Grammar Moses: Can you really film something with your iPhone?

Last fall, one of the neighborhood girls was visiting my wife and me on our porch, and she was carrying around her new cellphone like a totem.

"You'd better dial your mom and let her know you're here," I told her.

She started scrolling down to her mom's name and pressed what only a few years ago would have been an actual button.

"Do you know what it means to dial a phone?" I asked her.

She started to answer and then stopped herself, wrinkled her nose and admitted she had no idea what it meant.

I reminded her about the old silver phone dialer my wife has that fascinates all the kids in the neighborhood and I pantomimed how a rotary phone worked - in my childhood. I told her the worst possible thing would be to have nines and zeros in your best friend's phone number.

It's interesting how words persist in our language even when advances in technology have rendered them useless.

Bill Murray of Palatine - not the Bill Murray but a funny guy nonetheless - reminded me of this exchange when he responded to a recent column on the importance of precision in writing.

"The antithesis that particularly bothers me is the recurring use of the word 'film' to describe the recording of an event in today's world," he wrote. "When I read or hear that someone has used their smartphone to film some alleged police mistreatment or an oncoming tornado I find myself wondering just what motion picture stock the phone uses. I imagine that 8 mm would be the only size that might fit."

And Bill would know. He was in the AV Club in high school in the '50s when they still used film.

He followed up with a note about a passage in a story from a competing newspaper that described an event being "filmed" but also mentions "footage."

Perhaps the neighbor girl and smartphone video creators of today have picked up these terms osmotically from their geezerly parents without questioning what the words really mean.

(Yes, I made up "geezerly," but I'll give myself a pass.)

Odds are pretty good that when you go to a theater to see a "film" these days you're seeing a digital representation rather than a light projecting images through a length of film.

Low-hanging fruit

I love receiving emails from you about your pet peeves. I try to respond to all of them. But, as you probably know, I don't end up publishing many of them. Sometimes it's a matter of space. Sometimes I just don't agree that the issue is worth making a big stink about. Sometimes I can't find the comedic value in it. And you know me.

I've been trying to focus on the bigger things - the fingernails-on-the-chalkboard stuff; the mistakes we make that simply reflect poorly on our intelligence; the "me and him went to the store" sort of thing that makes us look as if we lost our way between third grade and adulthood.

While I admit I delve into ephemera too often, I always try to share with you a piece of overripe fruit depending from the tree of bad grammar and usage.

Jean Flaxman of unincorporated Schaumburg Township touched on something that bothers me only a little but drives her bonkers.

She wrote: "I recently received this phone call: 'This is the office of Dr. ____ ____ calling to remind ____ ____ of his 10 o'clock appointment this coming Saturday.' An office is not capable of making a phone call. Could these highly trained specialists perhaps instruct their office personnel to use proper language when reminding patients of an appointment?"

I told Jean that while I agreed with her that it would be better for someone to say "This is Judy, from Dr. Hosenberger's office, calling to remind you ..." it is not the greatest sin we commit.

I imagine Jean was still reeling from a recent column in which I averred that a chair cannot run a meeting, while a chairman or chairwoman can.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is 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.