Devolution toward Simpler

“Accredidation”

Devolution toward Simpler, Mispronunciations, Misspellings, Nouns

I heard this during a radio broadcast this morning.

Problem:
This is a mispronunciation.

Explanation:
The radio broadcast was about The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB).

The news reporter said that UTMB would not lose its “accredidation” in spite of yesterday’s announcement that 3,800 employees there would be laid off.

The noun is correctly spelled A-C-C-R-E-D-I-T-A-T-I-O-N because it comes from the verb “accredit”, which ends with a “t”.

Therefore, the final two syllables of the noun “accreditation” should be pronounced as “tation” (starting with a “t” as in “tango”) instead of as “dation” (starting with a “d” as in “delta”).

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following (without the quotation marks) and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

  • “accreditation” — 38,100,000 matches
  • “accredidation” — 85,500 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct spelling versus the incorrect spelling by a ratio of 446-to-1, which is superb.

However, this ratio does not tell the complete story because it covers spellings, not pronunciations.

I believe that the mispronunciation of “accreditation” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say “dation” than it is to say “tation”.

Solution:
“Accreditation”

“Leader-led training”

Adjectives, Devolution toward Simpler, Redundancies

I have seen this in several announcements from one company.

Problem:
The adjective “leader-led” is self-redundant and does not tell you who is doing the leading.

Explanation:
Courses offered by companies before the advent of computers were called “corporate training” or simply “training”.

The advent of computers and authoring tools made “computer-based training” possible.

The advent of the Web and more authoring tools made “Web-based training” possible.

These two phrases forced writers and speakers to look for a special phrase to distinguish non-computer-based training from computer-based training and Web-based training, but “non-computer-based training” was too long and somewhat negative.

This resulted in the creation of the phrase “instructor-led training”.

Unfortunately, this phrase has deteriorated in some quarters into “leader-led training”, which says nothing about who is doing the leading of the training.

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following (with the quotation marks, to avoid variations) and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

  • “instructor-led training” — 519,000 matches
  • “instructor-led courses” — 85,800 matches
  • “leader-led training” — 597 matches
  • “leader-led courses” — 410 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the meaningful “instructor-led” versus the meaningless “leader-led” by a ratio of 601-to-1, which is excellent.

However, this does not mean that “leader-led” as an adjective will not grow in popularity. I believe that the replacement of “instructor-led” with “leader-led” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to write or say the two-syllable noun “leader” than it is to write or say the three-syllable noun “instructor”, and “leader” — not “instructor” — is alliterative with “led”.

Solution:
“Instructor-led training”

“TOGO”

Adjectives, Devolution toward Simpler, Hyphens, Nouns

I saw this on a restaurant receipt.

Problem:
A hyphen is missing.

Explanation:
I ordered some “take-out” food from a restaurant a couple of evenings ago.

While I was waiting for my order to be prepared, I studied the receipt.

Printed in all capital letters in the middle of it was “TOGO” — spelled T-O-G-O.

Beyond the ridiculousness of using all capital letters given the mixed-case font used throughout the receipt, the designer of the receipt surely did not mean to refer to the African country officially known as the Togolese Republic.

No, the designer was trying to indicate that the order was a take-out order — that the order was “to-go” — spelled T-O-HYPHEN-G-O.

The format of the receipt was more than four characters wide, so the omission of the hyphen between “TO” and “GO” could not be blamed on lack of space.

I believe that the omission of the hyphen is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to omit the hyphen than to include it.

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following (with the quotation marks, to avoid variations) and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

  • “to-go orders” — using T-O-HYPHEN-G-O — 332,000 matches
  • “togo orders” — using T-O-G-O — 3,390 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct spelling versus the incorrect spelling by a ratio of 97.9-to-1, which is very good.

I still have to wonder whether the restaurant receipt designer has even heard of the country of Togo. Perhaps if he or she had, then the need for the hyphen would have been more obvious.

Solution:
“TO-GO”