Now for something a little different

from http://thebluediamondgallery.com/c/communication.html

If you ever look at this blog, you'll notice that the overwhelming majority of posts merely link to my articles on other sites. Once in a rare while, though, I do post about writing or language. This is one of those rare posts, though with a twist. It's not so much my own how-to as a commentary on another.

I started to just write this up on a Google+ post, but it was getting rather long for that.

Now notice the sentence I just wrote before this one. It is true and relevant; however, that is not the only reason I put it in. The same goes for the sentence just before this one. Both the sentences featured two independent clauses put together. In one, they were joined by the coordination conjunction"but" after a comma. In the other, they were joined by the adverbial conjunction "however" with a comma that was placed after a semi-colon. Both "but" and "however" serve to join the two parts of the sentence in a way that signals the relationship of the first part to the second part.

And now on to what I'm referring to. it's Blogspot's "The Ultimate List of Words That Sell." Some points are fine and well known, like focusing on the reader/potential customer rather than the seller.  But some attempts to turn language around are really absurd. For example:


3) And This is a clever replacement for "but" when dealing with criticisms or objections. The word "but" signals to the prospect that you are about to utter a statement that runs counter to what they'd like to hear. "And" by its very nature is inclusive -- you seem to agree even when you're disagreeing. Consider these two examples from Sales Coach Seamus Brown:

"I see that you only have a budget of $50,000, but let me tell you why our system costs $100,000."

"I see that you only have a budget of $50,000, and let me tell you why our system costs $100,000."

Brown points out that the second sentence acknowledges the prospect's budget, while the first steamrolls over the problem and makes the buyer feel ignored. However, she fails to understand how conjunctions connote different meanings. 

Simply linking two contradictory points with the coordinating conjunction "and" does not make the contradiction go away. Using "and," the least specific of linkage words simply makes the sentence weaker. It actually indicates you're just paying lip service to the concerns of the buyer without working out a solution. A much better way to approach the problem is to make an actual selling point here. "I understand that you have set a budget of $50,000 and so would think that our $100,000 system is beyond your reach. But that's not the case because of our flexible payment terms/guaranteed savings/whatever."


Another strikingly stupid example offered in this article is this one:


12) Because

Ellen Langer, a social psychologist and professor at Harvard University, conducted a study where she tested the impact of phrasing on people's willingness to let someone cut them in line. Here are the variations she used:

"Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?"

"Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?"

"Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I'm in a rush?"

While only 70% agreed to let her cut in line when she used the first question, upwards of 90% let her skip when she used either the second and third phrasings. The takeaway? When asking people to do something, always include a reason. Don't just request that your prospect introduce you to another stakeholder or fill out a survey -- explain why you'd like them to take these actions.I can get the rush reason a bit for those who have sympathetic coworkers around, but explaining you want to use the Xerox machine because you need to make copies is absolutely ridiculous. What else would you be using it for -- to make coffee? Really, if I were on that line, I'd be completely turned off by someone trying to cut ahead of me for that because we're all waiting to use the Xerox machine to make copies.
Last and maybe least, in this case, is this:


13) Opportunity

Problems are bound to crop up in the sales process, but that doesn't mean you should acknowledge them as such. The word "problem" has a negative connotation, and can make the prospect feel as if the process is difficult and unpleasant. With this in mind, replace it with more positive words. Instead of saying "no problem," for example, say, "it's my pleasure." "I understand the problem" can become "I see an opportunity to make this run more smoothly.

Perhaps the writer doesn't normally get calls from recruiters. "Opportunity" is their word of choice for job possibilities. That's what most people would associate with it. But this section isn't even about using the word "opportunity," despite the heading. Rather it is about avoiding saying the word "problem," even "no problem."


This is absurd. No one walks away from hearing "no problem" with a negative association unless they are sticklers for saying a more old-fashioned "thank you." Now if the question is about using the word in connection to actual problems, I say, you're better off calling a spade a spade and then offering a real solution because that's what business deals are really all about: finding solutions to problems. There is no progress made by ignoring problems, sweeping them under the rug, or referring them through some ridiculous euphemism in order to try to mitigate their impact. The best selling point for any business offer is to identify the real problem the potential customer is struggling with and to offer a solution that will fix it. Unfortunately, this article will not work as a solution to communication problems.
Related post: http://writewaypro.blogspot.com/2015/08/3-signs-youre-doing-social-media-wrong.html#gpluscomments
and
http://level343.com/2012/08/30/key-questions-for-content-marketing/

Behold, no w!

