Linda’s Insights

When was the last time you listened to yourself? I mean really listened?

When my husband and I talk, sometimes we accuse each other of yelling. Inevitably, each of us denies raising our voice. Could we each be wrong?

I don’t think so.We learn patterns of speech early in our childhood, modeling them after our parents, grandparents, and siblings (who learned them from our parents!). Those patterns of speech are ingrained and hard to break.,/p>

For example: I have a brother-in-law I’ve only met a few times in 25 years, since my sister lives cross country from me. When we get together, I know he asks questions just to get a conversation going. Inevitably, however, when he questions me, I feel as though I am being interrogated. He uses direct questions and does not share experiences or feelings to temper the tone.

When my husband and I have an emotional discussion (not an argument, mind you), we both tend to raise our voices and talk more directly. That’s why we accuse each other of yelling! What we need to do is to tone down and listen to ourselves (as well as the other person).

I remember my mother saying to me when I was a sometimes sassy teenager, “I wish I had a tape recorder so you could hear what you sound like!”

That’s not really a bad idea. I have a tape recorder–a tiny one that I can slip into my pocket. Maybe I’ll start recording myself (and my husband!) when we have one of those “discussions.”

Until next time,

Linda

I am actually a “regular” person who flexes her English usage in “regular” conversation—especially to prove a point. I’ll occasionally say “ain’t,” use an adjective as an adverb, split an infinitive, and use “they” instead of saying “he or she.” I sometimes even begin sentences with “there is” and “there are.” But, I believe that writers—especially journalists—have an obligation to model good grammar to their readers. This admonition applies even more to their editors who should catch grammar mistakes.

I would like to say that most of the errors I catch are the result of sloppy editing in my local newspaper, the Jacksonville Times Union. Unfortunately, however, I see these mistakes in other places, and I hear them on television and radio news and talk shows, too.

My latest catches (I’ve italicized the mistake):

• “Even worse are situations where one person’s gift will be compared to another’s.” “Perplexed by a culture where soaking beans overnight seems like just too much planning…”

“Where” refers to “in or what place,” not a thing. Correct usages for these examples: “situations in which…” and “culture in which.”

• “The federal study of more than half a million men and women bolsters prior evidence of the health risks of diets laden with red meat like hamburger and processed meats like hot dogs and sausage…”

“Like” and “as” are not equal and cannot be exchanged as equals. Use “like” in comparisons when you mean “in the manner of” or “to the same degree as.” Use “as” when you want to show equality or in the function of. So, this sentence should have been written: “…with red meat such as hamburger and processed meats such as hot dogs…”

• “Terrie Brady…said the district should work hard to put expenditures like technology advancements and travel expenses on hold…” The rule on the use of “like” in this example is a bit different: Both “like” and “as” make comparisons, but “like” is used when making a single comparison, “as” when making a comparison to several things, such as in this example.

• “…Norman is feeling more optimistic about his ability to turn back the clock. Having a wife that knows all about once being the No. 1 player…” “That” always refers to inanimate things. Unless the writer believes that a wife is chattel, the correct usage should be “who.”

OK. Enough about “like,” “as,” “that” and “where.” Now, how about a look at a blatant proofing error. (Proofer, were you asleep on the job?”

A deck headline to a newspaper article read: “Residents are wary of an idea to change whom operates two courts.”

Ouch! “Whom” is the objective form of the pronoun. In this case, the word should be “who.” The entire phrase “who operates two courts” is the object of “to change.” This mistake is akin to those individuals who want to be “super correct” and say “between he and I.” Uh, uh. It’s “between him and me.”

Why is it important not to print grammar mistakes in the popular press? Well, to me it is obvious: When something appears in print, people (erroneously) believe it is true, accurate, and reliable. These grammar mistakes are none of those things and should not be perpetuated.

