The biggest dork in history

I recently received a comment from my sister on my Post Scriptum 1/16/09 post:

"You realize that this post makes you . . . the biggest dork in history."

Yes, I know. Sad but true. I've just accepted it, or as Lynne Truss says, I've "embraced my inner stickler." And may I say, Well done on the ellipsis! I'm so proud.

Then my sister went on to say that her grammar check corrects her if she types her ellipses wrong. I have mine turned off so I didn't know that, but now that I do it just makes me even more fired up about all this!! Seriously folks, there's just no excuse!

But I think enough has been said about the ellipsis. I may be a stickler, but it is, after all, just a punctuation mark. What does it matter that people are out there typing it incorrectly on purpose just to piss me off? I can get over it. They're the dimwits, after all.

Apparently (since I'm unable to move on) it's not just a punctuation mark. Is it the Irish or the German in me that makes me fixate and fester about something as silly as punctuation?* I guess "Gambler Mom" spun the roulette wheel and landed on Grammar Nazi (I wonder, did my Gambler Parents consider that good or bad?). Because it's certainly not my fault that I'm obsessed with punctuation.

*You've just got to read "My hair and gambling" - priceless. And so true!

Well, wait. Maybe I'm not as nuts as you think. Because it's not the punctuation, but the person being deliberately (grammatically) WRONG. Typing an ellipsis wrong on purpose. Why? And not just regarding the ellipsis, but also the dietitian vs dietician debate. If a person knows how to spell it correctly, but chooses not to, doesn't that make them stupid? I have no tolerance for stupidity.

Why on earth would a person choose to be stupid? My mind is boggled. As an apology for the continued obsession I can only say: "Thanks, Mom."

There really isn't a debate about the correct spelling of a specialist in dietetics. In fact, I'll go ahead and say that I mis-spoke when I said debate; it's dietitian. End of story.

Except of course with me, it's never the end of the story. Here goes:

We recently hired a specialist in dietetics. I pre-wrote "Dietician" (note the C) on a post-it note, and walked over to her to ask the correct spelling of her name so I could create a badge for her. She saw my post-it and said, "Actually, that's not the way you spell it." And I said:

"Excuse me?"

Okay, technically I don't think I said that out loud, but I may have. Then I (politely) asked her to enlighten me. I don't remember exactly what she said, but it is summed up by this line from a Wikipedia article: "A dietitian (also 'dietician', though 'dietitian' is used consistently by professionals) is an expert in food and nutrition."

"Dietician" with a C, I was given to understand, is not just an alternate spelling, but is being phased out. Outdated. Antiquated. The old way. "Dietitian" with a T is the correct spelling.

Okay, well. That's fine with me. "Learn something new every day," right? I stand corrected.

But here's the butt-clencher: the decision has been made at work that even though it is an undisputed fact that dietitian with a T is correct, the company is going to spell it dietician with a C because the correct way--ahem--"looks funny." They're worried that patients will think we're spelling it wrong. For an infrequent, complicated word, maybe it doesn't matter (how many times a day can a person write supercalifragilisticexpialidocious? Who cares how it's spelled? I certainly don't). But we're making fliers marketing our new dietitian and typing out literature explaining what she does, et cetera. And rather than educate the uninformed, the company would rather just cater to the masses and make us look like IDIOTS.

My panties are totally in a wad. And I won't be able to sleep at night unless I point out two final aggravating points of interest:

I spell-checked this post prior to publishing, and even BLOGGER knows that dietician with a C is WRONG. AND, this is just funny: Blogger knows how to spell supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. If you spell it wrong, it will suggest the "correct" way! Who knew there IS a correct way?

Lastly, the most galling, exasperating, infuriating, outrage of all: In the packet of literature that we send to all of our new patients, we have a page about the dietary changes chemotherapy can cause, and explains that if you're experiencing difficulties you can seek out a dietitian! Spelled CORRECTLY. For years we've been sending out information to our patients with the darned word spelled the way it's supposed to be and it's NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE.

