Grammar Moses: We're here to slay the jargon

Journalists were put on this earth to tell the stories of the good and the bad that people do; to tell you how the government is spending your tax money; to help you function in society and be a good citizen; to surprise, delight and inspire you; and to give you confidence when making small talk at a neighborhood barbecue.

But what you may not realize is that an overarching responsibility for us as writers and editors of a general interest newspaper is to translate the idiosyncratic languages that politicians, educators, civil engineers, financial experts and bicycle repairmen speak into words that just about anyone can understand.

We're jargon killers.

Some days we do a good job of it. Some days, well, not so much.

As the self-appointed guardian of good language at the Daily Herald, I have harped on numerous nuggets of jargon that have crept into print. Here are some examples:

Too many chairs

Consider the sentence: “The chair tables the motion.”

It's a sentence uttered in boardrooms everywhere.

But it should never be in a newspaper. Not even in a quote, because it's a lousy, say-nothing quote.

First, a “chair” is something you sit in; a chair does not run a committee. We should use “chairman” or “chairwoman.”

I remember reading a news release about 20 years ago that identified a “co-chaircouple” of a fundraiser. I can't seem to shake that memory.

If I may parse the sentence further, I'm not even wild about using “table” as a verb, but I would think most of you understand that to table something is to set it aside for the time being.

I also think most of us consider furniture to be inanimate objects, so having chairs tabling anything sounds like something Lewis Carroll might have concocted.

Doesn't take a village

The village doesn't hope you enjoy the parade. Village officials do. Same goes for “the school district” and any other singular nonhuman entity.

You sticklers will say that your dog, which you may or may not consider human, can hope that you let him sit on the couch. So there are exceptions.

Staff opening

Now for the popular attribution “staff said.” I call it popular, because just about every government leader I've ever met has used it. But that doesn't mean newsies should adopt the usage.

In most cases, we're writing about the village/school/library staff. The problem is, we're treating “staff” as a plural. Substitute “they” and you know what I'm talking about.

A “staff” is a collective.

The way to fix the problem in my earlier example is to pick either “the staff” or “staff members,” whichever fits the situation.

Reader mailbag

Brian Ducko of Long Grove wrote last week to issue a complaint about a homophone in a story.

“I wish I could have eluded the urge to write this,” he wrote, tongue firmly in cheek. “Specifically, I am alluding (well, really I'm referring) to an article” that stated a sports program “alluded controversy.”

“Reading that caused my eyeballs to freeze.”

Leave the hyperbole to me, Brian.

The writer clearly meant to use “elude,” meaning to avoid.

One can “allude to” something, meaning to refer to it.

I'm considering whether to give Brian his own column.

A couple of months ago after I wrote about comparatives and superlatives, he wrote to tell me that “putting your best foot forward” works only for the Rockettes or contestants in a three-legged race. Not bad, Brian. But don't quit your day job.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is assistant vice president/managing editor of the Daily Herald. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com. Put Grammar Moses in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.