They Done Me Wrong
A very strange spelling on BoingBoing today:
BoingBoing reader polymorf says, "Job-search website Dice.com appears to be in cahoots with the Business Software Alliance (BSA). They're offering potential employees a big reward if they narq out their next potential employer for software piracy."
No, not "polymorf": it's someone's user name, and he can spell it however he likes. The word in question is "narq", which is just weird.
Oh, I know where it came from: it's based on the abbreviated spelling for "tranquilizer", which is "tranq". The trouble, of course, is that the correct word, "narc", is short for "narcotics officer", and there's not a "-q-" to be had anywhere in it, so "narq" is just plain wrong.
+
The writer or writers at The Consumerist has or have a rather shaky relationship to the finer points of the English language, alas. Just look at this sentence:
Why the letters may not resolve your issue, it may certainly be gratifying to befuddle your target into guilt and contrition.
It is, I suppose, possible that the writer did in fact mean to write "while" and accidentally wrote "why" and, since there clearly aren't any proofreaders at The Consumerist, the mistake slipped by; it could happen to anyone. But I think it's a lot more likely--based on the website's track record--that the writer really and truly does think that the correct word in that case is "why", and that's sad.
BoingBoing reader polymorf says, "Job-search website Dice.com appears to be in cahoots with the Business Software Alliance (BSA). They're offering potential employees a big reward if they narq out their next potential employer for software piracy."
No, not "polymorf": it's someone's user name, and he can spell it however he likes. The word in question is "narq", which is just weird.
Oh, I know where it came from: it's based on the abbreviated spelling for "tranquilizer", which is "tranq". The trouble, of course, is that the correct word, "narc", is short for "narcotics officer", and there's not a "-q-" to be had anywhere in it, so "narq" is just plain wrong.
+
The writer or writers at The Consumerist has or have a rather shaky relationship to the finer points of the English language, alas. Just look at this sentence:
Why the letters may not resolve your issue, it may certainly be gratifying to befuddle your target into guilt and contrition.
It is, I suppose, possible that the writer did in fact mean to write "while" and accidentally wrote "why" and, since there clearly aren't any proofreaders at The Consumerist, the mistake slipped by; it could happen to anyone. But I think it's a lot more likely--based on the website's track record--that the writer really and truly does think that the correct word in that case is "why", and that's sad.
posted by pyramus | 10:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home