Actor Wanted--Blond, Buxom, Bawdy

Suddenly, women who act for a living are calling themselves “actors,” an appellation that distresses me for some of the same reasons the word “guy” when referring to women distresses me.

Is this what that women’s movement during the 1970s was all about? So, we could give up taking men’s names in marriage, but snag them for use in other areas of our lives?

Once, a young man—obviously not too sure of himself—flew into a fit of apoplexy when I announced that “gals”—not “guys”—was now the generic term for men and women. I suppose if we decided that “actress” was now the generic term for men and women who act for a living, more than one young man would sputter and spit with rage.

Yes, I know, the term “actor” has been adopted by women who take their thespian skills seriously and want the world to look upon them as professionals worthy of their salaries. They regard the –ss suffix as demeaning because of its history. After all, it used to mean “wife of,” and so I quite understand the dilemma they face in associating themselves with such a tag. I simply don’t understand why women always have to assume a masculine label.

Indeed, in terms of stage and screen, the lexical pickings are slim. I guess “player” isn’t a good alternative, since it has been taken over by former rogues and Don Juans. “Performer” is out, since a performer is usually a singer or dancer. “Thespian” is too evocative of high-school theater clubs; “trouper” is way too reminiscent of troubadours and traveling; “role player” is too loaded with lying and psychology. How about “theatrician”? No. Sounds too much like electrician.

If we can’t come up with a more appropriate word than “actor” for women performers, how about calling everyone who acts on stage and screen an “actoresse”? (We’ll keep the –or in actor to make it easier for men to accept the transition to gender-designation freedom.) “Esse” means “nature” or “essence.” So, an actoresse—pronounced ak-tor-es-seh), is a person who is the very essence of acting.

From or For or In Bed: He's Still Indicted

Last week, in reporting the same tired story over and over and over again, television reporters on every single English-language news channel repeated the phrase “he was indicted from his hospital bed” at least a thousand times within the space of an hour.

The phrase bothered me for three reasons.

First, its very repetition was a cruel aural punishment. Do television reporters meet on a weekly basis at their teeth-polishing salons and decide on a catchphrase of the week?

Second, the person who was “indicted” from his hospital bed was in a mental institution. Why would he have been in bed?

Third, I’m not so sure one can be indicted from anywhere. After all, one is never from court.

So I went on a little etymological hunt.

When one is indicted, one is arraigned, or accused. So, if one is, in fact, lying in a hospital bed when the judge and lawyers enter the room, they will proceed to indict him in his hospital bed.

But, that sounds a little strange, because it might suggest that everyone got into bed with him for the indictment. So, to safeguard against such misinterpretation, television writers changed the active indict to a passive to be indicted: “Mr. Alleged Perpetrator was indicted in his hospital bed.”

What we never find out is what Mr. A.P. was indicted for. But, I guess there’s definite ambiguity in “Mr. Alleged Perpetrator was indicted for murder in his hospital bed.”

Did he murder someone in his hospital bed?

So some bright copywriter or copyeditor came up with the idea of using a different preposition—from—to act as a clarifier, or dis-ambiguizer. However, because we never would say, “Mr. Alleged Perpetrator was indicted for murder from court,” it doesn’t work.

It’s a lexical mess, and had the newscasters not repeated the phrase so many times on one day, I probably wouldn’t have considered the matter, well, indictable. They might have agreed on something like: “Mr. Alleged Perpetrator was in his hospital bed when prosecutors indicted him for murder.”

But, they didn’t.

I still don’t understand, though, why he was in bed in the first place. Was it the middle of the night?

Hypercorrections and Whomever

If you’re not sure whether to use who or whom and their sisters whoever or whomever, look for the subject of the clause. Take a look at the following sentences.

1. Until they change their policy, I will continue to write nasty letters to whoever is in charge of the company.
   
   Until they change their policy, / I will continue to write nasty letters to / whoever is in charge of the company.
   
   
2. Until they change their policy, I will continue to write nasty letters to whomever I please.
   
   Until they change their policy, / I will continue to write nasty letters to / whomever I please.
   

In the first sentence, “whoever” is the subject of the clause. Why? Because “whoever” is “in charge.” Specifically, “whoever” is the subject of the linking verb, "is."

In the second sentence, “whomever” isn’t doing anything other than receiving my action of writing.

Try googling “whomever” and you’ll find an abundance of writers who heartily wish to sound oh so correct, yet fall into the cruel embrace of that most insidious of grammatical monsters, hypercorrectness.

Or, if you prefer clarity with a touch of humor, buy a copy of the Princeton Review’s Grammar Smart, one of my favorite books of all time. I’d love to meet whoever wrote this un-dried-out, un-fuddy-duddy guide to maneuvering the grammar maze.

Its target audience?

The book is for whoever shuts down at the mere mention of grammar, whoever learned to hate grammar in high school—which makes you ancient, for its been a long time since grammar fell victim to intellectual downsizing—and whoever thinks grammar has all the appeal of a visit to a dentist who doesn’t believe in Novocain or happy gas.

Television News: All the News That’s Fit to Slant

Yesterday’s television headline and scroll bar blurb: "Mother Dies in Airport Jail Cell. "

It turns out that this unfortunate “mother” was the daughter-in-law of someone famous. In addition, according to news reports, she was mentally ill and had had a history of substance intoxication. I have no idea if the 45-year-old woman had ever worked; nor do I know the ages of her children or if she lived with them or why she was traveling alone in her condition.

I know that she was a mother. And, mother is a word packed with explosives.

So, naturally, I wondered: Had this woman had been a man who died under similar conditions, would the headlines and scroll bars have read: “Father Dies in Airport Jail Cell?”

Of course not. A man would have been a man or a profession.

Okay, perhaps motherhood was this woman’s fulltime occupation. But, if you throw yourself into the embrace of a substance, isn’t that substance your new fulltime occupation?

Here are a few more factual possibilities:

“Drug Addict Dies in Airport Jail.”
“Recuperating Drug Addict Dies in Airport Jail.”
“Mentally Ill Woman Dies in Airport Jail.”
“Forty-Five-Year-Old Woman Dies in Airport Jail.”
“Angry Woman Dies in Airport Jail.”
Or
“Woman Dies in Airport Jail.”