Wednesday, July 02, 2008
How Do You Abbrev. "Jeopardy"?
If you can't trust "Jeopardy," the most anal-retentive show on television, to get it exactly right, whom can you trust?
The long-reigning king of the trivia-based game shows seems to pride itself on getting things exactly right. At least it expects its contestants to, even to the point of ruling "men's rights" incorrect when the question makers were looking for "the rights of man" in a Thomas Paine answer/question that only wanted to know what he (Paine) was referring to in that particular one of his famous essays (they didn't specifically ask for the title, in other words).
So, if they're going to be at the Monk-level of obsession-compulsion, then it seems only fitting that "Jeopardy" get it precisely right also.
But the show doesn't when it puts commas outside end quotation marks, instead of inside them. That would be correct in England, not in America (which, as Thomas Paine and others ensured, has long since disowned its Motherland and her punctuation rules), and in the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
"Jeopardy" also seems to have trouble with differentiating between abbreviations and acronyms. It is true the two terms are almost interchangable, but the key word there is "almost." In general usage, an abbreviation is a condensed form of a word always followed with a period (abbrev., bldg., Ave., etc.), while an acronym is a shortened form of a word or phrase formed by the initial letters of the main word or words of a phrase or title, usually capitalized (CARE, UNESCO, GM, CEO, etc.). Sometimes, each letter of the acronym is followed by a period, but, more often these days, not.
So, when "Jeopardy" labels one of its categories "Abbrev." and then goes looking for answers that are acronyms (EOE, for example, from a recent show), it is at least less than exact in its labeling (especially since they also use a category labeled "Acronyms" from time to time).
Then, thirdly, there is the problem with the opening introduction of the current Jeopardy champion, at least when he/she has already won an amount ending in "001" -- as in $20,001. The announcer always tells us that he/she has won, and I quote, "20 thousand, 1 dollar."
Excuse me, but what controls the "number" of the word "dollar"? That would be 20,001, which, last time I checked, is plural in number. So, Johnny Gilbert, to be exactly correct, it seems to me you should be saying "20 thousand and 1 dollars," no? Only if the contestant has won just 1 dollar would the singular form of the noun be proper.
So, now, come on, favorite show of trivia and accuracy buffs like yours truly, get it as exactly correct as you expect your contestants to. Why? Because it is precisely the right thing to do.
The long-reigning king of the trivia-based game shows seems to pride itself on getting things exactly right. At least it expects its contestants to, even to the point of ruling "men's rights" incorrect when the question makers were looking for "the rights of man" in a Thomas Paine answer/question that only wanted to know what he (Paine) was referring to in that particular one of his famous essays (they didn't specifically ask for the title, in other words).
So, if they're going to be at the Monk-level of obsession-compulsion, then it seems only fitting that "Jeopardy" get it precisely right also.
But the show doesn't when it puts commas outside end quotation marks, instead of inside them. That would be correct in England, not in America (which, as Thomas Paine and others ensured, has long since disowned its Motherland and her punctuation rules), and in the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
"Jeopardy" also seems to have trouble with differentiating between abbreviations and acronyms. It is true the two terms are almost interchangable, but the key word there is "almost." In general usage, an abbreviation is a condensed form of a word always followed with a period (abbrev., bldg., Ave., etc.), while an acronym is a shortened form of a word or phrase formed by the initial letters of the main word or words of a phrase or title, usually capitalized (CARE, UNESCO, GM, CEO, etc.). Sometimes, each letter of the acronym is followed by a period, but, more often these days, not.
So, when "Jeopardy" labels one of its categories "Abbrev." and then goes looking for answers that are acronyms (EOE, for example, from a recent show), it is at least less than exact in its labeling (especially since they also use a category labeled "Acronyms" from time to time).
Then, thirdly, there is the problem with the opening introduction of the current Jeopardy champion, at least when he/she has already won an amount ending in "001" -- as in $20,001. The announcer always tells us that he/she has won, and I quote, "20 thousand, 1 dollar."
Excuse me, but what controls the "number" of the word "dollar"? That would be 20,001, which, last time I checked, is plural in number. So, Johnny Gilbert, to be exactly correct, it seems to me you should be saying "20 thousand and 1 dollars," no? Only if the contestant has won just 1 dollar would the singular form of the noun be proper.
