Which is correct, "inalienable" or "unalienable"?
This aposite quiz for this particular alien romances blog is posed by legal blogger
Elizabeth Scott Moïse writing for Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP. in a fascinating article about the origins of the O.E.D.
https://www.nelsonmullins.com/idea_exchange/insights/the-scrivener-word-up
or
There are many more multiple choice vocabulary perfection tests, so please check it out.
Also worth reading: the argument presented by Authors Guild on why permissionless captioning is wrong and dangerous and not in the interests of culture and authors' rights.
https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/the-authors-guild-files-friend-of-the-court-brief-in-audible-captions-case/
Any traditionally published author, who has spent multiple hours striving with copy editors, editors and proof readers to perfect spelling, punctuation and grammar will understand how distressing it could be to see well-crafted script reduced to phonetically generated "captions". Any reasonably well read person who has turned on the captions function on television should see the potential problems.
AG is most persuasive.
Finally, and nothing to do with Sp/P/G, the 2015 Fresh Fiction hack has something in common with Groundhog Day. No matter how many times one changes ones passwords, it seeems, the hacks persist.
If you are not actively videoconferencing with someone, cover up the camera eye. Then, when/if you receive a well-written email from a shady someone trying to prove their bona fides by revealing your latest Fresh Fiction password, you will be less likely to believe that they truly have infected your device and taken naked pictures of you. Don't even open that email.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Showing posts with label words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label words. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Unjust Deserts
This opinion piece is not about a miscarriage of justice in the dunes, but about the destructive power of repetition of a particular word: "deserve".
A purveyor of a skin care regimen says that if you have breakouts, you "deserve results" so you should use its products.
A Medicare Advantage plan spokesman querulously says, "I wasn't getting all the benefits I deserve..."
An eloquence of lawyers promise to "fight for the compensation you deserve", or "the settlement you deserve," or the "results you deserve", or most blatantly, "the money you deserve". One offers representation for "deserving victims".
(For a compendium of collective nouns such as "eloquence of lawyers", look here: https://7esl.com/collective-nouns/ )
A laser surgery provider claims that viewers "deserve the difference..." that that provider makes.
"Get the relief you deserve," boasts a circulation boosting product.
"The justice you deserve," promises a body camera marketer.
"... women are standing up for what they deserve..." which turns out to be vaginal lubrication jelly. Ouch.
"You deserve" = "You are entitled".
Why is anyone entitled to flawless skin, silver sneaker gym membership, compensation, relief, the right to video record strangers without their knowledge or permission? The answer is, one is not entitled. One "deserves" that for which one pays. Those who do not shell out, are by implied definition "undeserving". If some victims are "deserving", by what criteria are other victims not deserving?
Netflix told us, perhaps tongue in cheek, that Frank Underwood was "the leader we deserve". Until he wasn't. This point was made in a fascinating NY Post article that charts the migration of "deserve" language from product hype to political language.
https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/what-americans-deserve-how-politics-copied-advertising/
Well, slogan writing is writing. Speech writing is writing. Awareness of words, their power, and how they are used is the bailiwick of the writer. A writer should be curious and inquisitive. Is the popularity of "deserve" mere imitation, laziness, a tried-and-true signature tag of one advertising house, or could one float a conspiracy theory?
If writing the backstory of a dystopian novel, would one include the concept of "deserve" or something similar to divide and rule, to overthrow and subjugate and stir discord?
Does hearing "you deserve..." tend to make discontented those who cannot afford to buy that (product) which they allegedly would deserve, if they did buy it.
Words, like water, have power to undermine, to create sinkholes, to wear away stone. In this age of television, film, internet, social media, the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," is no longer true.
If you do a search for "Deserve", you will find some pretty ugly posters.
By the way, of the new "words" added to the dictionary last year, perhaps the saddest is TL:DR (too long, did not read).
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
A purveyor of a skin care regimen says that if you have breakouts, you "deserve results" so you should use its products.
A Medicare Advantage plan spokesman querulously says, "I wasn't getting all the benefits I deserve..."
An eloquence of lawyers promise to "fight for the compensation you deserve", or "the settlement you deserve," or the "results you deserve", or most blatantly, "the money you deserve". One offers representation for "deserving victims".
(For a compendium of collective nouns such as "eloquence of lawyers", look here: https://7esl.com/collective-nouns/ )
A laser surgery provider claims that viewers "deserve the difference..." that that provider makes.
"Get the relief you deserve," boasts a circulation boosting product.
"The justice you deserve," promises a body camera marketer.
"... women are standing up for what they deserve..." which turns out to be vaginal lubrication jelly. Ouch.
"You deserve" = "You are entitled".
Why is anyone entitled to flawless skin, silver sneaker gym membership, compensation, relief, the right to video record strangers without their knowledge or permission? The answer is, one is not entitled. One "deserves" that for which one pays. Those who do not shell out, are by implied definition "undeserving". If some victims are "deserving", by what criteria are other victims not deserving?
Netflix told us, perhaps tongue in cheek, that Frank Underwood was "the leader we deserve". Until he wasn't. This point was made in a fascinating NY Post article that charts the migration of "deserve" language from product hype to political language.
https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/what-americans-deserve-how-politics-copied-advertising/
Well, slogan writing is writing. Speech writing is writing. Awareness of words, their power, and how they are used is the bailiwick of the writer. A writer should be curious and inquisitive. Is the popularity of "deserve" mere imitation, laziness, a tried-and-true signature tag of one advertising house, or could one float a conspiracy theory?
If writing the backstory of a dystopian novel, would one include the concept of "deserve" or something similar to divide and rule, to overthrow and subjugate and stir discord?
