CONTENTS FEATURE: Reject words and expressions that defy logic GRAMMAR COACH: Fielding your questions FINDER'S FEE: Recommend a friend—and earn up to $500 FEATURE: Reject words and expressions that defy logic      Many of the expressions and words that people commonly use make remarkably little sense. Even more surprising is the depth to which flawed phraseology is ingrained in our language. Illogical though many common terms and expressions may be, they usually go unchallenged. But we're perfectly willing to challenge a few of them that writers and speakers should reject. What's up?      A business periodical described what it called the "meteoric rise of the contact center rep." The adjective "meteoric" is used primarily to indicate relation to or derivation from the Earth's atmosphere. It also can be used in reference to the speed or brilliance of a meteor. As meteors travel, however, they don't "rise" because the concepts of "up" and "down" are irrelevant in space. That can change once a meteor's trajectory brings it within the gravitational field of a planet. Here on Earth, we're acutely aware that glowing meteors fall, rather than rise, when they hit our atmosphere. As a metaphor, "meteoric rise" is illogical. Change, please: two dimes for a nickel.      An announcement boasted that "admission to the Wisconsin Sheep and Wool Festival would be cheap at half the price." Put that statement under analysis. If the price were halved, it would be cheap. So what does that say about the current price? It's not as cheap; perhaps some might consider it expensive. Anything, after all, would be cheap (or less expensive) if it were offered at half the price. This is an example of a malapropism—a humorous distortion of a word or phrase. The proper phrase is "cheap at twice the price." The intention is to say that the price is so reasonable that it still would be a bargain even if it cost more money. If the festival folks ever become aware of the distinction, they likely will feel sheepish. The single-course diet.      A restaurant reviewer intended to praise an Italian restaurant in the North Beach district of San Francisco. Instead, careful readers might have thought that the reviewer became increasingly disenchanted with the meal. "I went with a large group of friends, and we shared dishes family-style. Each one was more delicious than the next—from the salads to the pasta and seafood," she wrote. So the first dish was good, but the next one was less so, and the subsequent one even less appealing? Sounds like a diet plan rather than a dinner. The reviewer, obviously, mangled her phrasing. If she had thought more carefully, she would have written, "each dish was even more delicious than the one that preceded it." Perhaps the meal was intoxicatingly delicious. Never mind. Put that back in the freezer.      A business writer offered "10 sizzling ways to unthaw your frozen profits." Since "thaw" means to melt or to change from a frozen to a liquid state," then "unthaw" (which is not a legitimate word) would mean the opposite: the writer's 10 ideas put a chill on already frozen profits. Readers presumably would give the writer's suggestions the cold-shoulder treatment. Yes, we have no bananas.      Expressing disappointment to a corporate chief executive officer about poor stock performance, an investor wrote, "As far as insiders losing large amounts of money as well, I could care less. Most insiders have enough money as it is to own the biggest houses, biggest cars, and have the biggest bank accounts." By saying that she "could care less," the investor indicated that she did care to some degree about the plight of insider traders. What she meant to say, of course, was that she couldn't care less—that her contempt left no room for sympathizing with insiders, even if they incurred large financial losses. Wait! Don't take the new one out again.      A U.S. Department of Energy announcement declared, "The Energy Star 'Change a Light, Change the World Campaign' is a national challenge during October and November to encourage every American to change out old, incandescent bulbs for new, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that have earned the Energy Star designation." The casual expression "change out," typically associated with automotive repair work, has begun an assault upon formal writing in other fields. The phrase appears to have hatched through the awkward entanglement of "take out" and "change." The word "change" innately embodies the notion of taking one item out to make room for a new one. So tagging the word "out" onto "change" is superfluous. The verb "replace" properly expresses the concept: The Department of Energy encourages Americans to replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps. It's time to throw out the expression "change out." Think twice before saying this.      A medical patient who described the episode that led to his successful surgery recalled, "I thought to myself, 'Uh, oh, I better get this checked out,'" Of course he "thought to himself." That's how people do their thinking. Here's a more rational approach: "I realized that I should get it checked out." If not 10 miles, then how far?      A service organization's Web site described a relief project that was under way in the "town of Heredia, not 10 miles from San Jose." Although the phrase "not ___ miles from" usually is understood to mean "less than," it's nonspecific. It literally could mean an amount greater than or less than 10 miles—some amount other than 10 miles. Omitted from the phrase is the clarifying adverb "even," which can be used as an intensifier to establish one amount as smaller than another. Making use of that, the phrase would be "not even 10 miles from San Jose." Another choice, "less than 10 miles," would be even clearer. I think we're alone now.      A manufacturer of automobile safety seats for children described one of its products as "one of the only infant car seats on the market that will accommodate a child rear-facing up to 30 lbs. and 32 inches tall." The adverb "only" means "solitary" or "alone in a class or category." That would be appropriate if no other manufacturer produced a similar child seat. The text says, however, it's 'one of the only car seats,' in plural. A-HA! So it's not alone in the field; other comparable units are available. Therefore, it's "one of the few car seats" that will accommodate a 30-pound child as described. If the precise number of car seats in its category is identified, the adjective "only" can be used to emphasize the small number: "It's one of only five car seats of its kind." Never trust a reckless pessimist.      An official with a golfing organization said that he was "cautiously optimistic" about the resilience of turf at golf courses in the Northeast following recurrent freezing in the early spring. What he really meant, of course, is that he hopes the turf will be OK, but in truth he has no reliable information about its condition. No one ever speaks of being "recklessly pessimistic." The notion of being "cautiously optimistic" is equally ludicrous. Anyone who professes to be "cautiously optimistic" is likely masking uncertainty and apprehension. Breaking the 60-minute barrier.      