A Kid In Italy Invented A New Word, Which Makes Me Happy

A petaloso moment in my St. Albans, Vermont
garden last summer. 

Language rules often don't make sense, and there's always a need for new words, in my opinion. Or at least revamped words.

For instance, I've always complained that you can have sunny days, but you can't have moony nights. Why? Must a night with a full moon in the sky be described as "moonlit?"  

What about butterflies? Shouldn't they be called flutterbys? After all, that's what they do.

This is why I found a soulmate in an elementary school kid in Italy. His name is Matteo, mine is Matt, so maybe that's a sign we have the same mentality.

What happened was, his teacher was mystified by a word Matteo used in a writing assignment. It was "petaloso."

It's an Italian word that doesn't really exist, at least not yet, in any Italian dictionary.

The word is a combination of "petalo," meaning petals with the suffix "-oso" meaning full of.

Matteo, 8, used the word "petaloso" when describing a flower that was full of petals. The word totally makes sense.

Matteo's teacher said his use of the word "petalolso" was wrong because the word, at least up until that point, didn't really exist. But next to her red "X" she wrote that Matteo made a "beautiful mistake."

I'll say.

Now, there's a drive to make the word "petaloso" an official word in the Italian dictionary. Hell, it belongs in English dictionaries, too, in my opinion.

The drive to make "petaloso" a word got an early boost when Matteo, with the help of us teacher, wrote to the Accademia delia Crusca, the institution that oversees the use of the Italian language, to ask for their opinion, reports the BBC.

The reply soon came from one of the Accademia leading linguists: "The word you invented is well formed and could be used in the Italian language..It is beautiful and clear.'

However, in order for a word to be a real part of the Italian language, a large proportion of the population must use it and understand its definition.

The linguist from the Accademia wrote Matteo: "If you manage to spread the word among many people who start saying, 'What a petaloso flower this is!', then petaloso will have become a word in Italian."

So Matteo and his teacher started spreading the word, and I'm happy to report "petaloso" has gone viral. The word has been used at least 80,000 times on Facebook and 40,000 on Twitter, says the BBC. 

As noted, I think "petaloso" should become a word in the English language, too. Many English words are derived from others in different languages, and this one would work, too.

Spring is just around the corner. My perennial gardens will soon (I hope!) explode with a wide variety of flowers. In other words, my gardens will be petaloso. It's a beautiful word that I hope to use  many more times in the future.

Hated Words Are Worth Hating.

The list of words deemed most
obnoxious for 2014.  

Every year, I give a big cheer to Lake Superior State University, who around New Year's Eve, release what they call their list of "words banished from the Queen's English for mis-use, over-use andgeneral uselessness."

The 2014 list did not disappoint.

LSSU "celebrate" the torture we all experienced hearing about that "cra-cra" "polar vortex" in which we must "curate" speakers "bae" who have the "skill set" to "hack" ways to deal with "foodies" who can't manage their "swag" in such cold conditions because they didn't get a good "takeaway"

To translate the above sentence,  We dealt with a crazy cold snap and gathered speakers to talk about it before anyone else. Those speakers have the skills to give us tips on dealing with fans of food who can't manage their nice gifts because they didn't understand from previous experience how to do it.

A common theme among the words we should banish is that they are jargon. With the possible exception of "cra-cra," they are pretty much all jargon.

All these catch phrase words were promoted by stupid people who wanted to pretend to be smart. And pretentious. Then the curated, uh, sorry, freshly chosen new words were picked up by the general public, half mockingly, I'm sure. Then, unconsciously, since it seemed everybody was saying these words, the rest of us had to join the fun.

The word "curate" really sticks in my craw. The word was once limited to choosing what would be the best stuff to put in a high end art gallery or museum.  You're special and important if you "curate," so the hucksters and marketers want us to believe that if we're dealing with whatever crap they're selling, we "curate" it.

People apparently wanted to be part of the pretentiousness of the curating scene, so any time you gather anything, even dog poop from the lawn, or lint from your belly button, you are apparently "curating."

The word "hack" is meant to make you sound cool and edgy and crafty and mysterious. Like some sexy, trendy and stylishly geeky computer guy or gal.

Of course, the word "hack" just means helpful tips, like household cleaning guidance with Hints From Heloise.

I guess if I've found a better way to clean out the mold sticking to the butter compartment in my refrigerator, I'm as much of a hacker as the people who broke into Sony's computer system.

The weather jargon involved in "polar vortex" really drove me and everyone nuts. Me, especially since I'm a weather geek.

"Polar vortex" used to be a perfectly fine pair of words. It referred to a circulation of very cold air that almost always wanders around the Arctic, or points nearby.

Last January, however, the damn polar vortex drifted too far south, like it sometimes does, close to the media maw of the northeastern United States.

Some weather forecaster with perfect TV hair somewhere mentioned it, and we all went into a tizzy because the "polar vortex" was making us put on our long underwear and ear muffs.

From then on, anytime someone somewhere felt even vaguely chilly, we screamed Polar Vortex! Polar Vortex!

Somehow, I think they'll work in some cartoonish polar vortex type thing in the next Sharknado movie. Just because "polar vortex" so badly jumped the shark in 2014.

I'm sick of "foodie," too. Where I live in Vermont, we're blessed with a lot of awesome, innovative restaurants with an emphasis on fresh ingredients, products from local farms and a nice crunchy granola vibe.

