“In Pennsylvania, outside Pittsburgh, Republicans defeated Democrat Mark Critz in what was one of the year’s most expensive races, with both sides spending a combined $13.7 million.”

“Tux and Xedo are a brother/sister pair that were bottle-raised from 5 days old. Both are nearly identical with black and white tuxedo markings and deep amber eyes.”

Advertisement

Avoid redundancy and confusion by not overusing both, whether dealing with candidates or kittens. In the first example, make it “… with the two sides spending a combined $13.7 million”; in the second, substitute “They” for “Both”.

The first is an example of journalistic negligence too, I suspect. If one side spent considerably more than the other, as probably happened in this case, the reporter should have proceeded to give the amount for each. To do otherwise implies that the two sides are equally culpable. Reporters do that a lot, trying to appear objective, but often the attempt only misleads their readers. Opposing sides are not always equally at fault. They weren’t at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese might say that the opposing sides weren’t equally at fault for what happened at Hiroshima either.

Advertisement

 

“McConnell took the studs when it was suggested that he should work with the president.” I saw a mention of “took the studs” by The Word Detective the other day, and it took me back. My father used that expression, but I haven’t heard it in years. The Dictionary of American Regional English says that “studs” in this case is “a fit of stubborn opposition, balkiness,” usually appearing in the phrase “take [or took] the studs.” DARE says the expression is found mainly in the South, and gives this example:

Advertisement

“We was doin’ all right till ol’ Deacon Jones took the studs, but it ain’t no more use talking no more tonight.” DARE does not explain the origin.

 

Advertisement

Stanley Johnson saw a newspaper column in which “something was described, a new trend of some kind, perhaps, as ‘hovering’ into view. That is of course wrong. The writer meant something was approaching, probably gradually. Things that hover are already where they are going. It occurs to me that the writer had some unconscious recollection of the somewhat nautical phrase ‘hove into view,’ ‘hove’ being the past tense. I don’t remember ever encountering the present tense. ‘Heave into view’ sounds like something that should be confined to the bathroom.” Some years ago, I heard a lady just back from vacation talk about riding on a Hoovercraft. Only hours later did I realize what she meant. 

Invest in the future of great journalism in Arkansas

Join the ranks of the 63,000 Facebook followers, 58,000 Twitter followers, 35,000 Arkansas blog followers, and 70,000 daily email blasts who know that the Arkansas Times is the go-to source for tough, determined, and feisty journalism that holds the powerful accountable. For 50 years, our progressive, alternative newspaper in Little Rock has been on the front lines of the fight for truth, and with your support, we can do even more. By subscribing or donating to the Arkansas Times, you'll not only have access to all of our articles, but you'll also be helping us hire more writers and expand our coverage. Don't miss out on the opportunity to make a difference with your subscription or donation to the Arkansas Times today.

Previous article The Tuesday night line Next article The morning report: Abortion, lottery, bonuses for elected officials