Category: Entrepreneurial Wellness

Back due to popular request this week is “wordsmithing”—I’ll visit three tips on English usage from famed etymologist, Bryan Garner (author of Garner’s Modern American Usage).

Today, I’ll revisit his usage tips on (1) “would have liked,” (2) “wrack vs. rack” and the concept of (3) “zeugma,” a figure of speech often found in literature and in the media. Enjoy!

(1)   Garner writes that the phrase “would have liked” should always be followed by a present-tense infinitive—such as, “She would have liked to read . . . ” or “She would have liked to travel . . . .” The infinitive verb tense must always be positive, so that “She would have liked to have seen” (past tense) is incorrect.

Care must also be taken to keep the sequence of events correct, so that “She would like to have done more . . .” is also incorrect, because the “having done” occurs before the “liking.”

(2)   Wrack vs. rack: to “wrack” means to destroy utterly, to wreck or ruin something. By contrast, “rack” means to torture or oppress.

“Wrack” is also used as a noun to refer to wreckage (“The wrack of the Titanic”) and utter destruction (“The bombing reduced the basement to wrack and ruin”).

The transitive verb “rack” (He racked his brain to think of someone who could help”) should not be confused with the noun “wrack” (“I racked my mind to recall where I had heard that the wrack had occurred.”).

(3)   “Zeugma” – a figure of speech that “yokes together” two constructions for one word. It may result “in a grammatical error, but sometimes is simply a felicitous way of phrasing an idea.” Garner offers examples first of the witty/humourous kind of zeugma, but indicates that there are also many incorrect/erroneous uses. I’ll cite two funny ones, here (and will describe some erroneous ones, in a later posting):

—From Groucho Marx: “Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana” (in Jim Shea, “Groucho Speaks,” Hartford Courant, 18 August, 1997). Here “flies” and “like” are used in two senses, yoked together.

—From the “Jim Henson Hour,”  “I just blew my nose, a fuse and three circuit breakers” (16 July 1989). Here “blew” is used in two senses, yoked together, as if one.

© Bryan Garner, “Usage Tip of the Day,” (August 5, 7 and September 1, 2014).

Why do these tips matter? Correct usage (“would have liked,” “wrack/rack”) and using figures of speech (such as zeugma) are powerful tools for emphasis and persuasion.  I follow Garner’s daily etymological blog, because I know and find that idiomatic use of the English language is essential to writers of all kinds—including business writers. To my prospects and clients: you may feel that such issues are best left with me, when I do the writing. But my call-to-action is to be conscious of the ways that we use language (including any irregularities or errors that we make), which are inextricably linked to the ideas that you (my clients) and I want to express.

For more information about Bryan Garner’s seminars, visit www.lawprose.org

 

All interactions and transactions in business need to have empathy for each party involved. Empathy has been defined by psychologists as an “affirming, supportive and validating milieu” (Rowe and MacIsaac). Famed Canadian entrepreneur Arlene Dickinson recently wrote this:

“Empathy is not a negative in the workplace, despite what many people believe. The conventional wisdom is that if you feel too much for others, you lack the toughness to get ahead. It’s just not true. In fact, if you are able to put yourself in another person’s shoes, you’re more likely to be able to persuade them to walk with you in the direction you want to go” (Persuasion 169).

She adds that if “you get in the habit of listening closely and taking yourself out of the equation, so that you can truly empathize with others, you’ll find that good timing starts to come naturally. Empathy, in other words, will help make you more persuasive” (170).

Empathy, however, cannot be only one-sided. It requires give and take. For instance, a journalist colleague recently sent a draft of an article to his interviewee, for fact-checking. He felt stung by the one-sidedness of the interviewee’s replies:

Interviewee:  “It’s all wrong. Start over.”

Journalist: “What’s so wrong about it all . . .”

Interviewee: “Everything [is wrong]!”

Journalist: “So what about this word [pointing out one] – what should it say?”

Interviewee: “It should say ‘Braeburn,’ not ‘apple.’ ”

Journalist: “OK. Good. I can fix that. But what else is wrong? What about this word [pointing out another]?”

Interviewee: “Well, that’s all right. But there’s a lot of it that’s all wrong!”

Celebrated negotiator, William Ury (of the Harvard Negotiation Project), says of such moments: “Don’t Argue: Step to their Side” (Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations). Use empathy even (and especially) when you’re not receiving it from the other person.

When dealing with a difficult person, client or colleague, Ury recommends listening actively or empathically—giving your “opponent” a good hearing. Paraphrase what that person says and ask for corrections that they want to make to what you’ve heard. Continue reading “More Thoughts on Empathy in Freelancing . . .”

I’m taking a few day’s reprieve from projects to refill the creative well. Blogging will resume in two weeks. . . . Enjoy the sun!

And special thanks to William Ury for re-tweeting my tweet on _Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In_ ! I’m honoured to have caught his attention with my blog and continue to find the work of the Harvard Negotiation Project inspiring.

