I just saw a commercial for the sleep aid Ambien, and a thought occurred to me:  it’s a fairly clever title if you think about it.

The first syllable contains the abbreviation for morning, and the second and third syllables are a word that means “good” in French and Spanish.  So roughly translated into English (if you’re a little liberal with the use of an adverb in place of an adjective), Ambien could be mean “good morning.”

Somebody probably got paid the big bucks for that.

I think I’ve mentioned already somewhere during the Arch-a-thon that I have started running the lighting during church services. I’m one of two people who do that, and this experience has, thankfully, given me the opportunity to work closely with Archie, who is in charge of the overall presentation of the worship service.

I have also had to work on my fear of heights, since changing burnt-out light bulbs involves going up either in a scissor lift or a scaffolding. The height is only about twenty-five feet or so, unless you’re actually up there, at which point it suddenly becomes about five hundred.

One afternoon during a half-day I took from work, I met Archie at the church and we went up into the lighting grid to make some adjustments, replace a few bulbs. While I was up in this scaffolding, I got a call from work. I wouldn’t have answered it, but since it was from work, I figured I should see if something was the matter.

It was.

One of my producers was calling to tell me that an entire disc drive full of projects we had recently completed had been accidentally erased. There was nothing that could be done to recover all of this stuff as far as anyone knew, he said, but they were trying to see if they could find a way.

In television, “salty” language is pretty much the norm. We say things that wouldn’t make a pastor all that pleased sometimes. But before I could say what might have been the typical “first thing that came to mind,” I heard a voice in my head:

“You’re in a church. Five hundred feet up in a scaffolding. With one of your closest friends…who happens to be a pastor. Don’t cuss.”

I looked at Archie and then I said, “Well, if it’s gone, it’s gone.” I managed to refrain from saying, “Good boy” in that sweet way when you praise a puppy for doing business on the paper rather than on the carpet.

But my first response in that situation was not the best one at the time, though it might have felt as if it were.

Funny thing about Archie: he has made me start thinking about things like that, without really trying to. And I think that’s one reason why his friendship has been such a good thing.

When I took Spanish in high school, on the very first day, our teacher gave us new names.

And it really ticked me off.

Eddie became Eduardo. Elaine became Eléna. Kyle became Guillermo, which is technically the Spanish form of William, because there’s apparently nothing in Spanish that works as Kyle.

Other than Kyle, of course.

And I went from Patrick to Patrício. Say it with me: pa-TREE-see-oh. Sometimes, in what seemed an attempt to sound more authentic, they would adjust the transition from the first to second syllable and make it sound more like “pa-THREE-see-oh.” Dont really understand how you can get that pronunciation because it doesn’t follow the simple rules of the Spanish language; then again, I still haven’t figured out why my dad insists on pronouncing the sixth state admitted into the union as “mass-a-TOO-sets.”

Looking back on it now, it almost made me sound like a character from Star Wars. But as I said, back then, it ticked me off. Big time.

“This is what you’d be called if you went to Spain or Mexico,” our teacher tried to explain.

No, I thought, Patrick is what I’d be called if I went to a country where Spanish was the predominate language. Because I’d insist on being called Patrick, which is my name, instead of Patricio, which is not my name.

And to be fair, and for precisely the same reason, when I encounter someone of Hispanic origin whose name is Tomás, I call him Tomás, and pronounce it “toe-MASS,” not “TOM-us,” the way English-speaking people pronounce Thomas.

I don’t try to “Americanize” someone’s name because they’re in America. And I’d expect the same courtesy.

I realize this “renaming convention” was a quick and easy way for changes in pronunciation patterns could be introduced easily. And when you start with someone’s name, that certainly gets their attention.

Trouble is, it’s a double standard to expect someone to learn someone else’s language so that you can communicate, then expect the other person to learn nothing of your own.

It’s like those people who get bent out of shape any time someone tries to introduce a bill to make English the “official” language of the United States. The presumption in many cases is that this is intended to be discrimination against Hispanics. And I’m quite sure that in some cases, that’s a big part of the motivation.

At the same time, wouldn’t it be considered arrogant of us “spoiled” Americans to move to a country where English didn’t have a strong foothold and expect everyone else to just start speaking our way? Wouldn’t we be in the wrong if we moved somewhere that was not already equipped with bilingual road signs and government communications and start demanding that everything be redone to include English just because it’s what we speak, and what we want to keep speaking?

