I can't decide if this ipod tag line is supposed to be funny, or if the ad agency really thinks that "funnest" is a word (or that fun is an adjective for that matter, but that's a discussion for another day).
All I know for sure if that this ad makes me scream every time I see it. I'm sorry, Apple. I meant to say that it makes me scream "everytime" I see it.
10 comments:
I'd like to think they typoed and were trying to say "funniest," because promoting that you can watch Napoleon Dynamite on your iPod Touch is pretty funny, seeing as how this is 2008 and nobody cares about Napoleon Dynamite.
Just for the record, Kraft's Food and Family magazine's tagline says something about "deliciously simple. everyday." and it bothers me because it sounds like they are promoting their food as ordinary. And granted, every other recipe has something to do with cream cheese or Kraft mac 'n cheese, so it's not exotic cuisine, but I don't think that's what Kraft is going for.
Your mom told me about her disgust for this campaign. I saw the slogan plastered all across the walls at the Apple store in Southdale. I wanted so badly to take a picture of it with my cell phone to send to you and your mom. Unfortunately, with my low-tech Motorola phone, I didn't feel like the funnest person in the store, and I was too ashamed to take my phone out of my purse.
LOL. It doesn't bother me. They are trying to make a point and they made it, saying "funnest" is like saying "really fun" in a fun, playful way.
Of course I'm one of those advertising people (not apple, but you know what I mean). You'd probably be annoyed if you saw the ads I'm working on right now. One of my ads says "round the clock"
Not "around" the clock.
Not 'round the clock.
just round the clock.
... I know it's not proper, but it works with the copy and I don't think many people will care. Well, except maybe you and other purists like you. :)
The reason businesses are screaming about why their newly hired employees cannot write is because they have created the monsters. The "purists" who have attempted to make youngsters understand are stymied because of things like "funnest." People see them, and the majority are unable to discern the "humor" in it. So, yet again, incorrect usage is reinforced!
If you look at books written before the '70's, you find works with incredible vocabulary and effective usage of language. The majority of people today aren't able to understand that "funnest" is "playful." In fact, "fun" itself is a NOUN NOT an ADJECTIVE! And yet, how many times do we see "fun" used as an adjective?
Please don't give me the "language is evolving" crap. People are just lazy and choose to sit in front of a tv or a video in lieu of reading. So until business decides that promoting halfway decent English is important, we will have such rubbish!
I just don't understand. If you know "round" is wrong, why use it? What's wrong with 'round? I can't even begin to describe how much that frustrates me and how difficult that makes my job:
"No one knows the rules anyway, so grammar doesn't really matter."
"You understand what I mean, so who cares how I say it?"
When what my students mean to say is, "I'm constantly bombarded with incorrect grammar, so I honestly can't tell what's right and what's wrong anymore. I know that I'll someday be judged on how effectively I speak and communicate, and that scares me to death so I pretend that it doesn't matter."
If I saw an ad that said "round the clock," I would unapologetically correct it with my pen. It's not funny. It's not cute. It's wrong. And if you know something is wrong, you fix it. It's that simple.
I'm not a purist. Rather, I like to think of myself as one of the last holdouts for those poor children who honestly can't tell what's right and wrong anymore.
Two comments:
1. While I consider myself a "grammar Nazi," and am bothered by these spelling and grammar errors going unnoticed and sometimes actually being encouraged, I also think that language DOES IN FACT evolve. Back in the day "shank" might not even have been a word, but now, it is a distinct object that the majority of the population probably recognizes. And since it was invented, it has even been turned into a verb as well, (to "shank" someone out on the exercise yard). Including "funnest" as an actual word would be an atrocity, but I hope you get my point.
2. At least this Ipod ad is waaaaaay better than that "Saved By Zero" Toyota commercial, which, while it does use correct grammar, makes me want to shank myself through both eardrums.
And "shank" is also considered colloquial, considerably less than standard grammar. Your reaction to the Toyota ad is to its insipid music. That does not relate to grammar.
The reality is, as Rachel said, that students do NOT know what is correct. And, as any as person fluent in the language will tell you, you have to KNOW the rules before you can BREAK the rules. In other words, using something like "funner" needs to be done in a way so the majority of the audience understands the "humor." I am concerned that a significant number of people will unconsciously see this as a reinforcement of their use of that form. Good lord! How many times have I heard people say "funner?" THAT is why the choice of that form is a case of poor judgement.
So what are all your thoughts regarding the practice of adding words to "the dictionary" every year. I'm not sure how many they add, but I know they add a few every year...does this make it standard, or are those words considerably less than standard grammar? Who makes the call?
Several of those new dictionary additions will say "non-standard" after the word. In other words, that particular dictionary's editors recognize that the word is part of colloquial speech, but they won't recognize it as an official word. Several of those words often disappear from later editions of the same dictionary.
For example, "ain't" and "d'oh" have been in the dictionary for years, but I'd hardly accept either on a student's paper.
The notion of language being fluid is true to a point, but it's also the rigid standards of our language's rules that make it so interesting. And like it or not, it's the following of said rules that can make one seem intelligent or significantly otherwise.
Moreover, if you look at studies of etymology over generations, you'll find that several words that were popular at a given time don't make the long-term cut. Similarly, several words evolve into words that mean something altogether different than when they were first spoken. These are just more reasons to learn the rules as they are at this moment in time. That way, when language eventually does evolve in way we don't expect, you'll be able to roll with the punches.
Post a Comment