 

As I indicated in my last blog posting, I recently had an opportunity to read closely Fisher, Ury and Patton’s edition of the business classic, Getting To Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2011). It’s a remarkable, foundational text on how two or more parties can set aside their positions and negotiate for interests which they have in common–so long as they devote time and energy to investigating what they are.

Shortly before the latest edition of Getting to Yes was published, one of its co-authors, the internationally-renowned negotiator, William Ury, gave a TEDTalk, whose insights illustrate the usefulness of creatively negotiating for agreement and peace. Whether one’s a freelance copywriter or marketer negotiating fees; an international rights’ activist or mediator in the Middle East, striving to find some common ground; Ury’s insights are worth listening to, in the “walk from ‘no’ to ‘yes:’ ”

Just as all human beings are part of the 15,000 tribes on earth (as Anthropologists tell us), we are all part of one family. And in that context, Ury says, “the secret to peace is us” – the community that surrounds any conflict, a “third side” beyond the major players, which consists of family members, friends, allies, neighbours. That “third side” restores a fair perspective to negotiators, when so many of us react automatically (and in hostility). The “third side” in the context of the conflict in the Middle East, refers to Christians, Moslems and Jews, who all feel personally involved in its intractable war.

As Ury eloquently says, “Four thousand years ago, a man and his family crossed the Middle East and the world has never been the same since.” The man was of course Abraham, who stood for the unity of family, the father of us all. And whose basic value was respect and kindness (esp. hospitality) towards strangers. Ury says that Abraham is the “third side” of the Middle East and governs our position within a greater whole.

Some 10 years ago, thinking of how Abraham stands as an antidote to terrorism and conflict, Ury contemplated the usefulness of re-living Abraham’s story, of walking in his footsteps, in a common direction and in a side-by-side manner that would embody no threat to either party. With fellow negotiators, Ury plotted a path that followed Abraham’s footsteps, from his birthplace to his grave (from “womb to tomb”). They did this despite others’ claims that such a project was impossible, that is was unthinkable to cross the boundaries of some of the 10 most hostile geographical countries the world.

On the contrary, the first set of travellers in 2008 found that people in the local villages offered them food and hospitality, in the name of Abraham. The prophet and shared ancestor continues to be a living presence to the people of the Middle East. And with that walk as inspiration, “Abraham” walks and runs uniting different communities from countries as disparate as the U.S. and Brazil, have since been held.

Organizers have found that Abraham influenced not only the psychology of the welcome and hospitality, but also the economic welfare brought to poor residents who live on the path. Those residents began regularly to cook and serve delicious food to passing tourists. For many locals, financial survival, after lifetimes of abject poverty, ensued. From “hostility” comes “hospitality,” Ury observes. And “terrorism” is transformed into “tourism.”

And why not?

Ury observes that iIf Europe was able to rebuild from the devastation of 1945 to peaceful prosperity, common identity and a common currency, why not the Middle East, too?  Abraham as the progenitor of community and the daily transactions of tourism offer the common economy. Self-interest among nations gives way to sharing.

Ury closes his talk with three insights: (1) The secret to peace is the “third side;” (2) The third side is each of us; and (3) “Each of us, with a single step can . . . bring the world a step closer to peace.” Continue reading “William Ury: Walking the “Abraham Path” to Negotiate Peace”

Since I did not study Business (but the Arts) in university, I find it interesting to read and think about some of the classic texts that business majors (or MBA students) have read, as a part of their training. Often there are tremendous insights to be mined for my work, as a freelancer.

One such study, Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton’s Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Revised Edition, 2011) makes a very powerful case on how to negotiate agreement well with another party or parties, however different and dissenting the two or more groups in negotiation may be.

The authors are pillars of the Harvard Negotiation Project, which has worked together in print and in world-wise settings of negotiation, in state and industry, since 1977. The project is based on a method of “principled negotiation,” that aims to “decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do” (xxviii).

One of the authors’ foundational arguments in this book is that behind opposed positions are shared and compatible interests, and not only conflicting and different ones. A shopkeeper may haggle with a customer over the cost of an antique bowl, until both parties are blue-in-the-face and further from agreement than when they started. Participants’ egos become identified with such positions, until both parties are at an impasse and have lost all amity (not to mention time and energy).

Two men in a library quarrel over whether or not to open a window (their positions are yay/nay). “They bicker back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three-quarters of the way. No solution satisfies them both. . .

Enter the librarian. She asks one why he wants the window open [his interest]: ‘To get some fresh air.’ She asks the other why he wants it closed [his interest]: ‘To avoid the draft.’ After thinking a minute, she opens wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft” (42). Here the librarian has effectively negotiated a settlement that meets both men’s interests, and has done so through a principled weighing and considering of each side’s interests. She has simultaneously sidestepped their polarized positions. Continue reading “Favourite Books: Visiting Fisher and Ury’s _Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In_”