this is a very scenario-specific response, which while technically correct in most cases, can be odd sounding.

"You're bastardizing it!" The winner! As concise as the rest, equally as strong as "debasing", if not stronger, and universally applicable (with a nice ring to it, at that).

Hence we see that while we might mean the same thing four different ways, there's almost always a best way of saying it. And, admittedly, sometimes it comes down to style. For example, I could chose to end this update with any number of sign-offs; ciao, bye, adios, fare thee well, farewell, till next time, etc. However, I've never been any good at writing conclusions and consequentially my style has become to simply end at what may at times seem akward places.

A (Parenthetical) Beginning

2005-07-13T21:01:00.000-07:00

Whether by deduction or formal education, most English speakers are aware that the English indefinite article "a" relieves the tongue by recruiting an "n" before most words beginning with a vowel sound. As with most aspects of the English language, however, this complex is a bit more complex in writing. Take the title of this blog, for example: "Thoughts of a(n) (Aspiring) Linguist". If spoken it would sound like: "Thoughts of an Aspiring Linguist", a fact which is both simple and useless, as for all practical purposes there are no parenthesis in spoken language. However, if the sentence follows its linear, uninterrupted path, then "an" clashes with "Linguist" in a most unpleasant way. In writing the phrase, then, how does one decide the use of "a" or "an"? Without polluting the thought process with any of the often arbitrary and capricious rules of grammar (of which I have consulted none in writing this) then logic seems to tell us that "an" is the proper choice. However, as a lover of the manifold rhetorical uses of parenthesis, I must champion a different view.

The primary use of parenthesis, you will hear most grammatics tell you, is to add "nonessential" information to a description, which is true enough. For me to say otherwise would incite a lengthy discourse on what is and isn't "essential"; something I think we can all agree is, at present, quite nonessential. In any case, outside of this rather drab, unexciting explanation of parenthetical use there exists something bigger.

Many times, parenthesis have the invaluable yet unwritten use of "slipping something by" the reader. And while of course the reader understands and processes whatever might be in the parenthesis as easily as that which is not, in certain cases parenthesis tend to grant their occupants a certain level of innocuity. For example, compare the two sentences below, which are distinguished only by parenthesis:

The stupid president of the United States almost choked to death on a pretzel today.

The (stupid) president of the United States almost choked to death on a pretzel today.

Though the difference between the two may seem subtle, it does exist. The "stupid" of the first sentence seems premeditated and malevolent. The "(stupid)" of the second sentence, however, seems light and afterthoughtish. It is doubtless that this technique can prove to be indispensable, or at the very least, quite useful.

Now that we have seen the parenthesis at work, and have analyzed (minimally) the source of their effectiveness, we see why the "'a' or 'an'?" question is of such importance. Because the parenthesis draw their docility from their afterthoughtish nature, to indicate forethought with the use of "an" could be a fatal blow to their rhetorical capabilities. I elaborate: to say that "So-and-so is an (unnecessarily) thorough lecturer" is revealing. The "an" preceding "(unnecessarily)" shows premeditation, and therefore a larger degree of malice. The ostensibly unplanned becomes the obviously planned with the use of a simple "an".

Instead of using "an" one could elect to ignore the oncoming vowel sound and use "a". However, this creates ugly and unpleasant reading due to the human sub-vocalization process (the process that is responsible for most people "hearing" what they read), and the writer should never punish the reader for his own quagmires. Now you might be thinking that I have eliminated both possible choices, decrying the entire situation without actually offering any solution; muckraking. But if you have paid attention in the slightest and have a passable short-term memory (and minimal deductive skills) you have already realized that I have come to a conclusion. In such scenarios as I have described, use neither "an" nor "a"; use "a(n)". I have no idea whether or not this is standard; nor do I care. What I do know, however, is that it is a subject neglected far too much by teachers claiming to offer elementary educations.

Well, in surprisingly little time I have tackled one of the most neglected yet severe problems facing those writers (like myself) who attempt endless propriety. Perhaps in the future this writing can be the one-stop for answers about this esoteric conundrum. Either way I feel good about it, and you should too. No longer must you shy away from the joys of parenthetical notes simply because you are wary of the consequences, nor must you weaken your parenthetical notes with the crippling "an". Free at last, free at last. I must say, I think this is off to a (mighty) fine start.