More bad usage

August 27, 2013 • 8:20 am

This sign, which I photographed on the Metra “electric train” downtown, has the same problem as the television ad I posted about recently (and can’t find):

Usage

Apparently if you’re with a senior, you can have a special seat, too. Or perhaps you get your special seat only if you have both a disability and a senior with you.

89 thoughts on “More bad usage”

  1. Priority seating, if you’re a customer with disabilities, or if you’re a senior who isn’t necessarily a customer but you’re maybe a free loading old person who hasn’t paid.

  3. I saw this sign (although I can’t remember where) a few days ago, and immediately thought of you, Jerry! Like you, I find ambiguous grammar somewhat grating.

    I think the only way to rewrite the sign without drastically increasing the word count (and consequently decreasing the font size) is to put the seniors first – iow, “Priority seating for seniors, and customers with disabilities.” Although does this then imply that seniors aren’t customers…? At least it would be a grammatical improvement.

    I think, ultimately, that we just have to learn to put up with poor grammar in the interest of brevity and clarity.

    1. Although does this then imply that seniors aren’t customers…?

      And if one clarifies by adding a word: “Priority seating for seniors, and other customers with disabilities” — the problems just get worse. 😉

      1. Your “other” implies that seniors have disabilities, which isn’t necessarily true. I see no problem with “Priority seating for seniors and customers with disabilities.” It doesn’t imply that seniors are not customers.

    2. I find ambiguous grammar somewhat grating.

      I think there should be more of it. It would get people to think more about what the message is intended to communicate. It would push people to be more critical and analytic in their regular life. Isn’t that what we want? More critical thinking about what people’s messages means and less blind acceptance? Well, signs like these provide an opportunity to practice that skill.

      Now, I’m all for crystal clear communication when there is some risk of harm or serious economic damages. But this is not one of those situations.

      Wordplay and the appreciation of wordplay both appear to be becoming a lost art. If you want people to get satire, you have to expose them to it. If you want people to be able to think through ambiguity, you have to expose them to ambiguity.

      1. I think there should be more of it.

        If there were, then it would become the norm and nobody would think twice about it.

        I don’t like to think of myself as a grammar snob, but I do think there’s a right way and a wrong way to write (and talk), if one has the time and the space to do so. Of course, one then runs the risk of devolving into unnecessary wordiness, which is what my current comment is doing, so I’ll shut up now.

        1. Shame you can’t edit posts (you probably could if this was a website not a blog ;-)) – but “I think there should be more of it” in my previous post is a quote from Eric’s earlier post.

          Just to be clear.

  4. The language of logic would dictate that it’s the second of your two options.

    They could’ve simply slipped “for” in between “and” and “seniors”.

  5. It’s not really bad grammar, since everyone knows what it means. The three words “customers with disabilities” is clearly an atom, and no one is confused on that point. If it makes you feel better, stick imaginary hyphens in place of the spaces.

    1. I agree. Everyone understands the sign. In any case the grammatical principal (excuse the professional nerdiness) is that a coordinating conjuction connects two items of the same kind, here “customers [plus qualifiers]” AND “seniors”. More importantly, the preposition “with” has two different senses, and in this sign it means “afflicted with” not “in company with”. Google “zeugma”. “Zeugma involves two or more notions which are syntactically homogeneous and semantically incompatible.”

      2. On the other hand, airlines routinely treat “passengers with disabilities” and “passengers with small children” as equivalent categories for boarding priority, so there’s at least some precedent for thinking “passengers with seniors” might be a relevant concept.

        1. If you try really hard you can be confused.

          Dud: Here, have a sandwich. My feet are killing me.
          Pete: What’s that got to do with the sandwich?
          Dud: Nothing, I just said it afterwards, that’s all.
          Pete: Well, you shouldn’t say things like that together, it could confuse a stupid person.
          (Peter Cook & Dudley Moore, “Not Only But Also: At The Art Gallery” by Peter Cook, 1965)

  6. Why not be super clear: Please give up your seat to people who are infirm

    Since that has to be what they mean and it includes a pregnant woman or someone that looks unwell for whatever reason. Not necessarily disabilities but someone that would be happier sitting down.