Which means armies of "foodies" have invaded the state. Or, in plain English, people who like to eat. Like me.

Yes, I'll keep going to these nice restaurants and enjoying the dinners. But foodie, naw. As one of the commentators in the LSSU list of banned words, if you breathe air, are you an airie?

I've learned to stay away from some of the worst offenders. One of my jobs is to research conferences. One I found said for speakers, organizers "curated unique thought leaders," and one session offered "15 tips and tricks for community growth hacking."

That conference would make me sick enough to hack up a hairball. And curate it on the keynote speaker's podium, too.

Look, I sometimes fall into the bad habit of slipping into trendy jargon, too.

It's not like I object to new words, or new uses for existing words. The English language was never meant to be static. It changes as the needs, the worldview and the influence of the people who speak the language change.

Plus, the English language makes no sense, so why not make it worse by giving us misused words like "curate" and "hack"?

The rules of the English language have no consistency. We can have sunny days but not moony nights. Why aren't butterflies actually called "flutterbys" because that's what they do, right?

Why is it the dates are January fourth, fifth, sixth, etc, but we don't have January oneth, twoth or threeth? Why is it that in the summer, it can get hotter, but it can't get humider. It has to get "more humid."

Pick a method, for crissakes!

Yes, I feel some solidarity with the fine folks at Lake Superior State University, but it is a lost cause. Nobody will figure out this language we speak, and there will be a fresh supply of obnoxious buzzwords in 2015.

I think I'll just pull random letters out of the air and invent a buzzword. Here it is: "Xylvertese." I have no idea what it means yet.

Maybe you can come up with something.

English Language School Teacher Fired Over Blog About Homophones Because His Boss Thinks Homophones Are Totally Gay

This guy's language school blog
post about homophones got him fired. 

The English language can be tricky for those trying to learn it.  

There was a guy named Tim Torkildson at the Nomen Global Language Center who wrote a helpful blog post about homophones, which are words that sound the same but have completely different meanings.

Think "peal" and "peel" or "flour" and "flower."

Here's the "problem": The word "homophone" has "homo" in it. Torkildson's boss, Clarke Woodger, fired him, because the subject of homophones is just so gay.

Paul Rolly, writing in the Salt Lake Tribune, reported that Woodger complained that because of the blog, "now our school is going to be associated with homosexuality."

Actually, it wouldn't have, had Woodger not been so homophobic that any word with the word "homo" in it is totally gay.  

Um, can you have words that have a same-sex attraction toward each other?  

As Rolly reports:  "(Torkildson) knew the 'homo' part of the word could be politically charged, but he thought the explanation of that quirky part of the English language would be educational."

Boy, was it ever! I had no idea I should avoid words with the word "homo" in it, like "homosapien" or "homogenize" because they're so gay.

Torkildson said he wanted to teach the concept of homophones because such words are confusing to someone whose native language doesn't have that feature, Rolly reports.

However, Woodger said that most of his language school's students are at a basic level of English proficiency and are not ready to learn complex concepts like homophones.

This whole thing could get worse, though, if you consider another word for homophone is homonym.

Yep, as I said, the English language is just so queer.

Why Do Corporations Not Understand We All Roll Our Eyes At Corporate Speak

So, they're laying off a bunch of people at Patch, the local news arm of AOL.

According to Jim Romenesko, the head of AOL, Tim Armstrong, did not endear himself to many people when he reportedly fired a staffer during a conference call for taking photos during said conference call.

AOL CEO Tim Armstrong. Enough with the
corporate speak, Tim!  

Way to go, Tim! Are we a bit Nixonian or what?

But what bothered me at least as much as Armstrong's way to describe layoffs. They aren't layoffs. They're "impacts."

Impacts? Really? That's supposed to make everything OK?  "Hey, we're an impactful company!"  Yeah, real positive.

I wonder why some members of the corporate world don't understand why corporate speak doesn't help their cause.

"We're not downsizing. We're rightsizing!"  Which means firing a bunch of people.   That should make all the people who find themselves suddenly jobless totally happy.

Do the CEOs or whoever is in charge not see the entire nation rolling their eyes when they lapse into such language?

There's a whole web site devoted to corporate speak, which is entertaining to browse if you have time to waste. Most of the words are harmless, if obnoxious.

But trying to put a positive spin on something negative is just dishonest. Why would anyone want to buy a product or service from a company like that? Perhaps that's why they're circling the drain in the first place.

Getting back to AOL Chief Armstrong, he's clearly a big fan of corporate speak. Here's part of a memo to employees during a 2011 round of layoffs:

"The structural changes at AOL are possible because of the progress we have made as a team in the last 12 months. The majority of our sites have materially improved their customer experiences, our advertising business continues to get healthier and more innovative, our video position is strengthening everyday, or local footprint is quickly expanding, we are attraction some of the most talented people in the world to work at AOL, and our technology infrastructure is simpler and more robust. AOL is a global brand and a global opportunity and we are doing the hard work that will once again make the company an industry leader."

As FishbowlLA pointed out, if you can interpret the jargon in that horrible paragraph, Armstrong is saying "These layoffs were made possible by all your hard work."

So, if you're going to lay off some employees, describe the move as layoffs. If you're downsizing, feel free to explain why, and why it will help the company.

Just stay away from the corporate speak, please, so that our rolling eyes don't end up rolling out our ears and onto the floor. It would make a mess. That one of your rightsized, er, downsized employees will have to clean up.