Until next time,

Linda Segall
Segall Enterprises: Writing and Editing Solutions
www.segallenterprises.com

I confess that I am a fan of President Obama. I also confess that I never felt warm or supportive about our former president, whose competencies were questionable. That said, this blog entry is not about politics. It is about communication. It is about President Obama’s address to the nation last evening.

It was refreshing, to say the least, to listen to a president who has a command of the English language. Mr. Obama spoke with eloquence, passion, and humility. He conveyed his vision and his determination to lead us to recovery. It is inadequate to say he was an inspiration. Rather, he inspired.

In short, Mr. Obama looked like, acted like, and spoke like a servant-leader.

Earlier in the day, an NPR reporter told radio listeners that the Republican response to Mr. Obama’s speech would be given by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. The reporter also speculated that Jindal might have been selected as a sort of trial balloon – that Jindal might take a run at the presidency in the next election. With that information in mind, I was curious to see what he would say and how he would say it.

For the first five or 10 minutes of his speech, all Mr. Jindal seemed to talk about was himself. Finally, he started to attack the Democratic Congress and its decisions to pass the stimulus package.

What struck me, however, about Mr. Jindal’s address was his lack of sincerity. He tried to appear sincere, just as former President Bush tried to appear sincere. But, there is a big difference between acting sincere and being sincere, and even a two-year-old can tell the difference. Mr. Jindal came across as talking down to his audience. It was not so much what he said, but how he said it.

I don’t know about you, but I am turned off by people who talk in a condescending manner to me.

If Mr. Jindal were putting out a trial balloon, it lost its gas, very quickly.

As I said, this blog isn’t about politics. It’s about communication. Leaders need to be able to communicate if they want to inspire. Great leaders communicate their vision and inspire their supporters to follow.

Mr. Obama inspired. He is a leader.

How great it is to have a president who knows how to talk.

Until next time,

Linda Segall

Segall Enterprises: Writing & Editing Solutions

www.SegallEnterprises.com

Olympic swimming star Michael Phelps really did a number on himself when he was captured on film inhaling marijuana … or did he? I think it depends on what his contract with Kellogg’s stipulated.

The grapevine says that a number of groups in favor of the legalization and/or decriminalization of marijuana intend to organize a boycott of Kellogg products because the cereal company dropped Phelps following publication of the photos. The organizations claim that Phelps was hired to promote a product — not to be a role model. Before they begin their boycott, I would encourage these groups to find out what Phelps’ contract specified.

If his contract spelled out that Phelps would endorse products and serve as a role model, and in his endorsement capacity he would not engage in any behavior — especially illegal behavior — that might tarnish a role-model image, then Phelps deserves to lose the deal. But, if the contract did not mention anything about the purpose of his endorsements or a prohibition against illegal behavior, then shame on the lawyers who drew it up.

A contract is an example of a situation in which words definitely count. Just ask former beauty-pageant contestants who have lost their crowns because they broke the spelled-out rules.

So, I am curious about Michael Phelps’ contract: Did it contain a morality clause? Or did Kellogg merely assume he would be a good, law-abiding young man? Was he hired merely to sell corn flakes? Or was he hired to be a role model who would influence little children to eat their corn flakes and grow up to be like him?

Even if the contract did not spell out consequences for illegal or scandalous behavior, common sense should have kept Phelps from putting his future at risk. Some things are best done in complete privacy. Then the words (or the lack of them) wouldn’t have mattered.

Until next time,

Linda Segall

Segall Enterprises: Writing and Editing Solutions
www.SegallEnterprises.com

Several million people will celebrate on my mother’s birthday — not because she will be turning 87, but because her birthday is January 20, inauguration day. I will be among those who will salute Barack Obama on his historical ascendancy. But I will also salute my mother.

She’s really a pretty feisty character. I can usually tell about what kind of day she is having by the amount of complaining she does about her computer.