    It is like the threatening stamp I got on my passport from New Zealand that said, “You must leave New Zealand before expiry of your permit or face removal”. I was probably a bit punchy when I got to Hawaii because I’d been travelling for a while but I seriously thought it read “leave or before this expires or you remove your face”. I honestly didn’t know what it meant until it was explained to me and then it was just funny. Why not just end it at “permit”? No, they had to threaten me in a confusing way.

    1. I remember it took me days to figure out what that recorded voice meant in the London Underground stations that kept telling me to “Mind the gap, mind the gap, mind the gap”.

    1. I think it was Reader’s Digest that did a piece on the messages put on church signs. I only remember one:
      “Do you know what Hell is?
      Come in and hear our new organist.”

      1. Not really on thread, but I can’t resist it. A church near where I used to live had a billboard proclaiming wittily: “Those who throw mud lose ground!” You could just about make out the words through all the clods of earth thrown by more witty critics.

  8. They could have said:

    “Priority seating for seniors and those with disabilities”

    Did they need to say customers? I assume that if you are on that train you as a passenger you are, indeed, a customer.

    1. It’s a thing. Passengers aren’t called “passengers” these days; calling them “customers” is supposed to foster a better attitude from staff. Supposed to.

      (The actually attitude is reflected in a mock memo that circulated in my father-in-law’s British Rail office: “We will now refer to them as ‘nuisances’.”)

      /@

      1. Ah, yes. I was simply suggesting not to call them anything. Except senior. Or Disabled. It would save room on the sign. Then they could use proper grammar.

        The “customers” are probably keenly aware of the attitude and what they are really called when they are out of earshot.

        3. In fact when my wife was in nursing school about 25 years ago, she was encouraged to refer to patients as “clients”. Fortunately it didn’t catch on.

      3. Under this better-attitude-fostering approach, “customer” has given way to “guest.”

        2. I HATE being called a ‘customer’ or a ‘guest’ when I’m travelling. This isn’t a shop, it isn’t a hotel, this is a sodding train and I’m a passenger. I’m not looking to buy anything except my ticket, I’m looking to be conveyed from A to B. Note to the lexically challenged marketroids who dream this stuff up: if it moves the people aboard are passengers. Stop mangling the language. You shouldn’t have to call them misleading names to give them decent service. [/rant]

  9. The language that upsets me most is when the recording on the other end of the phone says, “To reply please say yes or no.” And when I say “yes or no” it replies that my answer was not understood. Apparently the answer is either a yes or a no. Why don’t they just say so?

    >________________________________ > From: Why Evolution Is True >To: gmaduck@pacbell.net >Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:20 AM >Subject: [New post] More bad usage > > > WordPress.com >whyevolutionistrue posted: “This sign, which I photographed on the Metra “electric train” downtown, has the same problem as the television ad I posted about recently (and can’t) find: Apparently if you’re with a senior, you can have a special seat, too. Alternatively, perhaps you” >

  10. Why do they require both? Shouldn’t a customer bringing either a christian or a senior deserve priority seating? I guess some type of post to lean the senior or christian against might be helpful as well.

  11. Well, I don’t see anything wrong with this, really. Any slight ambiguity is a simple matter of elision with the second “for” understood (“and [for] seniors”), a construction people use in speech all the time. Signs are always constrained by spacing and design, and they often make line breaks and font size do the work of punctuation, as in the familiar “SLOW Children Ahead.” Nonetheless, this one might have used “disabled customers” instead of the longer phrase.

    1. Well, if brevity is of value, the word “customer” is completely unneeded, as was pointed out by D’Ma. “Priority” also does little work here.

      “Seating for seniors and the disabled” would work, no?

      2. Not really, as that suggests that others cannot use it at all, rather than that they should give it up for those mentioned (which is what’s intended).

        /@

      3. But that would imply that only seniours and disabled could sit there, so if the rest of the train was full and those seats were empty, I would have to stand.
        It reminds me of going into the main Bangkok railway station (Hua Lumphong) and all the seats were full except for two rows at the front that only had one older lady sitting there.
        She said to my Thai friend that only old people and monks were allowed to sit there, but I said to my friend, if the seats all fill up, then I will get up.
        On another station somewhere in Thailand (I think it was Hua Hin) there is a sign that says “Toilet for cripple”.
        They really should get native English speakers to do translations.

        1. ‘Toilet for cripple’ is at least understandable and probably more accurate than ‘wheelchair toilet’. I’ve never seen a wheelchair that needed to go to the toilet yet.