And let’s be really clear for a moment:  this has nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with illegal immigration.  There are people of every race, origin and creed who are here absolutely legally, and they still face the same obstacles.  Set aside your feelings about the illegals and focus on your fellow citizens.

“But America is supposed to be a melting pot,” someone out there is saying. True. But as people add themselves to the mix, shouldn’t the mix be influenced by the additions rather than being completely overtaken by them?  Isn’t that what finding some kind of common ground is about?

No, this isn’t some lame attempt just to get some comments:  actually, I just want to make sure that the latest spam-catcher that I installed in the background isn’t blocking anyone.  So please say hello.  Comment moderation is still on, so your comment won’t necessarily appear immediately, but you should get a notice that your comment is in the moderation queue.

By the way, ever notice how strange the word queue looks spelled out?  I had to do a double-take just to make sure I hadn’t spelled it wrong.

Strange language, English.

UPDATE:  Because of comment spammers, I’m closing comments for this particular post.  Thanks to those who were willing to help me test out comment moderation.  Now that it’s clear that it is working, there’s no need to keep this one open.

South Carolina has dropped out of an ad campaign that was designed to lure gay tourism dollars to the state. The state’s Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department had previously agreed to spend $5,000, not a huge amount of money as ad dollars go, to market to gays in London.

Charleston’s Post and Courier describes one ad that appeared in a London tube station as showing a historic rural home under the headline, “South Carolina is so gay.”

True to form, bible-belt red-state South Carolinians reacted by flying off the deep end. Sure, they want tourist dollars, but just not from them. Even though “them” is a relatively powerful tourist force, according to a Philadelphia study a few years ago, which revealed that for every dollar that city spent on gay tourism advertising, gay tourists spent an average of $153 on hotels, shops and more. At the time, gay tourists were said to spend about $54 billion a year on travel. That’s billion. With a B.

And it’s just a guess on my part, mind you, but I’ll wager those billions are still green like everyone else’s. And still spends, in a sluggish economy, the same.

The problem, according to PRT excuses, was that international advertising wasn’t subjected to the same review process that national advertising is because in this case, a third party firm developed the ad. Does that explanation make any damn sense to anyone? PRT only cares enough to be mindful of the image it is projecting to places like Iowa or Oregon or Minnesota, but doesn’t give a hoot about pulling in tourism dollars from the rest of the planet? And unless PRT has its own ad agency and never uses any third party firms here in the state — which is unlikely — most of their ad projects are ultimately produced or executed by third parties.

And isn’t that what we’d expect, no matter what an international ad said? Who’d know what would appeal to any specific segment of London’s population better than a London-based firm, or at least someone here is from there?

Sounds to me like an excuse about as logical as something a kid would make up after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Is the ad wrong to use the term gay? Well, let’s look at it this way: would there be any objection from gay groups if South Carolina hoped to attract bible belt tourists to the state with the line, “South Carolina is so straight?” If anyone would have a problem with that, but not the gay line, then what we’re dealing with here is a nice little double standard.

Of course, then there are the ones who’ll try to downplay the whole thing by hiding behind dictionary definitions. Gay has different meanings, they’ll say.

True.

Gay means happy and carefree, although it is used less and less for that these days because “them homasexshals” took over the word.

Gay is also used, mostly by people who aren’t, to refer to something that is screwed up, backwards.

Some would argue after this little display of homophobia and/or sloppy procedure and/or poor judgment, depending on your personal point of view, that maybe, one way or another, the headline isn’t so inaccurate after all.

For loyal viewers of the CBS comedy All in the Family, it probably wasn’t particularly surprising to see the show take on a controversial topic. But some who were used to watching TV during a much more “tame” time than we have today, the evening of September 15, 1973 was about to be a shock.

The episode was called “We’re Having a Heat Wave,” and focused primarily on Archie Bunker’s efforts to join forces with neighbors to keep a second minority from moving onto the block. Ironically, when it is learned that the would-be home buyers are Puerto Rican, the Bunkers’ neighbor, Henry Jefferson, who is black, agrees to sign the petition as well, all under the auspices of “looking out for number one.”

In a side story of the episode, from which the title comes, the Bunkers are dealing with high heat in an energy crisis, and tempers are flaring. In an early scene, Michael “Meathead” Stivic is arguing with Archie over the Watergate affair. Exasperated, and after hearing Archie complain about the constant discussion of “Richard E. Nixon’s” darkest moment, Meathead starts yelling, “Watergate, Watergate, Watergate, Watergate!”