So, now, come on, favorite show of trivia and accuracy buffs like yours truly, get it as exactly correct as you expect your contestants to. Why? Because it is precisely the right thing to do.
When It's Funtime Inside the Beltway
Most of what goes on inside the Beltway around Washington, D.C., normally would have to be labeled "tragedy" and/or "melodrama." But sometimes it becomes more "comedy" or "farce" than tragedy.
This week, for example, John McCain and his commander-in-chief, the Shrub (thank you, Molly Ivins), have been praising and taking some credit for the new GI Bill just passed by Congress. Nothing particularly hilarious about that until you recollect that Mr. Straight Talk Express and George H. W.'s idiot son opposed the bill when it was being debated by Congress, and McCain skipped town before it went to a vote.
But they keep contending that Sen. Obama is the real hypocrite. Guffaw, guffaw.
And in the very same week has come the dust-up over Wesley Clark's remark that McCain's years as a POW don't add up to a qualification to be president. My God, you wouldn't believe the outrage from the right wing and its water carriers (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Kristol, Goldberg, Cal Thomas, et al -- just in case you've forgotten who they were).
The wing-nuts from the right have accused Clark -- that would be Gen. Wesley Clark, ret. -- of questioning McCain's patriotism, his courage, and the admiration he has rightly received for both. It all makes a great counter-attack for the Republicans, who clearly would rather talk about anything but the real issues.
Problem is, when you're absolutely honest about it, Clark wasn't wrong. McCain's capture and imprisonment by the North Vietnamese was a terrible ordeal, and no one questions the patriotism or bravery inherent in his endurance of the horrific things he went through. But, viewed objectively, it is irrelevant to his ability to lead the country; being a prisoner of war does a lot of things to a person, but preparing him to assume a huge leadership role isn't one of them. McCain wasn't studying for his degree in business administration in the Hanoi Hilton.
No one but an experienced and highly decorated military man, like Clark, himself wounded four times during his career in the military, would understand; hired propagandists for the McCain campaign certainly wouldn't -- the worst torture they ever suffered through was having to listen to a Hillary campaign speech.
And at least Clark was diplomatic enough to not point out that the main thing McCain's experience in Vietnam proved was that he wasn't quite a good enough pilot to avoid getting shot down and captured. We'd never hear the end of that, would we? We would have been laughing all the way to the election over the reaction, though. And that's a good thing.
It only gets this humorous inside the Beltway.
This week, for example, John McCain and his commander-in-chief, the Shrub (thank you, Molly Ivins), have been praising and taking some credit for the new GI Bill just passed by Congress. Nothing particularly hilarious about that until you recollect that Mr. Straight Talk Express and George H. W.'s idiot son opposed the bill when it was being debated by Congress, and McCain skipped town before it went to a vote.
But they keep contending that Sen. Obama is the real hypocrite. Guffaw, guffaw.
And in the very same week has come the dust-up over Wesley Clark's remark that McCain's years as a POW don't add up to a qualification to be president. My God, you wouldn't believe the outrage from the right wing and its water carriers (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Kristol, Goldberg, Cal Thomas, et al -- just in case you've forgotten who they were).
The wing-nuts from the right have accused Clark -- that would be Gen. Wesley Clark, ret. -- of questioning McCain's patriotism, his courage, and the admiration he has rightly received for both. It all makes a great counter-attack for the Republicans, who clearly would rather talk about anything but the real issues.
Problem is, when you're absolutely honest about it, Clark wasn't wrong. McCain's capture and imprisonment by the North Vietnamese was a terrible ordeal, and no one questions the patriotism or bravery inherent in his endurance of the horrific things he went through. But, viewed objectively, it is irrelevant to his ability to lead the country; being a prisoner of war does a lot of things to a person, but preparing him to assume a huge leadership role isn't one of them. McCain wasn't studying for his degree in business administration in the Hanoi Hilton.
No one but an experienced and highly decorated military man, like Clark, himself wounded four times during his career in the military, would understand; hired propagandists for the McCain campaign certainly wouldn't -- the worst torture they ever suffered through was having to listen to a Hillary campaign speech.
And at least Clark was diplomatic enough to not point out that the main thing McCain's experience in Vietnam proved was that he wasn't quite a good enough pilot to avoid getting shot down and captured. We'd never hear the end of that, would we? We would have been laughing all the way to the election over the reaction, though. And that's a good thing.
It only gets this humorous inside the Beltway.