Does hearing "you deserve..." tend to make discontented those who cannot afford to buy that (product) which they allegedly would deserve, if they did buy it.
Words, like water, have power to undermine, to create sinkholes, to wear away stone. In this age of television, film, internet, social media, the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," is no longer true.
If you do a search for "Deserve", you will find some pretty ugly posters.
By the way, of the new "words" added to the dictionary last year, perhaps the saddest is TL:DR (too long, did not read).
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Here Be... Cookies, To Turn A Phrase, and Ivanka Trump
Periodic reminder:
European law requires us (the authors of this blog) to remind European visitors that Google, host of Blogger, places cookies on the devices of all visitors. We (the authors) have no control over the cookies that Blogger/Google places on your devices, and if you visit this blog, we assume that you consent to the cookies.
Talking of European cookie law:
The law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP recently wrote about European proposed e-privacy rules that may be adopted early in 2018.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=27f712c9-a547-4253-8a9e-566518dbfe29&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=
Honestly, I do not believe that the authors of this blog have any access at all to visitors' data, email addresses or anything else (unless you leave a comment, and mostly, you don't). There does seem to be a visitor counter at the very bottom of the blog page, and according to the above referenced law firm, visitor counters do not require the consent of visitors.
On "60 Ways..." not to leave your lover but "To Turn A Phrase":
In an interesting article about how he advises clients on creating unique and memorable trademarks, Nexsen Pruett refers to "Figures of Speech or 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase" by Arthur Quinn.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a95e16c3-9634-4602-929a-982ac0f267a8&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=
Read Nexsen Pruett's blog if you are thinking of getting a trademark (mine is Space Snark and I did not take this expert's advice). I'm thinking of buying the late Arthur Quinn's paperback. However, it is short and expensive, and Google Books helpfully reveals quite a lot of the content (very interesting content on use of misspelled words), Pages 12-24 consecutively and in full, for instance.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Figures_of_Speech.html?id=jjfAJwB6FoUC
And a search of "And" reveals "To And or Not To And" pages 1 to 9 inclusive. It's a mystery to me how Authors Guild lost that lawsuit, and this is totally lawful.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XFLFiE2kn1QC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Last but not least,
I bought an Ivanka Trump dress last week. It was marked down at T J Maxx, and was well made, flattering, and a modest length. I cannot say the same about the length, of a Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm's article about artists piling on Ivanka Trump because their artwork shows on her home's walls in the background of her selfies.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a40e7d1-2a79-4216-b364-505f79e9d2fa&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-11&utm_term=
If the late Prince and his music publishers could not prevail in the Dancing Baby case for his music playing in the background of a home movie, it's even more likely to be fair use for whatever one has permanently displayed on ones walls to be in the background of personal photographs.
It might be a different matter if the lady were taking high quality photos of just the artwork and selling prints, but she is not doing that.
The legal blogger (Ms Pillsbury) makes excellent points about Fair Use as regards background images in non-commercial social media type posts on Instagram.
Authors might extrapolate something to consider before taking photographs to promote their own books if there are prominent and clear images of more famous authors' works in the background. It's not cool to use--or tag-- another author's name (without permission) to promote oneself.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
European law requires us (the authors of this blog) to remind European visitors that Google, host of Blogger, places cookies on the devices of all visitors. We (the authors) have no control over the cookies that Blogger/Google places on your devices, and if you visit this blog, we assume that you consent to the cookies.
Talking of European cookie law:
The law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP recently wrote about European proposed e-privacy rules that may be adopted early in 2018.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=27f712c9-a547-4253-8a9e-566518dbfe29&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=
Honestly, I do not believe that the authors of this blog have any access at all to visitors' data, email addresses or anything else (unless you leave a comment, and mostly, you don't). There does seem to be a visitor counter at the very bottom of the blog page, and according to the above referenced law firm, visitor counters do not require the consent of visitors.
On "60 Ways..." not to leave your lover but "To Turn A Phrase":
In an interesting article about how he advises clients on creating unique and memorable trademarks, Nexsen Pruett refers to "Figures of Speech or 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase" by Arthur Quinn.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a95e16c3-9634-4602-929a-982ac0f267a8&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=
Read Nexsen Pruett's blog if you are thinking of getting a trademark (mine is Space Snark and I did not take this expert's advice). I'm thinking of buying the late Arthur Quinn's paperback. However, it is short and expensive, and Google Books helpfully reveals quite a lot of the content (very interesting content on use of misspelled words), Pages 12-24 consecutively and in full, for instance.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Figures_of_Speech.html?id=jjfAJwB6FoUC
And a search of "And" reveals "To And or Not To And" pages 1 to 9 inclusive. It's a mystery to me how Authors Guild lost that lawsuit, and this is totally lawful.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XFLFiE2kn1QC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Last but not least,
I bought an Ivanka Trump dress last week. It was marked down at T J Maxx, and was well made, flattering, and a modest length. I cannot say the same about the length, of a Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm's article about artists piling on Ivanka Trump because their artwork shows on her home's walls in the background of her selfies.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a40e7d1-2a79-4216-b364-505f79e9d2fa&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-11&utm_term=
If the late Prince and his music publishers could not prevail in the Dancing Baby case for his music playing in the background of a home movie, it's even more likely to be fair use for whatever one has permanently displayed on ones walls to be in the background of personal photographs.
It might be a different matter if the lady were taking high quality photos of just the artwork and selling prints, but she is not doing that.
The legal blogger (Ms Pillsbury) makes excellent points about Fair Use as regards background images in non-commercial social media type posts on Instagram.
Authors might extrapolate something to consider before taking photographs to promote their own books if there are prominent and clear images of more famous authors' works in the background. It's not cool to use--or tag-- another author's name (without permission) to promote oneself.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