Never.

Post scriptum 1/16/09

I looked up the exact definition of post scriptum (just 'cuz). According to Wikipedia, the Latin phrase can be interpreted two ways: "that which comes after the writing" or "the writing which comes afterwards." I looked it up because I wanted to know how to write PS: 1/16/09 correctly. You know, it doesn't sound right to say either "That which comes after the writing 1/16/09" or "The writing which comes afterwards 1/16/09." Huh. Not sure what to do about that. I think it's the date that screws up the flow. What if I use the title of the post? That which comes after the writing "Do I have to 'let it go'?" Ahh, much better to my ears. Anyhoo.

Post scriptum: "Do I have to 'let it go'?"

The ellipsis is my favorite punctuation mark, and I recently did some research that I think would have been applicable to my January post. I re-looked up the correct way to type an ellipsis because I have been seeing it with only spaces before and after, but no spaces between each dot: "_..._". The underscore is just my way of highlighting the spaces. At any rate, I wanted to make sure I wasn't blathering on about "_._._._" if it's incorrect. Don't get me wrong, I know it used to be right, but the last time I looked up the rules to the ellipsis was college and I was worried that maybe things have changed, and that the multiple spaces might have become (gasp!) outdated. Oh, horror.

When I typed "ellipsis" into Google, Wikipedia was one of the first pages that came up. Since Wikipedia is usually in vogue, I took a gander. I got a little worried when I first started reading. Wikipedia says, "The most common form of an ellipsis is a row of three full stops (...)." They then use two examples of an ellipsis, both in the "incorrect format" (in my opinion) ("_..._"). Wikipedia states: "The Modern Language Association (MLA) however, used to indicate that an ellipsis must include spaces before and after each dot in all uses." What do they mean used to indicate? Uh oh! Side note: that's my proof though that at least I "used to be" correct about the ellipsis. I always use MLA style, so that would have been where I checked on the rules.

Wikipedia goes on to cite Robert Bringhurst's Elements of Topographic Style. Wikipedia paraphrases Mr. Bringhurst, "the details of typesetting ellipses depend on the character and size of the font being set and the typographer's preference. . . . " (As the typographer, I prefer spaces. And until I hear otherwise . . . ). Wikipedia continues by quoting Mr. Bringhurst's book: "Bringhurst writes that a full space between each dot is 'another Victorian eccentricity. In most contexts, the Chicago ellipsis is much too wide' -- he recommends using flush dots, . . . ."

Uh oh!! Was that ellipsis I just added to indicate that Wikipedia's article continues going to be my last "_._._._" ever? Do I have to change to "_..._"? I'm really getting worried.

But then I read the last paragraph of that section: "In legal writing in the United States, Rule 5.3 in the Bluebook citation guide governs the use of ellipses and requires a space before the first dot and between the two subsequent dots. If an ellipsis ends the sentence, then there are three dots, each separated by a space, followed by the final punctuation."

Hallelujah!! Regardless of what Wikipedia meant by "used to indicate," there it is, clear as day: correct legal writing used and continues to use the version I've been adamently proclaiming as the "correct format" (that is to say, "_._._._"). Hip hip hooray!

My intrepretation of all this is that when you're printing (newspapers, magazines, et cetera, ad infinitum) typeset and the length of the piece is crucial, and time and space are money. To save money typesetters use three flush dots. But in legal matters where more lengthy writing equals more money (opposite of news print!), the rambling elongated ellipsis with spaces fore, 'tween and aft is correct.

Seems to me that I should get to choose! The catch is, once you choose which style you're going to use then that's it. A person shouldn't get to flip back and forth between the two styles because she or he can't remember the rules.

I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat, but I'm definitely on the elongated ellipsis boat. I have always preferred MLA style, although unfortunately I can't look up what's currently in vogue with MLA and the ellipsis because you have to pay moo-lah to use their website. WTF?

Guess I have to draw my own grammatical conclusions . . .