Bastardization of words

My problem with "on the season" is I believe if it's to be used that way it should be "this" season.

"The Dodgers are 39-21 this season." (not "39-21 on the season.")

"BBAM is 9-3 this season with a .033 ERA."

I abhor "BBAM is 9-3 on the season with a .033 ERA" or "The Seahawks are 3-8 on the season and out of the playoffs."

Putting something "on" anything means it's on an object. You put an apple on the table. How can you put an ERA or team record or statistic on a season? You can't.

Why not say "Jimmy Jack has nine goals this season" and avoid the weird (and most TV) usage?



There can be a difference between a murder and a grisly murder.

I can shoot you with a rifle and it will be bad. But I can stab you, beat you, chop off your arms, smash your head and write things on the wall of your house in blood. That's grisly.

A guy can have a car accident and die from hitting his head on the steering wheel. A guy who's head is split open like an egg and his bloody brains are splattered throughout the glass-covered interior died in a grisly accident.

 

But a murder by grizzly is pretty much always gonna be grisly.

 

I know it's now metastasized into common speech, but how can I forget one of my absolute bugaboos: inanimate objects seeing things.

Example: Harrington and Furyk both birdied four holes on a Mid Ocean Club course that saw 20 mph winds buffet most holes. Or "Trevor Immelman bogeyed the fifth hole, the same hole that once saw Babe Ruth take an 11."

No. No it didn't see the Babe take an 11 OR Immelman bogey it. The hole doesn't have eyes. It can't see.

It can, however, bug the shite out of me when I see it in print.

 

One of my pet peeves, Birdscribe.

I will rewrite the sentence every time someone writes "in a game that saw..."
The game can't see shit.

 

I'm a hater of "finished with". As in Billy Bob finished with 16 points. Well he started at zero, so you can pretty much guess that if he had 16 points in the gamer that's what he finished with.
And I still see too many people who get paid to write who don't know how to use:
who's and whose
their and there
your and you're

It saddens me when things like that happen.

 

I see your point, Bird.

Another of mine is "suffer/sustained" as in "He suffered a broken leg" or "He sustained a broken nose."

In addition to being lazy and a misuse of the words, they almost make very poor verbs.

How about instead: "He shattered his right tibia or His broken nose was cracked back into place and he went back onto the field."

At the least, "He broke his right leg."

 

Yeah, but did Joe Theismann break his leg or did Lawrence Taylor break his leg? Sometimes you break your leg, sometimes your leg gets broken for you.

Either way, it can be grisly. Oh the humanity.

 

Lawrence Taylor snapped Joe Theismann's leg like a twig.

 

Makes sense.

 

"this season" isn't even needed unless you're referencing previous seasons.

So there's another coupla words to whack. Coupla is a good bastard word, too, along with woulda and gonna.

 

Actually, even the "this season" is unnecessary and extraneous.

If I write "Jones is 9-3 with a 3.49 ERA" I'm certainly talking about "this season"

"Ryan Howard's 44th home run gave the Phils a 6-3 lead" .. obviously, it wasn't his 44th home run of the game, must be "this season"

 

Of course.

But why should we have to include "this season" at all? We should not always have to write to the lowest intelligence level. If someone can't understand it's his 44th homer of the season then they need help.