Being a branch of some monolithic corporation (that's probably registered in the Cayman Islands and doesn't fire its pharmacists despite their twisted religious views -- ok, those are rants for another day), it naturally had massive signage out front.
This one said (oh, for a camera when I needed it):
Diet Coke 2 Liter BOGO freeNow, after a minute of thought, I was able to conjecture that we were talking Buy One Get One free.
But it sure pinned my BOGOmeter.
If I were an assistant manager in charge of signage at a branch of a store like this (kill me now just for imagining that possibility), I might have gone with B1G1 free. This has the following advantages:
- It doesn't look bogus
- If a reader sub-vocalizes the acronym, it sounds like "Be One Jee One free", which is more suggestive than sounding like "BOGO free"
- If the 1's are misinterpreted as I's, than it looks like it sounds like "big one free"
8 comments:
No.
You're here to talk about acronyms v. abbreviations again, aren't you?
Just let it go.
ok, i think you just pegged my hypocrometer. anytime someone "foregrounds" something you freak out, yet you'll freely drop a "bogometer" or a "bogosity"?
hmmmmm.
There's a large difference between the coolness of hacker slang and the stiffness of suit-speak.
I may not be able precisely to define it, but I'm sure you and I both know it when we hear it.
Sorry about that last sentence. Suddenly, I am fearful of split infinitives.
ever wonder if on the other side of the internet some suit is ranting on his blog about how hacker slang is completely incapable of leveraging any synergy?
and shouldn't that be "i may not be able to define it precisely"?
your fear of split infinitives is misplaced, kind of like your modifier.
HA, GOTCHA GRAMMAR BOY!!!
I will plead nolo contendre to the charge of an extremely awkward sentence.
And I like the notion of an anti-parallel universe, where the suits might actually be able to write.
My fear is, however, that Timmmmmmm has secret longings about becoming a suit himself. I mean, he's always defending them, have you noticed?
i wore a suit once, but i cant say that i liked it. just don't feel right if i'm not sportin a few tears, several stains, and some frayed edges. they kinda have comfort factor/sentimental value. one spot might remind me of a particularly delicious double double, or a tear might remind me of the time i climbed over the wall to break into tom's office so that the half-life server could be rebooted...
i suppose it would be nice to make more money than any human rightly deserves, but who wants to look like a monkey everyday?
hey, check it out, 2005 was a pretty fertile year for new words!
hooray!!!
slob fo' life foo!
[veering way off topic, unless you consider it related to the subject of suits]
why the hell are all these supreme court candidates so concerned about giving the appearance of having "pre-judged" issues? what the crap are they so worried about, people appealing their decisions?
Well, one might respond with idealism, that a candidate for any judicial post ought not be considered based on his or her political leanings, but exclusively on his or her mastery of the law.
But we know better. We know that cynicism is better than idealism these days. We know that someone appointed by W had best hide his political leanings, lest even the people from Kansas start waking up.
Post a Comment