The Web site of a California university campus announced, "Library open longer hours." Of course, the library folks meant to say that the facility is open longer each day, or that it has increased the number of hours during which it is open. But longer hours? Nope, they still contain just 60 minutes apiece. Giddy about job applicants.      An employment agency announcing a vacancy for a pharmacy technician declared, "Our client is more than happy to train and coordinate certification for the right candidates." Goodness. More than happy. These folks are overjoyed, ecstatic, perhaps even rapturous at the prospect of spending time and money to train new employees. The agency ought to replace that trite phrase with a more honest statement—for example, the client is willing to train and help newly hired employees obtain required certification. This ordinance is irresenseless.      The Code of Ordinances of the city of Corsicana, Texas, warns, "No person shall keep bees in excess of two hives where the hives are located between 500 and 750 feet from the nearest dwelling, or over eight hives, irregardless of the distance to the nearest dwelling. Further, it shall be unlawful to have bees, irregardless of the above limitations, in such numbers that they congregate in excessive numbers on property other than that of the owner of the bees in such a way as to interfere with the peaceful occupation of that property by its owner." The notion that the suffix "less" negates the root word "regard" escaped the attention of the verbose civic leaders of Corsicana. They're trying to say that the ordinance prohibits apiarists (beekeepers) from maintaining more than eight hives, no matter what distance they are from the nearest dwelling. Furthermore, apiarists are prohibited from keeping any hives if their bees would bug another property owner. But the irrational addition of the negating prefix "ir" in front of "regardless" unwittingly changes the effective meaning to "not without regard," which invalidates the apparent intended terms of the ordinance. So citizens of Corsicana, take notice that apiarists and their bees are free to do whatever they wish because the civic leaders have tied themselves up in linguistic knots.      And as long as they're on alert, the good folks of Corsicana also should watch out for meteors launching themselves skyward. GRAMMAR COACH: Fielding your questions 1. Art G. wrote:      "Should it be 'a school administrator declared that 90 percent of the class has successfully passed the test' rather than 'have passed'? The noun 'class' is a collective singular, along with 'team,' 'council,' but does 'have' relate to '90 percent'? But isn't that also the same animal?" The grammar coach replies:      Yes, "class" is a collective noun, but use of the verb "has" in this instance would result in a subject-verb disagreement. Determination of the proper verb form requires first defining the true subject of the sentence—which is neither "class" nor "90 percent." A "percentage" can't pass a test; neither can a "class" pass a test. The prepositional phrase "90 percent of" functions as an adjective modifying the noun "class." The unstated subject of the sentence, however, is students. Individual students take and pass examinations. The school administrator therefore should have said, "90 percent of the students in the class of 2004 have passed....". 2. Helen B. wrote:      "Which is proper written grammar: 'On behalf of June and myself, thank you' or 'on behalf of me and June, thank you'?" The grammar coach replies:      We recommend a simpler, more direct statement: "June and I thank you." We'll explain why.      The word "behalf" typically is used with either of two idiomatic expressions—"in behalf of" and "on behalf of," each with a distinct meaning. "In behalf" refers to an action that benefits someone else (as in "the club members volunteered their time in behalf of the local youth club"). The phrase "on behalf of" indicates functioning as an authorized agent for someone else (as in "the lawyer spoke on behalf of her client").      In your example, the word "myself" is problematic because it's a reflexive pronoun, which should be used to direct action back to oneself (as in "I saw myself in the mirror"). The apparent intent of the sentence is that both June and you are offering thanks, and that you're speaking for her. Both of you additionally may represent an organization, such as an airline company—and that's where "behalf" can become useful.      If you want to acknowledge both June and the company that employs you, consider a statement such as, "On behalf of Kitty Hawk Airlines, June and I thank you...."      Are you perplexed by some aspect of grammar or word usage? Don't be shy! Ask the "grammar coach" at EditPros and we'll try to help—at no charge, just for the sport of it. FINDER'S FEE: Recommend a friend—and earn a finder's fee of up to $500      Do you know of a friend or colleague whose office can benefit from EditPros services? If you do, EditPros may reward you with a "finder's fee" of up to $500.      EditPros, established in 1993, performs writing, editing, proofreading and publication management services for newsletters, brochures, Web sites, annual reports, research studies, business proposals and other informational and marketing materials. Our office is in Davis, Calif., between Sacramento and San Francisco.      Our clients include educational institutions, private corporations, health-care organizations, trade associations, scientific research institutions, Web site developers and government agencies. We have worked with some of them for more than 10 years.      If you recommend our services to a friend or business colleague, and that introduction leads to an assignment for EditPros, we will award you a "finder's fee" equaling 10 percent of the amount we earn on the first assignment for the new client, up to a maximum finder's fee of $500. Naturally, the finder's fee is applicable only to clients for which we have not worked previously.      This offer will remain in effect until further notice. YOUR TURN: Ask the "grammar coach" or subscribe      We invite you to submit your questions to the "grammar coach," and we welcome you to subscribe to this monthly newsletter—which we'll send to your e-mail address at no charge. We respond to all "grammar coach" questions personally, but delays may occur because we must place top priority on assignments from our clients. We appreciate your patience and your interest.      You also can change your e-mail subscription address. For an address change, please indicate your existing AND your new e-mail address. Thank you. OUR PRIVACY POLICY for e-mail newsletter subscribers:      We do not use any commercial e-mail lists or automated mass-mailing programs, and we do not allow access to the list by anyone else for any reason. Our subscriber list is maintained by hand, and it is not for sale. We are protective of confidentiality because many of our readers are also clients of ours. Any accompanying advertising is placed by Yahoo.com in exchange for our use of the e-mail server to distribute this newsletter.