Grammar Moses: Insidious oxymorons and other casualties of writing

I was listening to a business report the other day when someone used the term "negative growth."

I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy. I love a happy or inspiring story more than most probably do. I need balance in my psyche after wading through all the unpleasantness the world has to offer.

But I refuse to sugarcoat words.

To those of you rushing to your dictionaries, relax. I'm well aware that "negative growth" can be found there, but I still find it icky.

Growth is a positive thing, unless you're talking about your credit card debt or your waistline.

It's a plus.

Growth has plenty of serviceable antonyms: failure, decline, decrease, regression, downturn.

"Negative equity" is another phrase I find nettlesome. If you have negative equity in your home, it's worth less than you owe on it. Thank goodness someone came up with "under water" as an alternative.

"Negative growth" is an oxymoron, a figure of speech whose definition is an oxymoron itself. It comes from the Greek meaning "sharp" and either "dull" or "foolish."

You probably know jumbo shrimp, but there are many in heavy rotation in general conversation: crash landing, freezer burn, awfully good, deceptively honest, original copy and many more.

I love finding them in copy. They make complete sense in one regard but seemingly contradict in another.

But the "negative-XXX" formations seem insidious to me. They try to mask something bad that's happened, even if they employ "negative" to do so.

So be forthright. Talk about "declines" and "downturns" and leave the "negative equity" baloney to others.

Casualties

Jacqueline Jablonski of Naperville and I explored the riveting topic of enumerations (first v. firstly) in a June column, and she is back with a commentary on a subsequent column that dealt with my issues with the word "incident" in describing anything of consequence.

She wrote to me on Sept. 11. You'll understand why that's relevant soon enough.

"I can't tell you how many times I've thought about your discussion of 'incidents' and 'incidental.' That column really delivered a punch regarding the power of a single word choice. It made me realize why I chafe at the word 'casualty.' Just as with 'incident,' the very sound of the word 'casualty' conjures a feeling of safe distance from its actual meaning; 'casualty' is just too darned close to 'casual.' Like 'incident,' it's a mildly sedative word and doesn't immediately summon images of blood and guts, burned faces, severed limbs and dead babies. On this day of remembrance, should we refer to the 'casualties of 9/11'? No, we should not. To verbally sanitize the horrific deaths of so many innocent Americans would be a sin. And yet, when reading about war and terrorism that's happening 'over there,' we always read about the number of 'casualties.' Arrrrgh!"

I admit that I've never thought about "casualty" in that way.

While its primary definition is someone who has been killed or injured in a war or accident, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, its roots in Middle English are significantly less dire and more in line with a predominantly British modern usage related to insurance.

Many centuries ago, its root meant "chance occurrence."

Perhaps Jacqueline was born in the wrong epoch, but I don't think I'll ever look at "casualty" the same way again after my conversation with her, and I will be talking to my staff about that, too.

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.