  12. Here’s one bad usage instance that has become so pervasive, I fear it will soon become accepted. Everytime i call my mobile carrier I get this:

    “All our agents are currently busy. Please wait on the line and someone will be with you momentarily.”

    Momentarily? They’re obviously using the word as a substitute for ‘in a moment’, despite the word’s actual meaning which is ‘for a moment’.

    That and using the word ‘media’ followed by a singular verb.

    1. The fact that it’s pervasive means it has already become accepted. “In a moment” is one of its actual meanings, in the sense that that’s what people actually mean when they say it. Why is that something to be afraid of?

      1. As I understood it, ‘momentarily’ means ‘soon’ in the US and ‘briefly’ in the UK. Or have I got it wrong?

  14. Here are are some road signs I see on the roads here in BC.

    “No Hitch Hiking Pick Up Is Illegal” – good to know.

    “Watch For Deer On Our Roads” – no mention of where to take the deer to get the watch. I’m guessing I’d need a photo of the deer standing on the road to qualify – but how to prove the deer offered for the watch is the same as the one in the photo. Although this sign is less problematic than the various “Watch For Children” signs posted officially and privately.

    Another confusing sign here in BC is “Vision Limited”. I never see the business establishment, so I googled and found that it is in fact located in Vancouver BC. Clever people there get free advertising on the taxpayer dollar.

    And I have yet to ask for the free eggs – the range ones!

    1. My pet hate: “Look for trains”. Why, have you lost one? (Also “Look for bikes” for the exact same reason). “Watch for trains” is much, much better as far as I’m concerned.

        1. “Mind the trains” is OK. Or “Beware of trains” or “Look out for trains”.
          Just not “Look [i.e. search] for trains.”

  17. I found a handwritten sign in front of a house in my old neighborhood which read:

    No Parking
    Water Meater

    Apparently, our water here in Kansas City has become so polluted that it is barbecue-flavored.

  18. As a disabled man I always like the sign which says “Disabled Toilet”.

    I don’t want a toilet that is disabled! I want one which works!

    1. I’ve sometimes seen “Male Toilet” and “Female Toilet” which is also rather amusing.

  19. Another frequent announcement on the tube exhorts passengers to “please use all available doors when boarding the train”.

    I’ve tried my damnedest, but never managed more than three before the train leaves. They need to give us more time…

    (n.b. if I were feeling hyper-pedantic, I might be inclined to include the ststion doors, my front door, and indeed all doors on the planet.)

      1. Tis is in the same category as the prescription I got last week that said “Take one pill three times daily”. I tried, but it got really sticky after the second time…

  20. My favorite one is from a station in London, I think it might be Greenwich – it’s on the DLR line anyway. A very strange instruction:

    “Dogs must be carried on the escalator.”

    There’s no mention of how high the fine is for being caught dogless on the escalator, nor is any minimum number of dogs specified. And what if you only own one dog or none at all? Or for reasons of disability are physically incapable of carrying more than one dog?

    2. Sure it’s funny if you take it literally but you know what they mean because for sake of brevity they’ve left out the conditional clause.

      1. They could have been just as brief, and less ambiguous, by saying “Dogs on the escalator must be carried.”

  23. That’s why public institutions need editors. Jobs for English grads.

    A sign on a metal clothes cupboard at my former employer’s read: “Do not move this cupboard while in a loaded condition.”

    But that’s the only time I’d ever even try to move it.

  24. Signspotting.com has a full array of hilarious, baffling signs from around the world. Always a day-brightener.

    1. Cool! My local airport made the scene. (The “Recombobulation Area” sign is from Milwaukee Mitchell Airport.)

  25. Disabled people and seniors often have escorts. As a user of wheel-trans in Toronto my wife is occasionally my escort. Of course escorts get a seat too.

    I go to your blog daily Jerry. Thank you very much.

  26. One of my favorite signs was in a jewelry shop window:
    Ear Piercing
    Quick & Painless
    While you wait

    I finally realized that what they meant was, “no appointment necessary”.

  27. Another classic from the want ads:

    Antique maple dining set
    for sale by elderly lady
    with beautifully carved legs.

  28. The easiest way to correct this would be: “Priority seating for senior and/or disabled customers only.”

Comments are closed.