With faithful wife Edith looking on, Archie yells, “Don’t say that no more, G– D— it!”

Edith shreaks. The studio audience gasps. And the censors at CBS, oddly enough, did not bleep the word.

While it may still defy explanation as to why censors actually allowed the word to air back then, it immediately becomes apparent why the word was written into the script: for the rest of the scene the word is mentioned only by initials, was part of the dialog, because Archie then begins a humorous tirade on why the word isn’t a “swear word:”

EDITH: You shouldn’t swear like that.

MEATHEAD: You swore! You swore!

ARCHIE: I didn’t swear…

EDITH: Ever since this Watergate thing, it’s ‘G.D.’ this and ‘G.D.’ that.

ARCHIE: That’s not swearing, ‘G.D.’ The first word there is God. How can that be a swear word, the most popular word in the Bible? The second word, that’s damn. That’s a perfectly good word. You hear that all the time, like “they dam the river to keep it from flooding”. And even in the Bible you read where some guy was damned for cheating or stealing or having ‘insex’ in the family. And who damned him? Who else? God. God damned him. Edith, beautiful words right out of the Holy Book, don’t show your ignorance!

Here at Patrick’s Place, I try to keep the language to “broadcast standards,” which means that certain words don’t get in, even through comments. (Yes, I reserve the right to edit for content. Don’t like it? Then write your own blog.) Despite that historic broadcast of 1973, the curse word G.D. hasn’t made its way into broadcast television very often. I don’t use the word personally, and it doesn’t get used here.

I make mention of this because there is a difference between G.D., the swear word, the ultimate taking of the Lord’s name in vain, and Archie’s of the phrase “God damned him” to justify a swear word as anything but.

That is why I am still surprised that there are media outlets — particularly national ones like CNN or MSNBC (which one did it most recently I do not recall, but I saw it on one) — that bleep the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s tirade.

What he said was this:

“When it came to putting the citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters. Put them on auction blocks. Put them in cotton fields. Put them in inferior schools. Put them in substandard housing. Put them scientific experiments. Put them in the lower paying jobs. Put them outside the equal protection of the law. Kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ Naw, naw, naw. Not ‘God Bless America.’ ‘God Damn America!’ That’s in the Bible. For killing innocent people. “God Damn America” for treating us citizens as less than human. ‘God Damn America’ as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is Supreme.”

He is clearly not using the phrase as an adjective, like “Awful America,” in which case the G.D. would be a curse word; he is using it in a statement as a verb, in a call to action for God to punish the country for the injustices it has committed to some of its people.

Whether you agree with Wright’s comments or not, whether you agree with his approach or not, his choice of words, while incindiary, is not profanity, and should therefore not be bleeped on the air.

Many people take offense to the words, because they believe that any time the name God is placed side by side next to the word damn, it must automatically be profanity, and in fact, the worst kind that a Christian can use.

Most broadcast outlets that are still bleeping the word are most likely either trying to avoid offending their audience, or trying to avoid members of the audience filing indecency complaints accusing them of airing profanity, even though this usage isn’t profane.

But there are times when Christians need to think before they react. This is one of them.

Today is St. Patrick’s Day.

Patrick is an Irish name that became famous because of St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland. Patrick was a man, of course, and Patrick is a male name.

Patricia, it should go without saying, is a female variant of Patrick. Patty is a nickname for Patricia; Patty is the feminine form.

If you want to abbreviate St. Patrick’s Day, it’s St. Paddy’s Day, not St. Patty’s Day: Paddy is the masculine nickname for Patrick.

Most seem to know that once it is mentioned, yet just count how many people try to wish you a “Happy St. Patty’s Day!”

I had lunch with a friend, who told me that when Michelle Obama said she had never been proud of this country until now, that really ticked him off.

If you’re the uber-patriot type, the kind willing to wear blinders to anything less than praise for the good old stars and stripes, I would imagine that it might upset your delicate sensibilities to hear a potential future First Lady make such a statement.

Of course, Obama never really said that.  What she said was this:

“Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are ready for change.”

There is a difference between the two. Particularly because of that little word really. It makes a world of difference.

The Language Guy took on this topic by pointing out that saying, “I really like you” is completely consistent with “I like you.” He also points out that Obama made the comment in two different places — Milwaukee and Madison — and that in the Madison stop, the tape of the event appears to have a glitch between the words I’m and proud.

