Thanks, Beans and Drcocktail.
The umbrage really isn't mine. Consider me a proofreader who spots an error that might prove embarrassing were it to be published. I didn't write the rules, I didn't write the copy. I'm just looking around, nervously, at the posse that might be showin' up any time, ready to lynch the idea of an (ahem) Key Lime Martini. Or any other of the libelous libations, the cockeyed cocktails, the bastardized brews churned out in marketing lingo (and that's all it is ) today.
Over at my other hangout, Readerville, there is a thread called "Word Abuse! Word Abuse!" and another one all about food. (Readerville is specifically book-centric.) I can't count the number of times that I've seen people go off about martinis. It just has come to be sacrilegious to me that a martini could include things like apple or vanilla or blackberry. They should call them "pot pourri cocktails." A martini with fruit would go, in my opinion as a non-martini drinker, right straight into the "Word Abuse" thread.
I think specificity in language is a very nice thing, especially when it counterbalances corporate speak. Corporations employ marketing people. Marketing people employ hype. Hype employs falsehoods. I think it's very good when language gets real.
Or maybe I need a deprogrammer. I hope not.
If you do, so do I - and I am
a martini drinker. At least... I thought I was... but I have to confess that I do sometimes drink the vodka (per)version and had quite forgotten it wasn't orthodox.
At any rate, though I too am fanatical in proofreading mode, I have tried to learn to pick my battles; which is why I kept mum on this point. As someone said up-thread (and perhaps down-thread as well - when will
I learn to hold off until I've seen the whole thread?
), it's gone and gotten itself too prevalent to be fought down; I figure if I keep my own utterance pure, and clear of my own pet peeves (and I got plenty of 'em), then at least I'm doing some
of my bit.
Of course, there are a few howlers that will spur me to riposte. BTW, the split infinitive ain't among 'em; there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a split infinitive. That is one of those arbitrary artificial rules that were imposed in the 19th century by old what's-'is-name (damn, what IS his name? my mind is slipping) because he felt there weren't enough grammar rules to fill up a curriculum. Of course, now we all avoid them - even I do - because we're not used to considering them OK, and they sound weird to us. But wrong... they ain't. And while I'm at it (oooh, look, Ms. Pick-Your-Battles is ranting after all!), here's the one I resent most: Just where does old what's-'is-name get off outlawing ending sentences with prepositions? That one really frosts me. Go read Samuel Richardson and Jane Austen amd Henry Fielding: their work is full of dangling prepositions, and they are one of its greatest charms. Well, the hell with it. If it's good enough for Richardson, it's good enough for me. I'll go ahead and dangle my prepositions whenever I damn well please.
Whew. We now return you to... where were we? Oh - yes - if it really doesn't bother you to do so, go ahead and call it a Martini. I couldn't do it, meself, but that's me.Um. Now, about my own sin... what SHOULD I call it if I make it with vodka...?
EDIT to add: There. I knew it. Coulda saved myself the trouble: JAZ has already said most of it - more succinctly, too. (But I stand by the grammatic rant.
Edited by balmagowry, 01 April 2004 - 02:44 PM.