Root on, Indiana

Dateline: Sun 02 Aug 2009

A friend noted a page 1 mini-headline in today's Indianapolis Star:

"Chris Evert was at Crooked Stick to root on her husband, Greg Norman."

She thought it sounded hilarious -- and decidely sexual  -- until another friend explained the term is simply a Hoosierism, such as "I'm for sure" going to etc. (root on a husband?)

Perhaps the reader is just confusing the German/Yiddish verb, "to rooch," which refers to (I believe) animals scuttling their behinds along the ground, in an effort to cleanse.

At any rate, the Free Dictionary (online) gives "root on" a green light:

"root on - spur on or encourage especially by cheers and shouts; 'The crowd cheered the demonstrating strikers'"

Still, rooting on your husband -- on Page 1? With Crooked Stick as a backdrop? Not my idea of a good time.

   

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Wilson46201 [unverified] said:

Reversing subject and object could produce a different perspective: "Greg Norman was at Crooked Stick to root on his wife, Chris Evert."

Get a room, people!

2009-08-02 11:06:33

jersey [unverified] said:

Anyone check out today's 'Guide to Colt's Camp"? Pretty poor attempt at whatever it is supposed to be. Sadly, I am not surprised.

2009-08-02 13:07:23

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

I still don't get the Colts camp insert. It was just silly.


2009-08-02 13:10:28

ruthholl [Member] said:

I'm still trying to get over that Lawrence editorial, with its stream of conscious hippie-dippy emphasis and its odd typos.
Or one typo.
But the paper was fat today, fat like a hog: all those back-to-school ads gave it more heft than the NYT. However, content-wise...I can spend hours with the thinner but deeper Times. Not much to read in today's Star, altho Carpenter was OK. Ryerson was OK, too, for a change. Or maybe I'm getting soft in the head.
You guys find anything readable, as an old boss used to say?

2009-08-02 13:14:48

Seneca [unverified] said:

"Take me out to the ball game . . ."

"Let me root, root root for the home team . . ."

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

2009-08-02 15:06:32

framos [unverified] said:

"Root Hog, or Die!" How's that for a Hoosierism?

2009-08-02 17:31:46

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

"Cheer" would have been a better word than root. But the Star editors and writers reflect the Hoosier culture, rich with poor word choice, misplaced apostrophes (to show possession--yikes!) and similar linguistic gems.

I used to frequently e-mail the editor who oversaw the wedding/anniversary announcements. They almost always misused apostrophes ("The Smith's" instead of the proper "The Smiths"). They only needed to use an AP Stylebook for Christ's sake...one editor wrote me back and asked what that was. I kid you not. Strunk and White wept.

I'm angrier than I was yesterday about the Lawrence PD editorial, Ruthie. It basically forgave and explained-away boorish and loutish treatment of an Asian-American citizen. The smallest offense in that editorial was grammar or word choice.

The polieman did the ugly deed--IN WRITING no less. His chief defended the officer and explained it away. As if that's not enough, in a rush to defend anything an LEO does, The Star minimized this behavior.

It is a disgrace.

I read the paper today, too...even scanned the inserts, which I rarely do. Saw a nice coupon for GFS,my favorite bargain grocer these days. (Excellent buys, good quality...)

But the columns were the same rubbish. Mr. Milz was slightly better, which is damning with faint praise.

I spent 25 minutes with the entire paper. I spent two hours with the Sunday NYT. The NYT travel section had some excellent articles, as did the Biz section. And as noted here before, the Style weddings are always a good read. Such snobs. Maybe I'm a snob, too.



2009-08-02 18:39:13

JohnnyBGoode [Member] said:

Tell the Truth: Are you aware that the wedding announcements are paid ads? Don't call the person in charge of these announcements an editor. After real editors frequently pointed out mistakes to the folks who took the ads, they gave up. It seems that if the customer abused the apostrophe, it couldn't be changed. Never mind that as a courtesy, a friendly query to the customer could have avoided glaring mistakes, and a grateful customer could have been spared the embarrassment.

2009-08-02 19:26:38

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Johnny: it didn't used to be that way. My calls go way back.

I am aware, yes. And the paid ads should still use proper grammar. If the submitting persons use improper grammar, it should be corrected.

An editor reviews all content of all pages, even ads.


2009-08-02 21:14:42

StarStruck [Member] said:

JohnnyBGoode: The CONTENT of those ads are paid -- it's still up to a copy editor to put the headlines on them and another copy editor to read and correct them. Yeah, oops.

As for "root," it should be root FOR, not root ON. Jeez.

2009-08-03 03:32:40

linda [unverified] said:

Yep, "root FOR" is how I always heard it used.......but I'm from the South, what do I know?

2009-08-03 16:14:51

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

I am pretty sure the word "on" changed everything. It made me giggle a little all day yesterday.

I saw Chris at the tournament. She's not changed a bit. A very pretty lady, and friendly, too. She and the Aussie make a very handsome couple.

It'd be interesting to know exactly how the Aussies view this word kerfuffle. Some of their verbs translate hysterically to our everyday usage.

2009-08-04 08:41:21

Comments are closed.

Login

or Register

Search

Syndicate Blog