In the past, I’ve worked with a few prima donnas who don’t receive complements all that well. If I were to point out that they looked nice in the outfit they were wearing that day, they might turn on me, demanding to know if I think they didn’t look nice in the outfit they wore the day before.

I’ve never understood the line of reasoning that allows someone to make that jump, but I now believe that it must be a right-wing thing.

When I say, “You really look nice in that color,” I’m not saying that you look terrible in other colors; I’m just saying that you look particularly nice in the color you’re currently wearing.

When I heard the quote, it didn’t raise my eyebrows at all, because it seemed so clear to me what her intent must be: that she was particularly proud now because of the way the nation has embraced the notion of something other than “business as usual.”

It’s like me saying that I was really happy with my car after I got the transmission fixed. I was relatively happy with the car before that when the transmission acted up; when it behaved itself, I was perfectly content with the car, and when it did act up, I was quite frustrated with it.  But I’ve never hated the car, or wished I had never gotten it.  So when I say that I’m really happy with the car now, that’s not badmouthing the automotive industry.

Of course, we all hear what we want to hear, and for Republicans — and Clinton supporters as well — what they wanted to hear was something very different.

My friend, Linda, points out the sudden U-turn of Obama’s opponents who previously have been quick to dismiss what’s being said in favor of blasting what hasn’t been done:

“But she said those words… heavy, hot-button words which, out of context and leached of intent, can mean whatever partisan politicos want them to mean. So they matter. And, for those who’ve been carping about ‘only words’ and ‘empty words’ and ‘words without work,’ the about-face is stunning, indeed.”

I could ask if the competition really feels so desperate as to try to make a mountain out of such a tiny molehill…but I guess the answer to that question is already clear.

Mrs. B, the grammar enthusiast over at the TV industry website Newsblues, (subscription required) recently posted an article about little phrases that sometimes go awry when people try to use them after hearing someone else use them first.

Here are just ten of the more interesting ones, with the butchered version first and the corrected version second. Would any of these trap you?

• baited breath, instead of bated breath
• died in the wool, instead of dyed in the wool
• for all intensive purposes, instead of for all intents and purposes
• he’s just a gopher, instead of he’s just a go-fer
• hone in on, instead of home in on
• poured over a document, instead of pored over a document
• shoe-in to win, instead of shoo-in to win
• the dye is cast, instead of the die is cast
• tow the line, instead of toe the line
• wet my appetite, instead of whet my appetite

The one of these I see most often is “for all intensive purposes.” It ranks right up there with “sufficive to say” instead of “suffice it to say.” Sufficive isn’t even a word.

Not that it’s ever stopped anyone before….

For the benefit of those of us who haven’t quite decided to give up on the English language and stubbornly cling to the rules of grammar:

Please forget that you ever heard the word myself.
Do not use it. Ever. (Unless you review a grammar guide first.)

Otherwise, you’re using it incorrectly. I promise.

If I see one more photo caption somewhere that is labeled along the lines of “Jane and myself,” instead of “Jane and me,” I might have to go ballistic.

It’s one of those words, unfortunately, that many use to make themselves sound like they know more than they actually do. (Just like the way film students use the word juxtaposition at every possible turn while only about 4% actually understand what it means.)

I generally don’t talk about specific incidents at work, because I don’t wish to be accused of spilling anyone’s secrets.  (Although I’m smart enough not to do that, anyway.)

Sometimes, when I know that what’s happening at my own station is happening at others, I’ll make reference to such occurrences.  This is such a case.

Recently, I was sitting at my desk at Channel 37, when an email popped in from a man who complained about something we had said.  We have since received a couple of similar complaints.  I’m not sure where they’re coming from, but I am beginning to suspect some grassroots movement.

The complaint concerned the way we were being disrespectful to President Bush…by referring to him as “Mr. Bush.”

“He is not ‘Mr. Bush,’” the gentleman said in the complaint.  “He is President Bush.”

I responded to a more recent complaint, and I figured I’d explain the reality of the situation here in case someone else out there in blogland is upset about such a practice.

There are two main schools of thought about how to refer to a person in a news story.  Both begin with the notion that you should refer to a person by full name in “first reference,” or the first time you mention the person by name.  In the case of the President, it is understood that he would be referred to as “President George Bush” or at least “President Bush” on first reference.