About four years ago, I thought it would be good if she had a computer so she could e-mail her seven children and possibly others. (A few, although not many, of her contemporaries have computers.) I had recently purchased a new laptop, so I gave her my old one. Although it wasn’t fast, I thought it would be good enough for dial-up e-mail. So, I set her up with a free Juno account and taught her (long distance) how to use it.

Well, the fascination with e-mail turned into a fascination with the Internet. And mom became a surfer. She discovered sites she enjoyed looking at regularly, such as the newspaper in our old hometown. (She reads the obituaries every day.) She even learned how to Google. The old laptop was slow, but it gave her enjoyment — when it worked properly. When it failed to work right, she would call me to become her computer repairer. (Somehow I have always been able to fix her problems.)

Shortly after my father died, her computer died, too. I knew she was depressed when she declared that she wasn’t interested in the computer any more, so the computer’s death didn’t matter. I knew it did, though, and so we siblings chipped in and bought her a new laptop.

One day (her interest renewed but her frustration growing because the new laptop came with Vista), she told me she wanted to get high-speed Internet. So, I helped arrange for cable Internet access.

We’ve had some ups and downs with the access. When she moved, somehow her password got changed. She doesn’t always know the right questions to ask or the right statements to make to the help-desk people, but we have always managed to get the account straightened out.

Mom uses Webmail instead of an e-mail client on her laptop. As often as I have explained that her mail resides at the “post office” in cyberspace — not on her computer — she doesn’t quite understand.

Recently, I installed LogMeIn (a great “freebie” remote-access program, incidentally) on her computer so I can access it easily to run cleanup programs and tune it up. When I installed it, I also signed her into Windows instant messaging. I showed her the “little green man” in the toolbar and explained how to use IM.

The next day, while I was online, I saw her sign in (automatically, when she starts up the computer). I IM’d her. No response. I tried again. No response. Later that evening, I called her and asked her why she didn’t respond. She said she didn’t know what to do. I explained again.

The following day, I IM’d her — and she responded! Chalk one up for the grand old dame!

Today, I went offline for a while, since I was out of my office. Later, I called her and she said, “I click on that little man, but you weren’t there!” Chalk another one up!

I guess the moral to this story is that you can teach old dogs (or mothers!) new tricks. My daughter is even teaching me some. She (and my daughter-in-law and others in the family) recently signed up for Facebook. She suggested I do, too.

Well, I did. I’m an advocate of networking, and I have a growing number of contacts on LinkedIn. But I’m not too sure about Facebook … I don’t need it. What good is it? Why? Ooops … that’s my mother talking, not me! Who know, maybe I’ll get mom signed up, too.

Until next time,

Linda Segall
Segall Enterprises: Writing and Editing Solutions
www.SegallEnterprises.com

The presidential campaign was long and tedious. But before we put it completely to rest, I’d like to have a say.

My first choice was Hillary. I thought she had the experience and clout we needed. And, of course, I wanted to see America elect its first woman president. When Hillary was defeated, however, I placed my support behind Barack Obama. Despite his youth and his relative inexperience, he has the look and presence of the Chief Executive of this country. He even sounds like a president (unlike the individual who actually IS president).

However, I would like to make one suggestion to Mr. Obama: Please, please, please … use the correct pronoun following the preposition between!

Mr. Obama, I heard you say on numerous occasions, in both formal speeches and impromptu interviews, the phrase “between [name] and I.”

Ouch! That really hurts my ears! The correct usage is “between [name] and me.” “Between” is a preposition, and it must be followed by the objective case. The objective case of the pronoun “I” is “me.”

Mr. Obama, you are the hope of our nation and a role model to every young person in this country. I know asking you to watch your grammar is a small thing, but it is important. Grammar gives structure and order, and our country needs structure and order more now than ever before, and we are counting on you to provide it. So, if you are reading this, Mr. Obama, please pause before you finish the phrase “between [name] and …” Then use the correct pronoun. Me.

Until next time,

Linda Segall
Segall Enterprises
www.SegallEnterprises.com
Linda@segallenterprises.com