Today I read part of a Smithsonian article. It lost me when it got to the quote that began, "Low and behold." That was almost as painful to read as "it's" standing in for the possessive form of the pronoun. It's not "low" but "lo" in the context of the expression. Ah, but you might say, "lo" is not a word. True, we don't use it, but in the context of the expression, it's a shortened form of "look." That's the explanation offered in http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/lo-and-behold.html:
" Lo in this and its other meaning, which is more akin to O!, has been in use since the first Millennium and appears in the epic poem Beowulf."
It also offers the first written record of the full phrse, "lo and behold"  in an 1808 letter in theCorrespondence 1787–1870, of Queen Victoria's lady of the bedchamber - Lady Sarah Spencer Lyttelton:

"Hartington... had just told us how hard he had worked all the morning... when, lo and behold! M. Deshayes himself appeared."

following the 9 yard trail

Today, when I looked up something else, I happened across several theories for the origin of the phrase "the whole 9 yards." If you would like to see them in a nutshell, check out the source for this graph http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-whole-whole-nine-yards-enchilida.html. It did leave out the suggestion that it was linked with wedding veils, as one of the writers quoted in  http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/504/whats-the-origin-of-the-whole-nine-yards/ declares. It also leaves out the idea that "A mediaeval test requiring the victim to walk nine paces over hot coals" which is mentioned in http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-whole-nine-yards.html However, that is rejected on the site because the presenter doesn't buy that a phrase from so long ago would only show up in print for the first time in 1962.

Punctuation, pronouns, and pet peeves

 From This Embarrasses You and I*Grammar Gaffes Invade the Office in an Age of Informal Email, Texting and Twitter"
"People get passionate about grammar," says Mr. Appleman, author of a book on business writing. They sure do, which is why this Wall Street Journal piece has garnered around 600 comments in just a few days. People chime in with their views on the LinkedIn groups I shared it on, as well
. 

Some of us mess up by accident when typos creep in or due to ignorance of the rules of grammar. One of the things that makes me cringe is seeing constructions like "whomsoever wrote this." In a way it's worse than using "who" where "whom" is warranted because the latter is accepted by some as a less formal, conversational style. The person who inserts the m where it is not needed, on the other hand, is trying to appear well-educated enough to know of the word "whom" while showing ignorance of the fact that it is not to be used as a subject pronoun. 

But the most common irritant is the misuse of apostrophes -- sprinkled over the letter s when just he plural form is needed and not the possessive -- or left in "it's" when the writer clearly means the possessive form rather than the contraction of "it is." 

Hopefully

I am old enough to remember being taught not to confuse "hopeful" with "I hope" or "we hope." I was also taught to draw a distinction between "healthy," which is what we hope to be, and "healthful," which was the correct term to describe the foods and activities that would contribute to our health. Ever hear anyone describe a low-fat diet as "healthful" today? No, people call it "healthy," and talk about eating "healthy" all the time. People also rarely use the term "hopefully" to mean "with hope," as they are usually using as a short form of "may it be so.

" A Washington Post article on the AP's official stamp of approval on the adjective "hopefully" functioning as "“It is hoped, we hope,” as it had to succumb to popular usage gave rise to an article in The Atlantic tthat argues that no regrets are necessary. Key quotes from the WP: "After all, 'English was created by barbarians, by a rabble of angry peasants,' McIntyre says. 'Because if it wasn’t, we would still be speaking Anglo-Saxon.' Or worse, French."
 Key quote from the Atlantic: "What this means is that in language and in clothing, there is no single standard any more, except at publications that rely steadfastly on a style guide and have the resources and skilled copy editors to enforce it. Often the issue is not the garment or the word, but how the wearer or user carries it off.

"This is the argument of those who take the attitude of anything goes, so long as meaning is effectively conveyed, against language purists who believe in preserving forms and Latin structures -- the type of people who are offended by split infinitives. I fall out somewhere in between the two extremes of these positions.