But the second time (and each time thereafter) that he is mentioned by name, those two schools of thought differ.  One says that it is both sufficient and appropriate to use only his last name, as in, “Bush says he will veto any such bill that crosses his desk.”  The other says that it is appropriate to use Mr., as in “Mr. Bush is spending the weekend at his Texas ranch.”

I explained to the viewer that Mr. is a “courtesy title,” with courtesy being the operative word.  It is hardly meant as a sign of disrespect when a reporter refers to Bush as “Mr. Bush,” even though he is, by title, “President Bush.”  On the contrary, it is a sign of respect to add the title before the name.

Bush is also, according to basic rules of etiquette, “Mr. President.”  So it should be clear that Mr. is far from a dirty word.

Personally, I prefer to do without courtesy titles.  When I read a news story, I find them cumbersome.  And having been influenced by stylebooks that suggest their omission as far back as my middle school newspaper days, I have long been conditioned to do so.  That’s why it is rare to find a courtesy title on this blog.

I wonder why, though, some people seem quick to assume that what one intends must have been to offend.

We all know that internet messaging creates a set of abbreviations so that people can convey thoughts faster. The most famous of these, I suppose, is LOL (laughing out loud) to express one’s amusement. Some people try to make that a lot more complicated with a ROFLOL (rolling on floor).

Some abbreviations seem unnecessary to me. A good example of this would be NE, which, when read as letters, is a “shortcut” for any. But any is only three letters long to start with: do we really need an abbreviation for a three letter word? How lazy can we be?

Last night, I encountered kewel. Rather than just typing cool, which is a four letter word with only three different letters (which makes it almost as quick to type as any would be), someone took the time not only to misspell it but also to add a letter.

I think all these cell phones and blackberries are turning people’s minds to mush.

In the old days, traditions were traditions.

Not anymore. Now, no tradition is safe, because someone might become offended.

Santa Clauses in Australia are being instructed not to use the icon’s famous trademark laugh, “Ho ho ho,” because it might be “offensive” to women. The word “ho” is often used by rappers and others as a derogatory term for women.

So Santas are being asked to say, “Ha ha ha” instead. Of course, what will end up happening is that the kids will ask their parents why Santa is saying it wrong, the parents will have to explain that “ho ho ho” is offensive to some people, the kids will ask why it’s offensive, and the parents will then have to explain the very controversy these worry-wort Santa organizers are trying to avoid to start with.

Ironic, isn’t it? Some people really need a reality check.

I wonder how long it will be before hoes disappear from the aisles of gardening stores because their mention is offensive.

Back in high school — yes, I actually remember that far back, thanks — I had an English teacher who once told a classmate that something he had said had just made her ears “tingle with disgust.”

Mine have lately. I get this way almost every time a human has an unpleasant encounter with a life form of the animal persuasion.

Yesterday, in the waters off Isle of Palms, two different people, a 10-year-old and a 30-somthing-year-old, got a reminder the hard way that when one wades into the ocean, one is walking right into the home of animals that can sometimes pose a danger. To be more specific, their legs became temporary gnawing toys for what is almost certainly a shark of some description.

Local news media were quick to report the situation, and during various live shots and taped reports, I’ve heard that unfortunate choice of wording that I hear every time there’s a bite involved. I’ve heard this blunder at every station I have ever worked for, and plenty of others that I haven’t. The little number goes something like this:

“…when he was bit by a shark…”

If you can’t tell what’s wrong with that sentence, it’s probably to your advantage to read up on your grammar. The rest of you, surely recognize immediately that it should have read, “was bitten.”

Bitten, of course, is the participle form of bit, which means that while the shark bit the person, the person was bitten by the shark and beachgoers could run the risk of being bitten by sharks as well.

I was sitting in my office at good old Channel 37 when I heard one reporter too many say it incorrectly. So I sent an email to the newsroom — they’re probably sorry I know how to email all of the newsroom employees with a single click — reminding them of this basic principle of grammar. One of the anchors, who later admitted to wanting to jump through the camera upon hearing another reporter make the same mistake, thanked me for reminding our colleagues.

Grammar is a big part of communication. Bad grammar from a reporter or anchor makes them stop communicating, because the listener gets so distracted by the error that he or she stops listening for at least a couple of sentences while shaking their head at the blunder.

Something will bite someone again one day. Perhaps sooner than later. And I’ll be ready with my memo…and my finger over the send button…again.