Word Confusion

 In my profession, words matter.  I've always appreciated a clever turn of phrase, or a witty rejoinder or a pithy remark.  By no means do I consider myself a wordsmith, but as a spectator of language, of sorts, I'm unnecessarily critical of the misuse and abuse that goes on with the English language.  I can't help it:  I hear something that's amiss and it grates.  I have no right to be so critical; as I've said, I'm no wordsmith.  But I appreciate when the language is used beautifully, so I'm critical when it's misused.  

Every day, someone in the media or in entertainment misspeaks and says something to butcher the English language.  Here are but a few of the ones that irk me.

When singing the national anthem, the word perilous has various pronunciations.  Forget about the extraneous yodeling -- bothersome in and of itself -- but the word perilous can be pronounce as PAIR uh lis, as opposed to PAIR i lus.  Focus, people, focus.

Sad or tragic events are referred to as heart-wrenching.  Hearts are rent, not wrenched.  One wrenches a gut but rends a heart:  Heart-rending and gut-wrenching are the expressions.

For those wishing to sound sophisticated, from whence is uttered when someone wants to say from where.  The only trouble with this pseudo-sophistication is that whence already means from where, making from whence from from where.  It's a bit redundant.

On the mindless romantic shows (Love is Blind, The Bachelor, etc.) people speak of their journeys, their chemistry and their connections.  These have been beaten to death so much they're glue now.  Find better words.

In a similar vein, every year there seems to be a word previously in the shadows that becomes fashionable.  A few years back the word icon and its adjectival form iconic were in vogue.  They have been so overused that something or someone that is highly visible or successful is now an icon or iconic.  If that's the case, everything is so iconic that nothing is iconic any longer.  Recently, the word kinetic has gained traction.  I fear for its overuse.

The word none is abused daily.  None comes from no one.  That means it's singular, not plural.  Nevertheless, it's almost always used as a plural:  There are none in here...

...Similarly, there is and there are have morphed into there is.  There's at least fifty ways to do that....  We can do better.

In church, whenever a layman leads a prayer, the word just is overused.  For example:  Lord, we are just so happy to praise You and just ask that you protect us and guide us as we just try to honor You and live the life You want us to lead.  We're simply sinners who are just trying to live our lives according to Your dictates.  We just want to love You and honor You as you deserve....  Humbly could substitute for just a couple of times...just to mix it up.

This reminds me one time where I prepared a client for a deposition.  I advised the client that in the event he couldn't remember something exactly he should qualify it by saying as far as I recall, if I remember correctly, I'm not sure but, approximately, etc., but to alternate which phrase he was using.  In the deposition the client got so nervous that he got so nervous that he used approximately every time he tried to qualify an answer.  It didn't sound like he was programmed at all....

As a Spanish-speaker, it irks me when someone wants to sound sophisticated and throw a Spanish word into a speech.  I should be happy.  But in the current climate where bad men from foreign lands have invaded our country, talking heads like to talk about bad hombres, but mispronounce hombre as hambre.  So much for sophistication:  hambre means hunger, not man.

Who v. Whom.  The endless debate from people who don't know the difference.  They misuse whom to sound sophisticated.  Ugh.

Likewise, the use of you and I when it should be you and me is grating.  I is a subject pronoun; Me is a prepositional pronoun.  If the usage is uncertain, take away the you and and see how it sounds.

We all get tongue-tied, trip over our words, have senior moments.  But it's easy to discern when someone is simply making a mistake versus not knowing the correct usage in the first place.

(c) 2025 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Medicine v. the Law

 I'm an attorney.  I enjoy being an attorney on most days.  This doesn't mean that I'm enamored of  all coworkers who have law licenses.  Many of my brethren are cretins at best and snakes at worst.  There's a reason we have disbarment proceedings.  Still, for every bad attorney there are a hundred -- if not hundreds -- of fine, ethical practioners whom I proudly view as correligionists.

The same, I assume, holds true for medical doctors.  Our primary physician is a lovely man.  I've had many a good doctor treat me and bring me back from the brink of death...or at least guide me back to the path of healthiness.  I can't really complain too much about the care I've received from the medical profession.  

But when it comes to communication, the medical profession could learn a thing or two from us attorneys.

Back in November I was diagnosed first with atrial fibrillation, then with heart failure including a blood clot in the base of my heart.  Had the clot broken loose and traveled to my brain, I could have had a stroke -- and died.  Thankfully -- obviously -- that didn't happen.  But not because of the transparent communication involving the medical community.

I was originally scheduled for some test at the beginning of November before any of this was known.  Unfortunately, when I showed up on November 12 for the scheduled procedure, I was told it had been postponed to a later date and that I had been called regarding the postponement the weekend before.  But when I checked my phone messages, there was nary a call from the hospital  The reason for the delay was an anticipated work stoppage, which never occurred.

Then I had to have a nuclear stress test of the heart.  Because I had to be careful with my court schedule, I inquired as to how long the test would be.  I was told that it would only take an hour and a half; because it was scheduled for first thing in the morning, I would be able to attend the Zoom court hearing after the procedure ended.  But when I came in for the procedure and confirmed the timing of the procedure, I was told that the hour and a half was only the first half of the procedure, that to complete it would take another hour and a half.  Fortunately, I was able to come back the next day to complete the procedure.

Then there was the initial meeting with the cardiologist.  I was told to be there at 7.30 for an 8a consultation.  At 8.20a the cardiologist sauntered in.  When I told him I had to leave by 8.45a to make it back to my office in time for a 10a hearing, he said, "But this consultation lasts an hour!"  I left promptly at 8.45a leaving Karen to finish the consultation.

I was then scheduled for a heart catheterization in mid-February.  I was to be there over the weekend, including President's Day, to minimize time off from work.  I waited until 5p on Saturday to be admitted...and I had to call to find out I could come to the hospital.  Then, in the meeting with the cardiologist on Sunday, the scheduler answered the cardiologist that I wasn't scheduled for a catheterization!  Both the cardiologist and I nearly lost it.

Today, I was called about the procedure I was scheduled to have tomorrow.  The caller began reviewing the medicines I've been taking and when we got to one of them, I answered that I took my pill this morning as instructed.  Apparently, I should have ceased taking that pill -- and a shot I get weekly that I took Monday -- on Monday.  Because I didn't, my procedure has to be reschedule for next Friday.

I'm not a med-mal attorney, so I don't know if any of these lapses qualify as malpractice.  But had anything happened to me because of the miscommunication and attendant delays, Karen may well have hit the lottery.

(c) 2025 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles