5.00 score from hupso.pl for:
benyagoda.com



HTML Content


Titleben yagoda's blog

Length: 22, Words: 4
Description pusty

Length: 0, Words: 0
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description pusty
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 10084
Text/HTML 54.38 %
Headings H1 20
H2 1
H3 0
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
ben yagoda's blog
menu
how old is gaslighting’?
woo-hoo for “woo woo”
let’s call the whole thing ‘often’
who that?
reporting profiles
cheat sheet: identifications and ages
yagoda’s rules for quotes, 2.0
will rogers: “bacons, beans, and limousines”
how “online” became “offline”
letterman and irony
posts navigation
follow ben yagoda through your favorite rss reader
buy now!
about me
recent posts
recent comments
blogroll
find me here
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
strong
wrong
wrong
ages
i. the care and use of quotes
ii. the mechanics of quotes
b
i
em wrong
wrong
ages
i. the care and use of quotes
ii. the mechanics of quotes
Bolds strong 5
b 0
i 0
em 5
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 28
Pliki CSS 8
Pliki javascript 20
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 114
Linki wewnętrzne 2
Linki zewnętrzne 112
Linki bez atrybutu Title 112
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content
cancel #

Linki zewnętrzne

ben yagoda's blog https://benyagoda.com/
home https://benyagoda.com/
articles https://benyagoda.com/articles/
archives https://benyagoda.com/articles/archives/
archive-2012 https://benyagoda.com/articles/archives/archive-2012/
archive-2013 https://benyagoda.com/articles/archives/archive-2013/
archive-2014 https://benyagoda.com/articles/archives/archive-2014/
on books and authors https://benyagoda.com/articles/on-books-and-authors/
on everything else https://benyagoda.com/articles/on-everything-else/
on language https://benyagoda.com/articles/on-language/
on music https://benyagoda.com/articles/on-music/
on writing https://benyagoda.com/articles/on-writing/
bio https://benyagoda.com/bio/
books https://benyagoda.com/about/
news & appearances https://benyagoda.com/news-appearances/
on writing https://benyagoda.com/on-writing/
“how to not write bad,” excerpts https://benyagoda.com/on-writing/how-to-not-write-bad-early-excerpts/
principles of newswriting https://benyagoda.com/on-writing/principles-of-newswriting/
yagoda’s rules for quotes https://benyagoda.com/on-writing/yagodas-rules-for-quotes/
how old is gaslighting’? https://benyagoda.com/2017/01/20/how-old-is-gaslighting/
https://benyagoda.com/2017/01/20/how-old-is-gaslighting/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2017/01/20/how-old-is-gaslighting/#respond
press release http://www.americandialect.org/dumpster-fire-is-2016-american-dialect-society-word-of-the-year
the new republic https://newrepublic.com/article/136902/trumps-racist-birther-gaslighting-strategy-taken-gop
salon http://www.salon.com/2016/10/16/donald-trump-as-a-gaslighter-what-we-must-learn-from-his-manipulative-non-apology/
cnn http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/gaslighting-election-2016-unprecedented/
the texas observer https://www.texasobserver.org/how-the-gop-is-gaslighting-america/
teen vogue http://www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america
essay https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/magazine/the-reverse-gaslighting-of-donald-trump.html?_r=0
here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3daeg-3yqllvq
web page https://jacksonupperco.com/2013/11/26/the-ten-best-the-lucy-show-episodes-of-season-six/
episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3deg5bfbyo97m
woo-hoo for “woo woo” https://benyagoda.com/2016/04/02/woo-hoo-for-woo-woo/
https://benyagoda.com/2016/04/02/woo-hoo-for-woo-woo/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2016/04/02/woo-hoo-for-woo-woo/#respond
anthimeria http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2016/01/12/our-national-anthimeria/
ronnie (woo woo) wickers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ronnie_woo_woo
reported https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/02/21/the-jordan-encounter/4c9284f2-fd11-4357-84cc-7532ca60a234/
woo woo pc chant http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/pc_chant
“you should be mine (the woo woo song),” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbdh7j2fwc
let’s call the whole thing ‘often’ https://benyagoda.com/2015/12/14/lets-call-the-whole-thing-often/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/12/14/lets-call-the-whole-thing-often/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/12/14/lets-call-the-whole-thing-often/#respond
podcast https://soundcloud.com/replyall/41-what-it-looks-like
this https://youtu.be/abw-oaowddy
who that? https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/24/who-that/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/24/who-that/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/24/who-that/#respond
here, http://chronicle.com/article/the-elements-of-clunk/125757/
- http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-14-at-3.03.08-pm.png
corpus of contemporary american english http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
- http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-15-at-9.41.03-am.png
- http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-15-at-9.51.06-am.png
discussions http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that#sthash.wtoicvsg.dpuf
points http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that#sthash.wtoicvsg.dpuf
earlier http://chronicle.com/article/the-elements-of-clunk/125757/
reporting profiles https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/02/reporting-profiles/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/02/reporting-profiles/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/02/reporting-profiles/#respond
cheat sheet: identifications and ages https://benyagoda.com/2015/09/24/cheat-sheet-identifications-and-ages/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/09/24/cheat-sheet-identifications-and-ages/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/09/24/cheat-sheet-identifications-and-ages/#respond
yagoda’s rules for quotes, 2.0 https://benyagoda.com/2015/08/25/yagodas-rules-for-quotes-2-0/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/08/25/yagodas-rules-for-quotes-2-0/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/08/25/yagodas-rules-for-quotes-2-0/#respond
will rogers: “bacons, beans, and limousines” https://benyagoda.com/2015/06/01/will-rogers-bacons-beans-and-limousines/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/06/01/will-rogers-bacons-beans-and-limousines/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/06/01/will-rogers-bacons-beans-and-limousines/#respond
national recording registry http://www.loc.gov/programs/national-recording-preservation-board/about-this-program/
online http://www.loc.gov/programs/static/national-recording-preservation-board/media/rogers1.ram
how “online” became “offline” https://benyagoda.com/2015/05/28/how-online-became-offline/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/05/28/how-online-became-offline/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/05/28/how-online-became-offline/#respond
- https://benyagodablogsandbox.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screen-shot-2015-05-28-at-5-08-53-pm.png
letterman and irony https://benyagoda.com/2015/05/22/letterman-and-irony/
https://benyagoda.com/2015/05/22/letterman-and-irony/
benyagodablog https://benyagoda.com/author/benyagodablog/
leave a comment https://benyagoda.com/2015/05/22/letterman-and-irony/#respond
philip larkin http://www.wussu.com/poems/plam.htm
sketched out http://languagehat.com/irony-and-pity/
put-on, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1967/06/24/the-put-on
declaration http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/11/live-from-new-york/
older posts https://benyagoda.com/page/2/
rss - posts https://benyagoda.com/feed/
- http://amzn.to/1dasoup
how old is gaslighting’? https://benyagoda.com/2017/01/20/how-old-is-gaslighting/
woo-hoo for “woo woo” https://benyagoda.com/2016/04/02/woo-hoo-for-woo-woo/
let’s call the whole thing ‘often’ https://benyagoda.com/2015/12/14/lets-call-the-whole-thing-often/
who that? https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/24/who-that/
reporting profiles https://benyagoda.com/2015/11/02/reporting-profiles/
easily distracted http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/
fritinancy http://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/
james wolcott http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott
jen doll http://www.thewire.com/authors/jen-doll/
maria yagoda http://mariayagoda.tumblr.com/
page turner http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner
that gene seymour http://geneseymour.com/
not one-off britishisms http://britishisms.wordpress.com/
chronicle of higher education's lingua franca http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/author/byagoda/
draft http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/ben-yagoda/
@byagoda https://twitter.com/byagoda
facebook https://www.facebook.com/ben.yagoda
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 9
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 3
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 9
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

https://benyagodablogsandbox.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/220px-gaslight-1944.jpg?w=676
https://benyagodablogsandbox.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/tumblr_muniyebmdp1qz4txfo1_500.jpg?w=357&h=567
https://i1.wp.com/chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-14-at-3.03.08-pm.png
https://i0.wp.com/chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-15-at-9.41.03-am.png
https://i1.wp.com/chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/files/2015/11/screen-shot-2015-11-15-at-9.51.06-am-680x386.png
https://benyagodablogsandbox.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screen-shot-2015-05-28-at-5-08-53-pm.png?w=676
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/i/51nepb97awl._aa160_.jpg
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/i/51nepb97awl._aa160_.jpg
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

ben yagoda's blog menu skip to content homearticlesarchivesarchive-2012archive-2013archive-2014on books and authorson everything elseon languageon musicon writingbiobooksnews & appearanceson writing“how to not write bad,” excerptsprinciples of newswritingyagoda’s rules for quotes search search for: how old is gaslighting’? january 20, 2017 / benyagodablog / leave a comment the american dialect society met in january and chose dumpster fire as word of the year. the winner in the “most useful/likely to succeed” category was gaslight, a verb is defined as  to “psychologically manipulate a person into questioning their own sanity.” (of course linguists would use singular they.) there was immediate pushback. on the ads email list, john baker asked, “what is the rationale for naming ‘gaslight’…? the word has been around for decades. did it come to some special prominence in 2016?” arnold zwicky chimed in: “over seven decades, in fact. the movie that’s the source of the expression came out in 1944.” similarly, when i posted the winners on facebook, my friend pat raccio hughes commented, “how is that on the list? isn’t it supposed to be new stuff?” she added that she and her husband had been using it since 1990. the society addressed this issue in its press release on the voting: “the words or phrases do not have to be brand-new, but they have to be newly prominent or notable in the past year.” so does that apply to gaslight? yes, i’d say. the new prominence came from donald trump’s habitual tendency to say “x,” and then, at some later date, indignantly declare, “i did not say ‘x.’ in fact, i would never dream of saying ‘x.’” as ben zimmer, chair of the ads’s new words committee and language columnist for the wall street journal, pointed out, the new republic, salon, cnn, the texas observer, and teen vogue (“donald trump is gaslighting america”) all used the metaphor as the basis for articles about trump. the new york times first used the common gerund form, gaslighting, in 1995, in a maureen dowd column. but there were only nine additional uses through may of last year. from june 2016 through the end of the year, the times used gaslighting 10 times, including a susan dominus essay called “the reverse-gaslighting of donald trump,” which riffed on hillary clinton’s line in a september debate: “donald, i know you live in your own reality.” as so often happens when you get a lot of language observers together, the discussion shifted: from whether gaslight was newly prominent to precisely how old its verb use is. the history begins with patrick hamilton’s 1938 play gas light (known in the united states as angel street). it inspired a 1940 british film and the more famous 1944 american production, directed by george cukor and starring ingrid bergman, joseph cotten, and charles boyer. (spoiler alert.) the boyer character tries to drive the bergman character (his wife) crazy, notably by insisting that the gaslights in their house did not flicker, when in fact they did. but there is no verb gaslight in gaslight. as i noted on the ads email list, in response to baker and zwicky, this use emerged some 20 years later, according to the oxford english dictionary. its first citation is a sentence from a 1965 article in the magazine the reporter: “some troubled persons having even gone so far as to charge malicious intent and premeditated ‘gaslighting.’” the quotation marks around the word are a sign that it was a recent coinage. jonathan lighter, editor of the historical dictionary of american slang, responded that he had noted in the book an oral use from 1956, by a 41-year-old woman, revealed to be none other than his mother. lighter also said he has a strong memory of the verb’s being used in an episode of i love lucy the same year. that set ben zimmer to work. he posted: there’s a 1956 i love lucy episode called “lucy meets charles boyer,” in which ricky conspires with charles boyer to make lucy think that boyer is merely a lookalike. there are obvious parallels to gaslight, but i watched the episode here and i didn’t hear anything about “gaslighting.” bill mullins replied: “i vaguely recall an episode of the the lucy show [a later lucille ball sitcom] in which gaslighting is a plot element.” mullins went to  google and and found a web page titled “the ten best the lucy show episodes of season six” (perhaps proving that there is a web page for every conceivable topic). one of the 10 was “lucy gets mooney fired,” which aired in november 1967. the web page gives a plot summary and commentary: lucy inadvertently gets mooney [gale gordon] fired after she covers up a bank shortage. to convince cheever [the bank president] to give mooney his job back, lucy gives him the gaslight treatment. i love how kooky this episode is without managing to insult its audience’s intelligence. taking a cue from gaslight (1944), lucy decides to make cheever think he has gone crazy, so that he’ll agree to rehire mr. mooney. the script itself isn’t that funny, but the bits lucy does to make cheever flip are great. this is, deservedly, a fan favorite. the estimable zimmer wasn’t done. consulting with josh chetwynd, author of totally scripted: idioms, words, and quotes from hollywood to broadway that have changed the english language, which has an entry on gaslight, he located and watched a 1952 episode of the burns and allen show called “grace buying boat for george.” (it’s a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.) zimmer wrote, “at 16:20 in the youtube video, harry (fred clark) says to gracie, ‘give him the gaslight treatment!’ and then explains what that means. a bit later you hear george say, ‘so they sold gracie on the gaslight bit.’” still no verb, you’ll notice. zimmer took care of that a few hours later: here’s an example of the verb “gaslight” in “the grudge match,” an episode of gomer pyle: usmc that aired on 12 nov. 1965 (antedating oed’s 1969 cite for the verb, as well as the dec. 1965 cite for the verbal noun). duke: you know, you guys, i’m wondering. maybe if we can’t get through to the sarge we can get through to the chief. frankie: how do you mean?… duke: the old war on nerves. we’ll gaslight him. leading me to muse on the fascinating possibility that the writer of the reporter piece heard the verb on gomer pyle and put it into print just a month later. but then more detective work was done on the ads list. stephen goranson discovered that an even earlier use of the verb far, in anthony f.c. wallace’s 1961 book, culture and personality: it is also popularly believed to be possible to “gaslight” a perfectly healthy person into psychosis by interpreting his own behavior to him as symptomatic of serious mental illness. while “gaslighting” itself may be a mythical crime, there is no question that any social attitude which interprets a given behavior or experience as symptomatic of a generalized incompetence is a powerful creator of shame[….] (the oed has the quote but credits it to a 1969 reprint.) in any case, the term was picked up, especially in reference to abusers of spouses, partners, and children, and was commonplace by 1990, when pat hughes reports starting to use it. i myself first heard it the year before, when, on assigment for rolling stone, i interviewed the 19-year-old uma thurman for rolling stone, who used it in a context i don’t recall. the word was new to me, and i meant to look it up, but i never got around to it. woo-hoo for “woo woo” april 2, 2016april 2, 2016 / benyagodablog / leave a comment woo-woo tips mingle with practical pointers. “eat from heart-shaped bowls, and put heart stickers on your refrigerator,” minich recommends. (why? “to keep the spirit of love alive,” duh.) –the new york times, march 27, 2016, review of whole detox, by deanna minich … “valley of love,” a logy, woo-woo drama about a former couple who, at the request of their son, who killed himself earlier that same year, have come to find answers in the california desert. –the new york times, march 24, 2016 “i fluctuate between being very practical and very impulsive, and this was a very impulsive decision,” continued mr. [tim] daly. … “not to get too woo-woo, but there was a good vibe and i just kind of leapt.” –the new york times, february 5, 2016 clearly, woo woo has hit center stage, or at least that portion of it occupied by the new york times. and what exactly is woo woo? deepak chopra offered a rather defensive definition in a 2011 huntington post piece: “it used to annoy me to be called the king of woo woo. for those who aren’t familiar with the term, ‘woo woo’ is a derogatory reference to almost any form of unconventional thinking, aimed by professional skeptics who are self-appointed vigilantes dedicated to the suppression of curiosity.” some sources attribute the term — presumably an onomatopoetic rendition of the eerie soundtrack that plays when mystical folk unleash their mysticism — to james randi, the longtime magician/skeptic whose career of debunking was recently chronicled in the documentary film an honest liar. the earliest reference i’ve been able to find is from a 1983 edition of new age journal, cited in a 1984 philadelphia inquirer article by steven x. rea: george winston, who practices yoga and who currently has three albums on the jazz charts … has jokingly called this crowd the “woo-woos.” in a 1983 interview in new age journal, winston, asked if he knew who comprised his audience, answered that there were some classical fans, some jazz, some pop and “all the woo-woos.” “you know,” he added, “there’s real new age stuff that has substance, and then there’s the woo-woo. a friend of mine once said, ‘george, you really love these woo-woos, don’t you?’ and i said ‘yes, i do love them,’ and i do. i mean, i’m half woo-woo myself.” woo woo soon developed from a noun to an adjective, as in this 1988 quote from a journal called training: “subsidiary gurus, licensed to deliver high woo-woo programs developed by others, often will remind you of tv weathermen.” (interjection-noun-adjective is a rather unusual course of anthimeria.) the times’ first use came two years after that, in an article about the earth first movement: “in small towns among the redwoods, new-age settlers have appeared in tie-dyed wardrobes and dreadlocks. they work as carpenters, holistic healers, mandolin players, giving themselves names like ‘sequoia’ and ‘the man who walks in the woods.’ within earth first, these neo-hippies are known as the ‘woo-woo element.’” hugh herbert while looking into the origin of the mystic-mocking term, i was struck by how many other different ways it has been used, including as the catch phrase of hugh herbert, a rubber-faced comedy actor of the 1930s and ’40s. wikipedia tells us: his screen character was usually absent-minded and flustered. he would flutter his fingers together and talk to himself, repeating the same phrases: ‘hoo-hoo-hoo, wonderful, wonderful, hoo hoo hoo!’ so many imitators (including curly howard of the three stooges and etta candy in the wonder woman comic book series) copied the catchphrase as ‘woo woo’ that herbert himself began to use ‘woo woo’ rather than ‘hoo hoo’ in the 1940s. interestingly, a 1938 article by lucius beebe in the new york herald-tribune associates the phrase with other comedians: “originated by the ritz brothers and long accepted in the west as a cry of dismay, festivity, or general acclamation, the screaming of ‘woo woo’ has penetrated the new york bars.” people nicknamed “woo woo” include: arnie (woo woo) ginsberg, a retired boston disk jockey, one of whose trademark sound effects was a train whistle. jonathan richman referenced him in the 1989 song “fender stratocaster”: “like woo woo ginsberg at the juke box joint/you hear the sound and you get the point.” legendary chicago cub fan ronnie (woo woo) wickers. (not to be confused with philadelphia phillie fan brad golden, who shouts, “everybody hits! wha hoo!”) in the 1940s, 15-year-old ellsworth (sonny) wisecarver jr. developed a habit of running off with older women, garnering him national publicity and the moniker the woo woo kid. fun fact: a 1987 film based on wisecarver’s exploits, in the mood, was the first starring role of patrick (mcdreamy) dempsey. the wisecarver woo woo seems to stem from the term’s use to denote a sense of risque hijinks, sort of the intersection of “hubba hubba,” “ooh la la,” and, in another bit of onomatopoeia, a wolf whistle, with an implied association with the idea of pitching woo. in 1960, time magazine illustrated the glamour of the financial writer silvia porter by quoting a letter to her lecture agency, “our second choice would not have the allure and woo-woo of miss porter.” then there was the hamilton jordan affair. as readers who were past the age of reason in 1978 may recall, jordan, a top adviser in the carter administration, made headlines that year when, at a washington bar, he supposedly spit his drink on a woman’s blouse. the white house thereupon issued a 33-page white paper denying the allegation. the washington post reported: the white house rebuttal issued yesterday rested heavily on the statements of daniel v. marshall iii, a bartender at sarsfield’s at 2524 l st. nw, where the incident occurred. … marshall’s version of what happened is that jordan was quickly surrounded by young women who wanted to be near the “celebrity.” he said jordan “woofed down” a steak and drank a beer and two amaretto-and-creams. the women were coming up to jordan “and ‘woo-woo,’ you know what i mean?” marshall asked. i could discuss south park’s woo woo pc chant, the woo woo cocktail (vodka, peach schnapps, and cranberry juice), and jeffrey osborne’s 1986 “you should be mine (the woo woo song),” but you get the idea. woo woo has an uncanny semantic productivity. not to get too woo woo on you. let’s call the whole thing ‘often’ december 14, 2015december 14, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment i was listening the other day to “reply all,” a podcast about the internet, and p.j. vogt, the reporter/host, had occasion to say the word “often.” i was pretty confident that i knew how he was going to pronounce it. after all, vogt is young (i would judge in his early 30s), and speaks with vocal fry, list lilt, uptalk, and, generally, a pronounced ira glass-esque lack of slickness. in other words, i knew he would say “off-ten,” pronouncing the t. and he did. a good deal of history is embedded in his choice. the oxford english dictionary notes that the word often became commonly used (supplanting oft) only in the 15th century, and that in the 16th and 17th, it was sometimes said with the t voiced, sometimes not. queen elizabeth i said offen (the dictionary doesn’t say how it knows this), and that pronunciation became the accepted one. in the blog daily writing tips, maeve maddox quotes john walker’s critical pronouncing dictionary, published in 1791: “in often and soften the t is silent.” john keats seemed to be assuming such a pronunciation in lines he wrote for a draft of “endymion” (1818): “… o foolish rhyme! / what mighty power is in thee that so often / thou strivest rugged syllables to soften … ” (my colleague charles robinson, a romantics scholar, cautions, “i would agree that he probably pronounced often without the t — but you cannot prove it from the rhyme. remember, there are partial and sight and near rhymes — so even if he did pronounce it off-ten, it would still ‘rhyme’ with soffen.“) but the t version would soon revive. according to the american heritage dictionary, “with the rise of public education and literacy and, consequently, people’s awareness of spelling in the 19th century, sounds that had become silent sometimes were restored, as is the case with the t in often.” the dictionary is noncommittal about the shift, but in the 20th century, usage commentators often got exercised about off-ten. h.w. fowler wrote in modern english usage (1926) that the t-voiced version was “practised by two oddly consorted classes — the academic speakers who affect a more precise enunciation than their neighbours’ … & the uneasy half-literates who like to prove that they can spell.” alan s.c. ross’s “linguistic class-indicators in present-day english,” the 1954 essay that coined the terms “u” (upper-class) and “non-u” (everyone else), put off-ten decidedly in the non-u camp. eric partridge’s usage and abusage (1957) quotes a contemporary edition of the concise oxford dictionary as calling the t-pronunciation “vulgar.” he adds: “it is certainly unnecessary and is usually due to an affectation of refinement.” there is a regional as well as a class element to this, at least in the united states. the dictionary of american regional english quotes a 1928 issue of american speech: “the ozarker nearly always pronounces the t in often.” and dare also cites the linguistic atlas of the gulf states (1989) as reporting 453 informants who said the t as opposed to 290 who did not. data on pronunciation, as opposed to writing, are hard to come by, but i did my best. i listened on youtube to 12 versions of the opening line of “on the street where you live” — “i have often walked on this street before.” it was offen in both the my fair lady original cast album and the movie soundtrack, and in the renditions by vic damone, etta jones, bobby darin, nat king cole, harry connick jr., dean martin, and willie nelson (whose version is my favorite). only tom jones (a welshman), nancy wilson (african-american, born in ohio), and smokey robinson (african-american, born in detroit) sang off-ten. “birches” by robert frost, has the lines:”often you must have seen them/loaded with ice a sunny winter morning/after a rain.” in this recording, frost says offen. as i suggested at the outset, it’s my sense that in recent years, young people have become partial to off-ten. the language blogger jan freeman agrees and offers anecdotal support: i’ve been interested in this one since my daughter, brought up as an off-en speaker, went to college at the university of michigan and came back saying off-ten. i don’t think it’s a regional thing — i grew up two hours south of ann arbor, and i don’t remember off-ten even as a variant. it must have been something she picked up from friends. to at least pseudo-scientifically test this proposition, i met individually with the undergraduates in the class i’m currently teaching and asked them to read aloud the sentence, “experience has shown that first impressions are often lasting ones.” eight said off-ten and five said offen. (obviously, their pronunciation may have been affected by seeing the t on the piece paper in front of them, or by self-consciousness.) whence the appeal of this pronunciation? all i know is that it seems of a piece with the popularity of amongst, whomever, saying “a person that” instead of “a person who,” pronouncing either as eye-ther, and the spellings grey and advisor. these are all changes in previously accepted usage that seem more formal, british, and/or fancier, and (in off-ten and the first three examples) are slightly longer. i leave to greater minds than mine the question of why these qualities are desirable. in any case, in keeping with these trends, the question of how to pronounce “often” may soon cease to matter. just as it replaced oft back in the day, it is being supplanted — if my students’ work can be trusted — by an amongst-ish antique word. that’s right, i’m talking “oftentimes.” who that? november 24, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment a couple of weeks ago, referring to ben carson’s (supposedly) terrible temper, donald trump said, “i don’t want a person that’s got a pathological disease.” what caught my eye was that he didn’t say, “… a person who’s got a pathological disease.” for some years, i have been noticing that my students favor the choice of that over who as a relative pronoun; i did some grumbling about it here, lumping it with other popular usages (“one-year anniversary” instead of “first anniversary,” sticking a comma after a sentence-starting “but” or “and”) that i collectively referred to as “clunk.” i hasten to say that that that is perfectly correct, grammatically. the merriam-webster dictionary of english usage sums up the matter: “in current usage, that refers to persons or things, which refers chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals.” nor is human that any kind of newfangled thing. shakespeare writes in hamlet,  “by heaven, i’ll make a ghost of him that lets me.”  horace walpole observed, “this world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.”  the man that corrupted hadleysburg is a mark twain title. ira gershwin wrote “the man that got away” and irving berlin “the girl that i marry,” possibly to avoid having the word whom in the title of a song. (on the other hand, the lovely oscar hammerstein-jerome kern tune is “the folks who live on the hill.”) way back when, which was sometimes slotted in as well, as in the 1662 edition of the book of common prayer: “our father, which art in heaven.” like so many other shibboleths, the idea that that is incorrect in reference to humans originated in the 18th century. the impact on usage was swift, as seen in the google ngram viewer chart below. the blue line represents the relative frequency of the phrase “a person that,” the red line of “a person who”: ngram viewer charts usage in books, but the corpus of contemporary american english (coca), which contains 450 million words written or uttered between 1990 and 2012, attests that human that is most common in speech. the chart below shows the  frequency of “a person that” in the different generic databases in coca; “spoken” mainly comes from broadcast transcripts. but even in print, ngram viewer attests that my observation of my students’ affection for that is part of a broader trend: since 1965, the frequency of “a person that” has increased roughly 150 percent. what’s the reason for the trend? some discussions propose that it reflects a societal move toward depersonalization. others have suggested that that now tends to be used when the subject is vague (“anyone that wants to retire comfortably should start saving early”) and who when it is specific (“i’m a person who … “). but in my reading and listening, i don’t perceive such a distinction. mignon fogarty, aka grammar girl, points to a nifty passive-aggressive use: “i always think of my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father. he was clearly trying to indicate his animosity.” maybe trump was attempting such a ploy. but i’m going to stick with my earlier hypothesis that a fondness for that is part of a generational sense that streamlined, glossy language moves— even so seemingly small a thing as the use of the word who — are somehow cheesy, and that it’s better to embrace the awkwardness. and why does the younger generation feel that way? sorry. i’m not the sort of blogger that would hazard a guess on that. reporting profiles november 2, 2015november 2, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment there’s a certain protocol for reporting profiles, whether short or long, or for newspapers, magazines, or online. the tasks below are listed roughly in order of importance, but they are all steps you should take when doing long or short or long profiles. of course, the longer your article is going to be, the more time you should spend on each step. (to avoid pronoun awkwardness, i’m going to refer to the subject of your hypothetical profile as “she.”) on more than one occasion (if possible), send time observing her in action, doing the thing that makes her interesting or noteworthy. if a scientist, watch her in the lab; if a chef, in the kitchen; if a reporter, out reporting a story. this will not only give you an insight into how she operates, but will hopefully provide a scene or scenes that will lend drama and color to your story. spend as much time as you can on this and be, in henry james’s phrase, “one of the people on whom nothing is lost.” the ideal (though admittedly rarely attainable) goal is to make the person absolutely sick of having you hanging around all the time. if applicable, experience and reflect on the thing the person does. if a scholar, read her scholarship. if a painter, look at her paintings. if a chef, eat her food. et cetera. read everything that has been written about the person. interview as many other people as you can about the subject of your profile. these interviews will fall into two categories. first, people who know and/or have worked with her and can provide insight into her work and personality. second, impartial experts in the field who can assess her contribution and importance. for example, if the person is an architect, you could talk to an architecture professor. (don’t do this before doing steps 2, 3, and 4, as these will help you come up with good questions.) sit-down interview or interviews with the person. this is necessary, but it’s not going to be as fresh as 1, because an interview is an artificial situation. so use the interview primarily to get facts, details, and anecdotes, as opposed to quotes. (in your story, use long quotes only if the person is a great storyteller or talker. otherwise, use short quotes of one or at most two sentences.) cheat sheet: identifications and ages september 24, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment among the hardest things for my journalism students to master are the capitalization and punctuation of identifying people, and the punctuation of ages. here’s a cheat sheet i hand out to them: the rules—in terms capitalization and commas—are kind of complicated, so let’s take a look at some examples, first with ids. 1. on wednesday, president barack obama addressed congress. 2. the president, barack obama, addressed congress. 3. barack obama, the president, addressed congress. 4. the commencement speaker was billionaire bill gates. 5. bill gates, a billionaire, spoke at commencement. 6. bill gates, the seventh richest man in the world, spoke at commencement. 7. the seventh richest man in the world, bill gates, spoke at commencement. 8. the software pioneer bill gates spoke at commencement. 9. software pioneer bill gates spoke at commencement. 9. speaking out against the rule was sophomore ellen jones. 10. a sophomore, ellen jones, said she is against the new rule. 11. ellen jones, a sophomore, said she is against the new rule. wrong: ellen jones, sophomore, is against the new rule. wrong: sophomore, ellen jones, is against the new rule. here are some rules that hopefully will make sense of the above: capitalize identification only right before name, and only if it is an official title (president, senator), as opposed to a description/characterization (billionaire, software pioneer, sophomore). if identification is after name, always surround it with commas (as in 3, 5, 6 and 11). if identification is before name, use comma if this is the only person that fits this description (chairman of microsoft, seventh richest man in the world), or if the identification starts with the word “a” (as in 10). ages (note: with ages, always use numeral rather than spelling out the word) 1. the winner was jimmy smith, a 10-year-old. 2. the winner was 10-year-old jimmy smith. 2. the winner was jimmy smith, who is 10 years old. yagoda’s rules for quotes, 2.0 august 25, 2015august 25, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment some years ago, i put together for my journalism classes a guide to the use of quotations. i realized it could use a little revision, so here’s an updated version. i. the care and use of quotes 1. what are quotes and why use them? a direct quote is the material presented inside of quotation marks. it tells the reader that these are some exact words a speaker said. if (and this is a big if) the source is qualified to speak about the subject, a quote is a good—probably the best—way to get opinionated, funny, emotional, metaphorical, personal, ungrammatical, hyperbolic, and generally colorful language into your story. quotes also enliven a story by bringing in (metaphorical) voices. also, editors and readers expect them. note: if someone is not qualified to speak on the subject, or if the person says something banal, predictable, boring, clichéd or in any way ignorant, do not use that quote. this is also true if the quote contains merely factual information. (see paraphrase.) 2. accuracy of quotes the short answer is that if you’re using quotation marks, it’s not permissible to change anything the speaker said, such as including in the quote anything he or she did not say.. however, it’s okay not to include meaningless filler words and sounds like “um” and “you know.” beyond that, different organizations have different rules and policies on quote fidelity, so when in doubt, consult with your editor. 3. paraphrases and indirect quotes an indirect quote is a paraphrase or summary of what someone said. it is not surrounded by quotation marks, and therefore you are not indicating that the person used those exact words (though the person may well have done so). indirect quotes are used to convey purely factual information that would not lose anything if expressed in “journalistic” language. poor use of direct quotes: “the university will be closed tomorrow,” jones said. paraphrase is preferable: the university will be closed tomorrow, jones said. or: jones said the university will be closed tomorrow. note: no comma after “said.” (you might also notice the absence of word “that” after “said.” use “that” before an indirect quote if you need it to prevent ambiguity or confusion. ) 4. how long? in newspaper writing, quotes should be short. it’s the “sound bite idea,” borrowed from radio and tv. that means that quotes should generally be one or two sentences long. to go beyond that, the quote must be really, really good. quite often, a mediocre or poor quote can turn into a good quote by losing one or two sentences. (there is absolutely no ethical problem with trimming a quote, as long as you’re not twisting it to mean something other than what the speaker intended.) 5. how many quotes? quotes are like cayenne pepper or some other strong spice: a little goes a long way, and too much is a disaster. quotes are very tempting; for one thing, they take up a lot of space. resist the temptation. the more quotes you use, the worse the story usually is. rule of thumb: at least twice as many paragraphs should have not have quotes as have them. put another way, a quote has to earn its way into your story. if a potential quote doesn’t add substantial value, just say no and don’t use it. 6. quotation marks, commas and periods in all circumstances (except in the united kingdom and certain countries that were formerly in the british empire), commas and periods always go inside quotation marks, never outside. this is also true for titles and “air-quote” style expressions (which should be avoided anyway—see “dos and don’ts of feature writing. wrong: winning the game was “very lucky”, brunswick said. wrong: his favorite movie is “inception”. never use single quotes (‘like this’) except to indicate a quote within a quote. 7. attribution verbs all quotes have to be attributed—that is, you have to say who said them. for the verb of attribution, almost always use “said.” other words come off as hokey and forced (“stated,” “asserted,” “gasped,” “smiled,” “quipped,” “remarked,” etc.) or amount to editorializing. “claimed” implies you doubt the person; “admitted” implies you think he or she is guilty of something. “asked,” “replied” and “recalled” are okay when appropriate in the context. use past tense (“said”), not present (“says”), except in features and magazine stories. 8. provenance of quotes. when readers encounter a direct quote and attribution, they will rightfully assume that the person made that statement in an interview with the writer of the article, i.e., you. if that’s not the case, you have to make that clear. for example, if the quote was previously published (not desirable but sometimes unavoidable), you have to write something like: “my job is to ask the questions, not get the answers,” stewart said in a 2008 new york times interview. 9. e-mail quotes e-mail is a great resource, especially for obtaining facts. however, if you want to get any nuance or insight from your source, it’s a poor substitute for face-to-face or even telephone interviews. if you use a quote from an e-mail exchange, you must make that clear, for example, with an attribution like “said in an e-mail.” for subsequent quotes from that e-mail exchange, it’s okay to merely say “said.” ii. the mechanics of quotes 1. standard form: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard,” jones said. (or “he said.”) wrong: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard.” jones said. wrong: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard” jones said. wrong: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard”, jones said. 2. in quotes of two or more sentences, put attribution after first sentence: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard,” jones said. “it’s mind-boggling. more sentences can follow.” wrong: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard. it’s mind-boggling,” jones said. wrong: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard,” jones said, “it’s mind-boggling.” (the comma after “said” turns this into a comma splice.) 3. when speaker needs to be identified or described: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard,” said alex jones, a journalism professor. in this case, the verb goes before the i.d. of speaker, because otherwise the result would be clunky: “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard,” alex jones, a journalism professor, said. otherwise, put name or pronoun first and avoid “said jones” or, especially, “said he.” in such cases (long description of speaker), attribution can also go before the quote: jones, a journalism professor, said, “that is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard.” note: uppercase “t” in “that.” occasionally, a long or dramatic quote is preceded by a colon rather than a comma, as in: smith said: “i deplore everything the president stands for.” 4. setting up quotes quotes almost always have to be “set up” by a sentence in your own words that introduces the idea of the quote without being too bland or too similar to it. never use a key word from the quote in the setup. too similar (and repeats word): coach brett brown said the 76ers have a long distance to travel in order to be a playoff contender. “this team has a long way to go,” he said. set-up doesn’t do enough: coach brett brown had some comments about the 76ers. “this team has a long way to go,” he said. just right (and note use of understatement, which is often effective): coach brett brown made it clear he wasn’t completely satisfied with the 76ers. “this team has a long way to go,” he said. 5. multiple quotes two quotes can’t come right after each other. instead they must be separated by material from you, the writer. wrong: “this has been the most beautiful autumn ever,” said kelly jones, a sophomore. “i love it when the leaves change color,” said sophomore audrey martin. better: “this has been the most beautiful autumn ever,” said kelly jones, a freshman. sophomore audrey martin agreed. “i love it when the leaves change color,” she said. 6. “orphan” quotes every quote has to be attributed, even if it’s clear from the context who said it. wrong: sophomore bill kent thought the film wasn’t tarantino’s best work. “it sucked.” right: sophomore bill kent thought the film wasn’t tarantino’s best work. “it sucked,” he said. however, a single quote should only be attributed once. wrong: “halloween is the best holiday of the year,” junior alicia mcconnell said. “it’s all candy, all the time,” she added. right. “halloween is the best holiday of the year,” junior alicia mcconnell said. “it’s all candy all the time.” 7. paragraphing if you are using a relatively long quote, or want to emphasize a short one, it makes sense to give the quote its own paragraph. make sure to include attribution. sophomore bill kent thought the film wasn’t tarantino’s best work “it sucked,” he said. 8. partial quotes partial quotes can be as short as one word or as long as a phrase, but are less than a complete clause or sentence. these can be effective, but too many of them create a herky-jerky sensation, so use sparingly (no more than two or three per story), and mainly for vivid words and phrases. they are not preceded by a comma and the first word is lower-casd. right: jones described the proposal as “mind-boggling.” wrong: jones said it was, “mind-boggling.” 9. quote within a quote “the guy said to me, ‘your money or your life,’” jones recalled. (hint: people tend to naturally be good storytellers, so when your source says what someone else says, that’s often a sign that this is a good quote.) 10. attribution in middle of sentence this should be used only when the end of a sentence is dramatic, surprising, or funny, and only at natural pauses: not dramatic enough: “the best holiday of the year,” she said, “is halloween.” not a natural pause: “i did every assignment except,” he said, “for the term paper.” good: “i did every assignment,” he said, “except for the term paper.” 11. brackets and ellipses brackets—[ ]—are used within quotes to indicate a word that was not said by the speaker. even though they’re tempting and commonly used, best practice is never to use them. they are clunky and remove the illusion that we’re hearing the speaker, taking away the quote-ness of a quote. almost always, you can tell the reader what you would have put into brackets by taking the time and effort to set up the quote. consider how the brackets spoil this quote: “arnold [schwarzenegger] is a wuss,” said bustamante. instead, write something like: bustamante made it clear that for him, schwarzenegger’s tough-guy image is all hype. “arnold is a wuss,” he said. ellipses [ … ] indicate material from a quote has been omitted. do not use ellipses when quoting from speech. if the material you want to omit is filler, repetitive, or brief, it’s okay to just leave it out. for example, if in your interview bustamente said, “arnold is, you know, a wuss,” your quote should be either the exact words or “arnold is a wuss,” not, “arnold is … a wuss.” however, if the material you want to leave out is a sentence or more, or was uttered at different times, make two separate quotes. wrong: “laguardia airport is a disaster area,” mayor bill de blasio said. “…we expect to replace it with the finest urban airport in the world.” right: “laguardia airport is a disaster area,” mayor bill de blasio said. “we expect to replace it with the finest urban airport in the world,” he said later in the interview. when quoting from written material, brackets and ellipses are okay. will rogers: “bacons, beans, and limousines” june 1, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment my first book, and in some ways still my favorite, was will rogers: a biography (alfred a. knopf. 1992). i have since kept up an interest in rogers (1879-1935), the great oklahoma-born commentator, humorist, and entertainer. i was please and honored to be asked by the library of congress to write an entry about him for their national recording registry, a program that “showcases the range and diversity of american recorded sound heritage.” specifically, i was asked to write a short essay about a radio address rogers gave in 1931. you can listen to it online; the essay is below. ___ in 1931, americans were beginning to understand that the stock market crash of two years earlier was a harbinger of a deeper, broader slump. most obviously, the unemployment rate had more than doubled, to more than 13 percent. a sign of the times was the popularity of a relatively unfamiliar word. the word “depression” appeared 651 times in “the new york times” in 1929, 3,279 times the following year, and 5,974 in 1931. president herbert hoover had come relatively late to a realization that the economy was in a pickle. he had instituted some public works projects that prefigured the new deal of his successor, franklin d. roosevelt, but he was unwilling to provide federal relief to the unemployed, or to farmers, who were suffering from the effects of a drought and a steep drop in crop prices. the alternative hoover promoted was to ask local groups to help out people in their own communities. in august 1931, he created the president’s organization on unemployment relief (pour) to assist private and local relief efforts around the country; two months later, he kicked off a $90 million fund-raising campaign with a radio broadcast carried by 150 stations nationwide. hoover asked will rogers to speak on the program. it was a sensible idea. born fifty- two years earlier in the indian territory that would become oklahoma (he was about one quarter cherokee), rogers was probably the most popular and perhaps the most well- respected figure in the country. he had started his career as a rope-spinner on the vaudeville stage. his off-the-cuff wisecracks between tricks had turned into ziegfeld follies monologues that were mainly pointed commentaries about politics. (he’d characteristically come out carrying a folded newspaper and open up with the line that would become his motto: “all i know is just what i read in the papers.”) his act had led to a daily newspaper column that, by the time of hoover’s call, was carried in the “new york times” and some 400 other newspapers around the country. he also starred in genial comedies for the fox studio. two years hence, the country’s motion-picture exhibitors would name him the country’s top box-office attraction, ahead of clark gable and shirley temple. hoover knew that rogers’ observations, while prescient and sometimes barbed, were never mean. that was a big part of why he was so beloved. a new york newspaper perceptively observed that he had “a curious national quality. he gives the impression that the country is filled with such sages, wise with years, young in humor and love of life, shrewd yet gentle. he is what americans think other americans are like.” so it made sense that hoover would ask will rogers to contribute to the broadcast. but it turned out to be a very bad idea. one would have to considerably stretch the point to call rogers a radical; any sort of militant ideology would violate the geniality that was integral to his on-stage and real-life persona. yet the unemployment numbers, the spectacle of bread lines in the cities, and the suffering he’d witnessed on a recent drought-relief tour for farmers in the southwest had awakened the populist within him. on the day of the broadcast, rogers drove from his home in pacific palisades, california, to the studios of radio station kfi in downtown los angeles. he started off in his familiar wry/amiable mode, joshing about radio commercials: “now don’t get scared and start turning off your radios. i’m not advertising or trying to sell you anything. if the mouthwash you’re using is not the right kind and it tastes sort of like sheep dip why you’ll just have to go right on using it.” at various points in the broadcast, he said all the things hoover had hoped for, asking towns and cities to do their part and even venturing the opinion that the president “would rather see the problem of unemployment solved then he would all the other problems he has before him combined.” but rogers also confronted the issue with a solemn and eloquent fervor that put the administration’s inaction to shame: now we read the papers every day, and they get us all excited over one or a dozen different problems that’s supposed to be before the country. there’s not really but one problem before the whole country at this time. it’s not the balancing of [treasury secretary andrew] mellon’s budget. that’s his worry. that ain’t ours. and it’s not the league of nations that we read so much about. it’s not the silver question. the only problem that confronts this country today is at least seven million people are out of work. that’s our only problem. there is no other one before us at all. it’s to see that every man that wants to is able to work, is allowed to find a place to go to work, and also to arrange some way of getting more equal distribution of wealth in the country. the country wasn’t used to hearing this kind of message, least of all from a quintessentially mainstream figure like will rogers. did rogers introduce into the national dialogue the notion that unequal distribution of wealth is deeply problematic, or that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide work for the unemployed? that case is impossible to prove, but there’s no doubt that rogers’ speech (dubbed “bacon, beans and limousines” by “the survey” magazine, which reprinted it the following month) helped bring those issues to the forefront of the national conversation. rogers, for his part, eased back from the forceful positions he had voiced in the speech. in the 1932 presidential election, he tacitly backed franklin d. roosevelt, whom he’d long been friendly with. roosevelt’s election—and his new deal to combat unemployment and depression—seemed to be exactly what rogers had in mind as a plan of action. for the rest of his life (rogers died in a plane crash over alaska in 1935), he was with the roosevelt program. but back in october 1931, rogers had been one of the first to voice outrage over economic conditions, and the response had been overwhelming. a couple of days after the speech, he wrote in his newspaper column: i can’t answer all the telegrams and letters, but i want to take this means of thanking the most people that ever wired or wrote me on anything—my little speech over the radio for the unemployed—and will send them copies as soon as i can think of what i said. how “online” became “offline” may 28, 2015may 28, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment i read this sentence in the new york times not long ago: “most evenings, before watching late-night comedy or reading emails on his phone, matt nicoletti puts on a pair of orange-colored glasses that he bought for $8 off the internet.” the phrase that caught my inner ear was “off the internet.” it sounded odd because, given the widespread use of the expressions online and on the internet, one would expect the preposition to be on.  a possible explanation for the “bought it off the internet” formulation stems from the use of off (since the 1600s, according to the oxford english dictionary), in the sense of from, “esp. with take, buy, borrow, hire, and the like.” it’s a colloquial but very real idiom, as in “i bought it off my brother.” (even more colloquial is “i bought it off of my brother.”) but i don’t buy this etymology for “bought it off the internet.” for one thing, the off-instead-of-from pattern doesn’t really apply: it sounds weird to say, “i bought it from the internet.” looking into the history of the phrase further convinced me that the explanation lies elsewhere. here are some examples from the early years: “the g box has the responsibility of taking packets off the internet and handing them over to the lan or vice versa.”—computerworld magazine, 1992 “‘getting information off the internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant,’ says kapor.”—the nation, 1993 ” … sexual images can be downloaded off the internet.” —cio magazine, 1993 ” … pulling shareware off the internet.” —infoworld magazine, 1994 “and we’re looking for ways to try to at least help parents deal with what their children can get off the internet.”—pres. bill clinton, 1994 “people said they would buy more off the internet if they knew the privacy policies for the companies whose sites they visit.”—network world magazine, june 1997 the progression is interesting. the early references are to files, software, text, or images, and the word off suggests a sense of the internet as a giant clothesline, or tree, on which these things are hanging, ready to be plucked. i believe that notion extended to the matt nicoletti idea of purchasing things from internet vendors, as first seen in the 1997 network world quote. before long, people started talking about buying something off a particular vendor. from nick hornby’s 2007 novel slam: “mum buys stuff off amazon sometimes.” i mentioned all this to my daughter maria yagoda, and she said people her age (twenties) and younger have taken things a step farther, saying, “i bought it offline” to indicate something purchased in an internet transaction. sure enough, a poster to urban dictionary created an entry for this in 2005: and it’s still very much around a decade later. i did a google search for the phrase “bought it offline,” limited to things posted in the last year. of the hits that were not ambiguous, about half referred to purchases that were made in stores (the traditional “offline”) and about half to ones that were made online. examples of the latter: “rodriguez purchased a bus pass on the facebook group recently and said her pass ‘worked perfectly’ and she bought it offline because of the cheaper cost.—the state news (michigan state university student paper) “i agree about the naked palette i bought it offline because i couldn’t find it in australia”—youtube video “makeup products overhyped” “where do i find my product code if i bought it offline and dont have the confirmation email anymore?”— message board how did this usage arise? in 2009, someone posed that question to the yahoo answers community: “how come when a lot of people buy something online they tell others they bought it ‘offline’?” sacha’s response was chosen “best answer,” and i think it’s basically right, including the implicit observation that the old-fashioned and somewhat al gore-y term internet has been supplanted by the all-purpose online. sacha opined: “its a quick way of saying it. for example instead of saying i bought it off the internet, they say i bought it offline – coz it wouldnt it make sense if they sed i bought it off online. if you get what im saying? lol.” lol indeed. the etymology is all well and good, but the phrase remains peculiar at best, nonsensical and confusing at worst. as neil roberts points out, offline is in all other contexts understood to mean not connected to the internet, so where is the possible logic in saying “i bought it offline” when what is clearly meant is “i bought it online”? but demanding logic from language developments is a mug’s game. so i’m going to withdraw the question and go offline. letterman and irony may 22, 2015may 28, 2015 / benyagodablog / leave a comment with the end of david letterman’s long tv run, it seems that everyone has weighed in on his significance and contributions. here’s my take (originally published in the chronicle of higher education) on letterman’s characteristic stance–irony. — “what’s all this irony and pity?” “what? don’t you know about irony and pity?” “no. who got it up?” “everybody. they’re mad about it in new york.” –hemingway, the sun also rises to paraphrase philip larkin, irony began in 1973, between robert altman’s the long goodbye and randy newman’s fifth lp. the ur-text, for me, was the first paragraph of the preface of kurt vonnegut’s novel breakfast of champions: the expression “breakfast of champions” is a registered trademark of general mills, inc., for use on a breakfast cereal product. the use of the identical expression as the title for this book is not intended to indicate an association with or sponsorship by general mills, nor is it intended to disparage their fine products. the kind of irony i’m talking about is verbal, which i define as a form of expression in which one makes a point or conveys an idea by saying something other than what one means. (it’s different from situational irony — the “gift of the magi” sort of thing — and dramatic irony, as in a novel where a character traveling on the titanic excitedly discusses what he’s going to do after landing.). the term, which derives from a stock character in greek comedy, the eirôn, describes a rhetorical device that obviously originated long before the 1970s, and is most famously employed by mark antony: “brutus is an honorable man.” anatole france, in the 19th century, adopted “irony and pity” as a sort of watchword; it got into the sun also rises via the critic gilbert seldes. (the language hat blog has helpfully sketched out this history.) hemingway is the great modern ironist. his particular discovery and innovation was the invocation of strong emotion via (ironic) terseness. that extends to his characters, such as jake barnes, who remarks, “i’d a hell of a lot rather not talk about it.” irony wasn’t a mere technique for hemingway: it was rooted in his sense that the standard literary language of his time was outmoded, false, and, to a certain extent, debased. he was the most influential stylist in 20th-century american literature, inspiring raymond chandler and other private-eye novelists, sports scribes like jimmy cannon and w.c. heinz, tabloid columnists like jimmy breslin and pete dexter, “minimalist” short-story writers like raymond carver and ann beattie (who early in her career incorporated as irony and pity inc.), and vonnegut, who, along with donald barthelme, expanded the comic possibilities of irony in the 1960s and 70s. when i read breakfast of champions in 1973, the phrases that jumped out from the preface and gave me an i-needed-that slap in the face were “breakfast cereal product” and “their fine products.” i gathered, without being able to articulate it at the time, that vonnegut was appropriating corporate and promotional language, thereby suggesting how debased it had become. but he wasn’t asserting that the products weren’t fine, which made what he was doing irony, not merely sarcasm. and that brings me to vonnegut’s fellow hoosier david letterman, whose final television broadcast aired on may 20. think of letterman mouthing the words “television broadcast” — or “beverage” or “ladies and gentlemen” or even introducing himself as “dave” letterman — and you get a sense that he was working similar effects, in the realm of the television broadcast. the opposite of irony is sincerity, and sincerity has for a long time been debased by tv talkers, with their sympathetic nods, creased brows, and phony concern. for years and years, letterman was palpably not sincere in a single syllable he uttered. starting with and moving beyond the 1960s “put-on,” letterman’s comedy generation did remarkable things with ironic poses. the list is long: bill murray’s smarmy lounge singer on saturday night live; steve martin’s wild and crazy guy; albert brooks’s faux standup persona; sctv’s pinky-ringed sammy maudlin and bobby bittman (played by joe flaherty and eugene levy); martin short’s jackie rogers jr. and irving cohen on sctv — and his whole self-presentation for the last 10 years; letterman’s band leader and sidekick paul shaffer, with his groovy lingo, elephantine shades, and circus-clown sport coats. all took on the dissembling and self-aggrandizing affectations of an earlier show-biz era. (that this shtick played so well and lasted so long is testament to the pleasures and power of the old model. again, irony and not sarcasm.) the younger stephen colbert went ironically all in to an extent never seen before, in his decade-long stint as a preening and blustering conservative talk-show pundit. of course, colbert ended his run last year and will step into letterman’s time slot in the fall, presumably playing himself. that’s appropriate. irony is extremely hard to carry off over the long haul. look at hemingway, who was unable or unwilling to drop it and became a self-caricature. letterman’s pivot from irony has been a result not merely of getting older but also of a series of powerful events in his and the nation’s life. in 2000, he had quintuple bypass surgery and a glimpse of mortality. the following year was 9/11 (which graydon carter predicted would bring the end to the age of irony. not so much.) letterman came on the air less than a week after the attacks and delivered what was probably his most sincere televised declaration to date: “if you didn’t believe it before, you can certainly believe it now. new york city is the greatest city in the world.” in 2002, after his friend warren zevon received a terminal diagnosis, letterman devoted an entire affecting episode to the singer; three years later came the death of his mentor, johnny carson. in 2009, after receiving blackmail threats, he acknowledged multiple affairs with staff members and devoted a segment of the show to a public apology to his wife and staff. but the biggest happening was the 2003 birth of his son, whom he often talks about on the air, with warmth and emotion. once, referring to his bypass surgery, he held up a picture of the lad and said, “this is the reason i think my life was spared, so i could be part of this kid’s life.” in the run-up to his final show, letterman has said what he means, a lot, expressing appreciation for his long run and gratitude to his longtime staffers and favorite guests, especially musicians. but it’s not that easy being sincere, especially for someone with so much irony in his blood. in these weeks, he’s tended to haul out go-to phrases like “thanks for everything” and (when someone thanks him) “you’re too kind,” making him sound like he’s in a receiving line. and, as inevitably happens when an ironist puts away his mask, there’s a bit of the boy who cried wolf effect. when oprah winfrey finally came on his show, ending their years-long feud, or “feud,” letterman told her, “it means a great deal to have you.” “does it really?” she replied. “or are your just doing your dave thing?” ironically, you couldn’t really tell. posts navigation ← older posts follow ben yagoda through your favorite rss readerrss - posts buy now! about me ben yagoda teaches english, journalism and writing at the university of delaware, and is the author, coauthor or editor of nine books. he has written about language, writing and other topics for slate.com, the new york times book review and magazine, the american scholar, rolling stone, esquire, and many other publications. he contributes to "lingua franca," a chronicle of higher education blog about language and writing and "draft,"a new york times blog about the art of writing. his personal blog is "not one-off britishisms." he lives in swarthmore, pennsylvania. recent posts how old is gaslighting’? woo-hoo for “woo woo” let’s call the whole thing ‘often’ who that? reporting profiles recent comments search for: blogroll easily distracted fritinancy james wolcott jen doll maria yagoda page turner that gene seymour find me here not one-off britishisms - over the last decade or so, an alarming number of traditionally british expressions have found their way into the american vocabulary. chronicle of higher education's lingua franca - language and writing in academe. draft , the new york times - a series on the art and craft of writing. twitter: @byagoda facebook email: byagoda at benyagoda dot com blog at wordpress.com. post to cancel


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 10048

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.69% (773)
and - 2.7% (271)
- 2.45% (246)
hat - 2.04% (205)
that - 1.75% (176)
her - 1.21% (122)
for - 1.1% (111)
his - 1.08% (109)
all - 0.98% (98)
you - 0.94% (94)
ear - 0.92% (92)
com - 0.85% (85)
one - 0.85% (85)
was - 0.82% (82)
quote - 0.79% (79)
ten - 0.78% (78)
said - 0.74% (74)
not - 0.73% (73)
woo - 0.73% (73)
per - 0.72% (72)
use - 0.71% (71)
with - 0.64% (64)
out - 0.64% (64)
are - 0.63% (63)
off - 0.61% (61)
age - 0.6% (60)
but - 0.6% (60)
man - 0.59% (59)
art - 0.59% (59)
who - 0.55% (55)
new - 0.53% (53)
our - 0.53% (53)
thing - 0.52% (52)
this - 0.5% (50)
some - 0.49% (49)
sed - 0.49% (49)
can - 0.47% (47)
ever - 0.45% (45)
time - 0.44% (44)
from - 0.42% (42)
has - 0.39% (39)
here - 0.39% (39)
“i - 0.39% (39)
quotes - 0.39% (39)
end - 0.39% (39)
- 0.38% (38)
year - 0.37% (37)
red - 0.37% (37)
act - 0.36% (36)
how - 0.36% (36)
word - 0.35% (35)
say - 0.35% (35)
other - 0.35% (35)
long - 0.35% (35)
person - 0.33% (33)
way - 0.33% (33)
line - 0.33% (33)
have - 0.33% (33)
about - 0.31% (31)
more - 0.3% (30)
oft - 0.3% (30)
light - 0.3% (30)
wha - 0.29% (29)
said. - 0.29% (29)
lan - 0.29% (29)
ones - 0.29% (29)
times - 0.28% (28)
what - 0.28% (28)
when - 0.28% (28)
gas - 0.28% (28)
term - 0.27% (27)
eat - 0.27% (27)
most - 0.27% (27)
it’s - 0.27% (27)
jones - 0.26% (26)
gaslight - 0.26% (26)
would - 0.26% (26)
any - 0.25% (25)
old - 0.25% (25)
get - 0.25% (25)
nat - 0.25% (25)
“a - 0.24% (24)
king - 0.24% (24)
there - 0.24% (24)
call - 0.24% (24)
often - 0.23% (23)
very - 0.23% (23)
met - 0.23% (23)
they - 0.22% (22)
come - 0.22% (22)
like - 0.22% (22)
over - 0.22% (22)
had - 0.22% (22)
she - 0.22% (22)
ice - 0.22% (22)
your - 0.21% (21)
even - 0.21% (21)
him - 0.21% (21)
will - 0.21% (21)
into - 0.2% (20)
yagoda - 0.2% (20)
able - 0.2% (20)
read - 0.2% (20)
phrase - 0.2% (20)
own - 0.2% (20)
blog - 0.2% (20)
hoo - 0.2% (20)
did - 0.19% (19)
internet - 0.19% (19)
war - 0.19% (19)
now - 0.19% (19)
eric - 0.19% (19)
first - 0.19% (19)
irony - 0.19% (19)
led - 0.19% (19)
rogers - 0.19% (19)
air - 0.19% (19)
which - 0.19% (19)
hear - 0.19% (19)
than - 0.19% (19)
try - 0.18% (18)
two - 0.18% (18)
work - 0.18% (18)
been - 0.18% (18)
bill - 0.17% (17)
bought - 0.17% (17)
before - 0.17% (17)
list - 0.17% (17)
- 0.17% (17)
york - 0.17% (17)
ben - 0.17% (17)
letter - 0.17% (17)
comment - 0.17% (17)
after - 0.16% (16)
years - 0.16% (16)
may - 0.16% (16)
american - 0.16% (16)
late - 0.16% (16)
speak - 0.16% (16)
see - 0.16% (16)
only - 0.16% (16)
“the - 0.16% (16)
press - 0.16% (16)
real - 0.16% (16)
were - 0.16% (16)
used - 0.16% (16)
noun - 0.15% (15)
part - 0.15% (15)
ask - 0.15% (15)
sentence - 0.15% (15)
mean - 0.15% (15)
story - 0.15% (15)
refer - 0.15% (15)
their - 0.15% (15)
people - 0.15% (15)
also - 0.15% (15)
language - 0.15% (15)
its - 0.15% (15)
leave - 0.15% (15)
make - 0.15% (15)
letterman - 0.15% (15)
wrong: - 0.14% (14)
book - 0.14% (14)
every - 0.14% (14)
paper - 0.14% (14)
mark - 0.14% (14)
them - 0.14% (14)
know - 0.14% (14)
verb - 0.14% (14)
2015 - 0.13% (13)
interview - 0.13% (13)
put - 0.13% (13)
it. - 0.13% (13)
gene - 0.13% (13)
words - 0.13% (13)
writing - 0.13% (13)
day - 0.13% (13)
“that - 0.13% (13)
or, - 0.12% (12)
offline - 0.12% (12)
best - 0.12% (12)
too - 0.12% (12)
pronoun - 0.12% (12)
dictionary - 0.12% (12)
think - 0.12% (12)
love - 0.12% (12)
sophomore - 0.12% (12)
woo-woo - 0.12% (12)
add - 0.12% (12)
heard - 0.12% (12)
form - 0.12% (12)
don’t - 0.12% (12)
right - 0.12% (12)
good - 0.11% (11)
short - 0.11% (11)
tend - 0.11% (11)
sense - 0.11% (11)
show - 0.11% (11)
write - 0.11% (11)
journal - 0.11% (11)
country - 0.11% (11)
i’m - 0.11% (11)
cast - 0.11% (11)
speaker - 0.11% (11)
usage - 0.11% (11)
ways - 0.11% (11)
thou - 0.11% (11)
here’s - 0.11% (11)
rule - 0.11% (11)
talk - 0.11% (11)
lucy - 0.11% (11)
should - 0.11% (11)
comma - 0.11% (11)
benyagoda - 0.11% (11)
world - 0.11% (11)
sound - 0.11% (11)
post - 0.11% (11)
came - 0.11% (11)
these - 0.11% (11)
“it - 0.11% (11)
mad - 0.1% (10)
english - 0.1% (10)
example - 0.1% (10)
later - 0.1% (10)
idea - 0.1% (10)
off-ten - 0.1% (10)
benyagodablog - 0.1% (10)
since - 0.1% (10)
bit - 0.1% (10)
news - 0.1% (10)
lot - 0.1% (10)
jones, - 0.1% (10)
ridiculous - 0.1% (10)
magazine - 0.1% (10)
president - 0.1% (10)
something - 0.1% (10)
said, - 0.1% (10)
gaslighting - 0.1% (10)
me, - 0.1% (10)
point - 0.1% (10)
note - 0.1% (10)
rate - 0.09% (9)
live - 0.09% (9)
state - 0.09% (9)
give - 0.09% (9)
that’s - 0.09% (9)
saying - 0.09% (9)
face - 0.09% (9)
st. - 0.09% (9)
want - 0.09% (9)
start - 0.09% (9)
does - 0.09% (9)
ann - 0.09% (9)
“said - 0.09% (9)
just - 0.09% (9)
online - 0.09% (9)
case - 0.09% (9)
things - 0.09% (9)
early - 0.09% (9)
product - 0.09% (9)
character - 0.09% (9)
posed - 0.09% (9)
question - 0.09% (9)
mind - 0.09% (9)
episode - 0.09% (9)
los - 0.08% (8)
got - 0.08% (8)
wise - 0.08% (8)
tell - 0.08% (8)
broadcast - 0.08% (8)
direct - 0.08% (8)
buy - 0.08% (8)
fact - 0.08% (8)
problem - 0.08% (8)
look - 0.08% (8)
sometimes - 0.08% (8)
never - 0.08% (8)
rest - 0.08% (8)
step - 0.08% (8)
clear - 0.08% (8)
article - 0.08% (8)
pat - 0.08% (8)
hit - 0.08% (8)
called - 0.08% (8)
asked - 0.08% (8)
great - 0.08% (8)
always - 0.08% (8)
fine - 0.08% (8)
ages - 0.08% (8)
set - 0.08% (8)
many - 0.08% (8)
wasn’t - 0.08% (8)
attribution - 0.08% (8)
made - 0.08% (8)
back - 0.08% (8)
rather - 0.07% (7)
young - 0.07% (7)
name - 0.07% (7)
really - 0.07% (7)
inner - 0.07% (7)
internet.” - 0.07% (7)
quotation - 0.07% (7)
sort - 0.07% (7)
pop - 0.07% (7)
newspaper - 0.07% (7)
marks - 0.07% (7)
run - 0.07% (7)
around - 0.07% (7)
life - 0.07% (7)
kind - 0.07% (7)
plan - 0.07% (7)
recent - 0.07% (7)
going - 0.07% (7)
“this - 0.07% (7)
different - 0.07% (7)
mine - 0.07% (7)
speech - 0.07% (7)
hoover - 0.07% (7)
general - 0.07% (7)
2016 - 0.07% (7)
play - 0.07% (7)
radio - 0.07% (7)
uma - 0.07% (7)
class - 0.07% (7)
change - 0.07% (7)
expression - 0.07% (7)
well - 0.07% (7)
such - 0.07% (7)
answer - 0.07% (7)
says - 0.07% (7)
favor - 0.07% (7)
least - 0.07% (7)
seem - 0.07% (7)
last - 0.07% (7)
take - 0.07% (7)
there’s - 0.07% (7)
(the - 0.07% (7)
could - 0.06% (6)
means - 0.06% (6)
though - 0.06% (6)
and, - 0.06% (6)
turn - 0.06% (6)
‘woo - 0.06% (6)
version - 0.06% (6)
more, - 0.06% (6)
where - 0.06% (6)
porter - 0.06% (6)
phrases - 0.06% (6)
someone - 0.06% (6)
find - 0.06% (6)
quote. - 0.06% (6)
top - 0.06% (6)
trump - 0.06% (6)
drama - 0.06% (6)
title - 0.06% (6)
reader - 0.06% (6)
university - 0.06% (6)
journalism - 0.06% (6)
year, - 0.06% (6)
arnold - 0.06% (6)
origin - 0.06% (6)
much - 0.06% (6)
tom - 0.06% (6)
donald - 0.06% (6)
anything - 0.06% (6)
mere - 0.06% (6)
profile - 0.06% (6)
being - 0.06% (6)
reference - 0.06% (6)
friend - 0.06% (6)
ended - 0.06% (6)
sign - 0.06% (6)
instead - 0.06% (6)
indicate - 0.06% (6)
why - 0.06% (6)
line. - 0.06% (6)
boy - 0.06% (6)
source - 0.06% (6)
film - 0.06% (6)
british - 0.06% (6)
using - 0.06% (6)
favorite - 0.06% (6)
commencement - 0.06% (6)
bus - 0.06% (6)
issue - 0.06% (6)
material - 0.06% (6)
common - 0.06% (6)
magazine, - 0.06% (6)
pronounce - 0.06% (6)
earlier - 0.06% (6)
deal - 0.06% (6)
pronunciation - 0.06% (6)
special - 0.06% (6)
cite - 0.06% (6)
wrote - 0.06% (6)
care - 0.06% (6)
gates - 0.06% (6)
affect - 0.06% (6)
then - 0.06% (6)
script - 0.06% (6)
one, - 0.06% (6)
public - 0.06% (6)
- 0.06% (6)
letterman’s - 0.06% (6)
fan - 0.06% (6)
spoke - 0.06% (6)
martin - 0.05% (5)
heard,” - 0.05% (5)
that, - 0.05% (5)
e-mail - 0.05% (5)
within - 0.05% (5)
comedy - 0.05% (5)
present - 0.05% (5)
subject - 0.05% (5)
except - 0.05% (5)
each - 0.05% (5)
whom - 0.05% (5)
color - 0.05% (5)
born - 0.05% (5)
story. - 0.05% (5)
watch - 0.05% (5)
must - 0.05% (5)
doing - 0.05% (5)
because - 0.05% (5)
certain - 0.05% (5)
test - 0.05% (5)
that” - 0.05% (5)
seven - 0.05% (5)
relative - 0.05% (5)
popular - 0.05% (5)
nor - 0.05% (5)
help - 0.05% (5)
reporting - 0.05% (5)
sentences - 0.05% (5)
exact - 0.05% (5)
national - 0.05% (5)
fun - 0.05% (5)
paraphrase - 0.05% (5)
jordan - 0.05% (5)
okay - 0.05% (5)
marks, - 0.05% (5)
big - 0.05% (5)
jimmy - 0.05% (5)
commencement. - 0.05% (5)
all, - 0.05% (5)
offen - 0.05% (5)
identification - 0.05% (5)
against - 0.05% (5)
partial - 0.05% (5)
rise - 0.05% (5)
become - 0.05% (5)
ellen - 0.05% (5)
avoid - 0.05% (5)
writer - 0.05% (5)
logic - 0.05% (5)
merely - 0.05% (5)
brackets - 0.05% (5)
whose - 0.05% (5)
recall - 0.05% (5)
“arnold - 0.05% (5)
page - 0.05% (5)
including - 0.05% (5)
those - 0.05% (5)
breakfast - 0.05% (5)
interest - 0.05% (5)
taking - 0.05% (5)
agree - 0.05% (5)
rules - 0.05% (5)
is, - 0.05% (5)
student - 0.05% (5)
zimmer - 0.05% (5)
column - 0.05% (5)
possible - 0.05% (5)
voice - 0.05% (5)
place - 0.05% (5)
year. - 0.05% (5)
winner - 0.05% (5)
“woo - 0.05% (5)
through - 0.05% (5)
address - 0.05% (5)
lies - 0.05% (5)
whole - 0.05% (5)
unemployment - 0.05% (5)
decade - 0.05% (5)
pass - 0.05% (5)
himself - 0.05% (5)
email - 0.05% (5)
times, - 0.05% (5)
once - 0.05% (5)
lad - 0.05% (5)
her, - 0.05% (5)
editor - 0.05% (5)
three - 0.05% (5)
especially - 0.05% (5)
tended - 0.05% (5)
knew - 0.05% (5)
far - 0.05% (5)
boyer - 0.05% (5)
follow - 0.05% (5)
personal - 0.05% (5)
george - 0.05% (5)
power - 0.04% (4)
chart - 0.04% (4)
offline” - 0.04% (4)
vonnegut - 0.04% (4)
still - 0.04% (4)
posts - 0.04% (4)
lines - 0.04% (4)
probably - 0.04% (4)
prove - 0.04% (4)
sight - 0.04% (4)
software - 0.04% (4)
novel - 0.04% (4)
rule. - 0.04% (4)
believe - 0.04% (4)
matt - 0.04% (4)
addressed - 0.04% (4)
charles - 0.04% (4)
ira - 0.04% (4)
human - 0.04% (4)
commas - 0.04% (4)
became - 0.04% (4)
century, - 0.04% (4)
fire - 0.04% (4)
examples - 0.04% (4)
print - 0.04% (4)
doesn’t - 0.04% (4)
“off - 0.04% (4)
books - 0.04% (4)
products - 0.04% (4)
sophomore, - 0.04% (4)
ngram - 0.04% (4)
students - 0.04% (4)
search - 0.04% (4)
education - 0.04% (4)
seen - 0.04% (4)
web - 0.04% (4)
employed - 0.04% (4)
went - 0.04% (4)
supposed - 0.04% (4)
provide - 0.04% (4)
hemingway - 0.04% (4)
carver - 0.04% (4)
history - 0.04% (4)
essay - 0.04% (4)
front - 0.04% (4)
pity - 0.04% (4)
obvious - 0.04% (4)
piece - 0.04% (4)
profiles - 0.04% (4)
years, - 0.04% (4)
work. - 0.04% (4)
online. - 0.04% (4)
everything - 0.04% (4)
(in - 0.04% (4)
written - 0.04% (4)
without - 0.04% (4)
ironic - 0.04% (4)
author - 0.04% (4)
oxford - 0.04% (4)
off-ten. - 0.04% (4)
chronicle - 0.04% (4)
below - 0.04% (4)
1965 - 0.04% (4)
hand - 0.04% (4)
example, - 0.04% (4)
paragraph - 0.04% (4)
move - 0.04% (4)
november - 0.04% (4)
mooney - 0.04% (4)
others - 0.04% (4)
opposed - 0.04% (4)
internet, - 0.04% (4)
“on - 0.04% (4)
roosevelt - 0.04% (4)
high - 0.04% (4)
bring - 0.04% (4)
airport - 0.04% (4)
john - 0.04% (4)
ellipses - 0.04% (4)
wuss,” - 0.04% (4)
way, - 0.04% (4)
almost - 0.04% (4)
woo’ - 0.04% (4)
street - 0.04% (4)
guy - 0.04% (4)
based - 0.04% (4)
ads - 0.04% (4)
“said.” - 0.04% (4)
congress - 0.04% (4)
between - 0.04% (4)
program - 0.04% (4)
else - 0.04% (4)
“it’s - 0.04% (4)
indirect - 0.04% (4)
hugh - 0.04% (4)
soon - 0.04% (4)
half - 0.04% (4)
other. - 0.04% (4)
“in - 0.04% (4)
among - 0.04% (4)
“you - 0.04% (4)
herbert - 0.04% (4)
mind-boggling. - 0.04% (4)
key - 0.04% (4)
similar - 0.04% (4)
smith - 0.04% (4)
dramatic - 0.04% (4)
(no - 0.04% (4)
wonder - 0.04% (4)
woman - 0.04% (4)
lose - 0.04% (4)
attribute - 0.04% (4)
however, - 0.04% (4)
you’re - 0.04% (4)
context - 0.04% (4)
expect - 0.04% (4)
country. - 0.04% (4)
them. - 0.04% (4)
relief - 0.04% (4)
papers - 0.04% (4)
course - 0.04% (4)
note: - 0.04% (4)
discuss - 0.04% (4)
listen - 0.04% (4)
case, - 0.04% (4)
home - 0.03% (3)
city - 0.03% (3)
points - 0.03% (3)
week - 0.03% (3)
surround - 0.03% (3)
clearly - 0.03% (3)
sure - 0.03% (3)
tarantino’s - 0.03% (3)
series - 0.03% (3)
stick - 0.03% (3)
28, - 0.03% (3)
less - 0.03% (3)
voiced - 0.03% (3)
younger - 0.03% (3)
generation - 0.03% (3)
create - 0.03% (3)
name, - 0.03% (3)
crazy - 0.03% (3)
otherwise - 0.03% (3)
mind-boggling.” - 0.03% (3)
sincere - 0.03% (3)
television - 0.03% (3)
final - 0.03% (3)
dot - 0.03% (3)
debased - 0.03% (3)
1940 - 0.03% (3)
little - 0.03% (3)
it.” - 0.03% (3)
brown - 0.03% (3)
getting - 0.03% (3)
viewer - 0.03% (3)
ages, - 0.03% (3)
attributed - 0.03% (3)
frequency - 0.03% (3)
movie - 0.03% (3)
holiday - 0.03% (3)
“or - 0.03% (3)
originated - 0.03% (3)
team - 0.03% (3)
76ers - 0.03% (3)
description - 0.03% (3)
go,” - 0.03% (3)
million - 0.03% (3)
uttered - 0.03% (3)
1990 - 0.03% (3)
staff - 0.03% (3)
brett - 0.03% (3)
speech. - 0.03% (3)
august - 0.03% (3)
year,” - 0.03% (3)
heard. - 0.03% (3)
mainly - 0.03% (3)
relatively - 0.03% (3)
observation - 0.03% (3)
coach - 0.03% (3)
“what - 0.03% (3)
he’d - 0.03% (3)
following - 0.03% (3)
urban - 0.03% (3)
sun - 0.03% (3)
barack - 0.03% (3)
higher - 0.03% (3)
obama - 0.03% (3)
kept - 0.03% (3)
congress. - 0.03% (3)
president, - 0.03% (3)
nick - 0.03% (3)
need - 0.03% (3)
billionaire - 0.03% (3)
or: - 0.03% (3)
gates, - 0.03% (3)
intended - 0.03% (3)
closed - 0.03% (3)
americans - 0.03% (3)
poor - 0.03% (3)
seventh - 0.03% (3)
richest - 0.03% (3)
world, - 0.03% (3)
1931, - 0.03% (3)
information - 0.03% (3)
range - 0.03% (3)
pioneer - 0.03% (3)
beyond - 0.03% (3)
facebook - 0.03% (3)
replace - 0.03% (3)
he’s - 0.03% (3)
(and - 0.03% (3)
doubt - 0.03% (3)
champions - 0.03% (3)
include - 0.03% (3)
generally - 0.03% (3)
natural - 0.03% (3)
makes - 0.03% (3)
interesting - 0.03% (3)
thought - 0.03% (3)
statement - 0.03% (3)
emotion - 0.03% (3)
“bought - 0.03% (3)
tempting - 0.03% (3)
insight - 0.03% (3)
away - 0.03% (3)
disaster - 0.03% (3)
single - 0.03% (3)
via - 0.03% (3)
writing. - 0.03% (3)
expressions - 0.03% (3)
time. - 0.03% (3)
eased - 0.03% (3)
image - 0.03% (3)
interviews - 0.03% (3)
started - 0.03% (3)
figure - 0.03% (3)
obviously - 0.03% (3)
quotes. - 0.03% (3)
kent - 0.03% (3)
right: - 0.03% (3)
james - 0.03% (3)
together - 0.03% (3)
usually - 0.03% (3)
often.” - 0.03% (3)
metaphor - 0.03% (3)
sounds - 0.03% (3)
cheever - 0.03% (3)
spelling - 0.03% (3)
scholar, - 0.03% (3)
looking - 0.03% (3)
“… - 0.03% (3)
draft - 0.03% (3)
job - 0.03% (3)
published - 0.03% (3)
funny, - 0.03% (3)
language, - 0.03% (3)
pronouncing - 0.03% (3)
starting - 0.03% (3)
gives - 0.03% (3)
candy - 0.03% (3)
fair - 0.03% (3)
developed - 0.03% (3)
strong - 0.03% (3)
same - 0.03% (3)
vic - 0.03% (3)
woo” - 0.03% (3)
gaslight, - 0.03% (3)
didn’t - 0.03% (3)
before, - 0.03% (3)
hard - 0.03% (3)
stone, - 0.03% (3)
google - 0.03% (3)
element - 0.03% (3)
regional - 0.03% (3)
aired - 0.03% (3)
when, - 0.03% (3)
entry - 0.03% (3)
occasion - 0.03% (3)
stuff - 0.03% (3)
quoting - 0.03% (3)
done - 0.03% (3)
effects - 0.03% (3)
uses - 0.03% (3)
choice - 0.03% (3)
song - 0.03% (3)
month - 0.03% (3)
box - 0.03% (3)
reason - 0.03% (3)
(not - 0.03% (3)
wisecarver - 0.03% (3)
seems - 0.03% (3)
older - 0.03% (3)
past - 0.03% (3)
can’t - 0.03% (3)
know, - 0.03% (3)
readers - 0.03% (3)
book, - 0.03% (3)
youtube - 0.03% (3)
south - 0.03% (3)
experience - 0.03% (3)
accepted - 0.03% (3)
june - 0.03% (3)
let’s - 0.03% (3)
you. - 0.03% (3)
idea. - 0.03% (3)
“and - 0.03% (3)
perfectly - 0.03% (3)
say, - 0.03% (3)
near - 0.03% (3)
while - 0.03% (3)
women - 0.03% (3)
marshall - 0.03% (3)
white - 0.03% (3)
journal, - 0.03% (3)
added - 0.03% (3)
rolling - 0.03% (3)
jr. - 0.03% (3)
house - 0.03% (3)
familiar - 0.03% (3)
cited - 0.03% (3)
term, - 0.03% (3)
edition - 0.03% (3)
talking - 0.03% (3)
son, - 0.03% (3)
who, - 0.03% (3)
speaker, - 0.03% (3)
couple - 0.03% (3)
woo. - 0.03% (3)
response - 0.03% (3)
career - 0.03% (3)
having - 0.03% (3)
united - 0.03% (3)
–the - 0.03% (3)
persons - 0.03% (3)
day, - 0.03% (3)
according - 0.03% (3)
posted - 0.03% (3)
“how - 0.03% (3)
jan - 0.03% (3)
1944 - 0.03% (3)
eye - 0.03% (3)
robert - 0.03% (3)
current - 0.03% (3)
24, - 0.03% (3)
pointed - 0.03% (3)
times. - 0.03% (3)
states - 0.03% (3)
thing. - 0.03% (3)
answers - 0.03% (3)
offen. - 0.03% (3)
review - 0.02% (2)
colloquial - 0.02% (2)
former - 0.02% (2)
times” - 0.02% (2)
brother.” - 0.02% (2)
powerful - 0.02% (2)
franklin - 0.02% (2)
nine - 0.02% (2)
march - 0.02% (2)
obviously, - 0.02% (2)
oed - 0.02% (2)
given - 0.02% (2)
impulsive - 0.02% (2)
him. - 0.02% (2)
action. - 0.02% (2)
crash - 0.02% (2)
stephen - 0.02% (2)
puts - 0.02% (2)
nicoletti - 0.02% (2)
gave - 0.02% (2)
1931. - 0.02% (2)
california - 0.02% (2)
chose - 0.02% (2)
2015may - 0.02% (2)
articles - 0.02% (2)
“offline” - 0.02% (2)
stock - 0.02% (2)
out, - 0.02% (2)
pyle - 0.02% (2)
odd - 0.02% (2)
1935), - 0.02% (2)
behavior - 0.02% (2)
recording - 0.02% (2)
explanation - 0.02% (2)
symptomatic - 0.02% (2)
later. - 0.02% (2)
beans - 0.02% (2)
clark - 0.02% (2)
roosevelt, - 0.02% (2)
like.” - 0.02% (2)
minich - 0.02% (2)
heart - 0.02% (2)
etymology - 0.02% (2)
broadcast, - 0.02% (2)
farmers - 0.02% (2)
practical - 0.02% (2)
meant - 0.02% (2)
bad - 0.02% (2)
turned - 0.02% (2)
broadcast. - 0.02% (2)
open - 0.02% (2)
contribute - 0.02% (2)
yet - 0.02% (2)
perhaps - 0.02% (2)
life, - 0.02% (2)
as  - 0.02% (2)
humor - 0.02% (2)
woo-hoo - 0.02% (2)
tips - 0.02% (2)
impression - 0.02% (2)
april - 0.02% (2)
observed - 0.02% (2)
call, - 0.02% (2)
rogers’ - 0.02% (2)
newspapers - 0.02% (2)
genial - 0.02% (2)
station - 0.02% (2)
cities - 0.02% (2)
responsibility - 0.02% (2)
drop - 0.02% (2)
notion - 0.02% (2)
introduce - 0.02% (2)
country’s - 0.02% (2)
wealth - 0.02% (2)
keep - 0.02% (2)
distribution - 0.02% (2)
equal - 0.02% (2)
picked - 0.02% (2)
suffering - 0.02% (2)
up, - 0.02% (2)
work, - 0.02% (2)
drought - 0.02% (2)
local - 0.02% (2)
opinion - 0.02% (2)
all. - 0.02% (2)
created - 0.02% (2)
organization - 0.02% (2)
private - 0.02% (2)
carried - 0.02% (2)
program. - 0.02% (2)
league - 0.02% (2)
excited - 0.02% (2)
oklahoma - 0.02% (2)
myself - 0.02% (2)
problems - 0.02% (2)
“most - 0.02% (2)
(he - 0.02% (2)
unwilling - 0.02% (2)
traditional - 0.02% (2)
maybe - 0.02% (2)
night - 0.02% (2)
hemingway, - 0.02% (2)
carry - 0.02% (2)
slot - 0.02% (2)
patrick - 0.02% (2)
jonathan - 0.02% (2)
extent - 0.02% (2)
ironically - 0.02% (2)
colbert - 0.02% (2)
played - 0.02% (2)
era. - 0.02% (2)
sport - 0.02% (2)
band - 0.02% (2)
is. - 0.02% (2)
steve - 0.02% (2)
singer - 0.02% (2)
life. - 0.02% (2)
corporate - 0.02% (2)
watched - 0.02% (2)
(who - 0.02% (2)
1960s - 0.02% (2)
“lucy - 0.02% (2)
1956 - 0.02% (2)
time, - 0.02% (2)
sarcasm. - 0.02% (2)
whether - 0.02% (2)
happens - 0.02% (2)
lighter - 0.02% (2)
sincerity - 0.02% (2)
creased - 0.02% (2)
discussion - 0.02% (2)
syllable - 0.02% (2)
gone - 0.02% (2)
bypass - 0.02% (2)
scribes - 0.02% (2)
dave - 0.02% (2)
famous - 0.02% (2)
byagoda - 0.02% (2)
franca - 0.02% (2)
lingua - 0.02% (2)
number - 0.02% (2)
so, - 0.02% (2)
britishisms - 0.02% (2)
one-off - 0.02% (2)
starring - 0.02% (2)
english, - 0.02% (2)
rss - 0.02% (2)
tries - 0.02% (2)
bergman - 0.02% (2)
crazy, - 0.02% (2)
did. - 0.02% (2)
surgery - 0.02% (2)
picture - 0.02% (2)
irony. - 0.02% (2)
1938 - 0.02% (2)
now. - 0.02% (2)
devoted - 0.02% (2)
receiving - 0.02% (2)
wife - 0.02% (2)
later, - 0.02% (2)
feud, - 0.02% (2)
show, - 0.02% (2)
easy - 0.02% (2)
haul - 0.02% (2)
thanks - 0.02% (2)
ironist - 0.02% (2)
noted - 0.02% (2)
pete - 0.02% (2)
raymond - 0.02% (2)
society - 0.02% (2)
daughter - 0.02% (2)
couldn’t - 0.02% (2)
harry - 0.02% (2)
means. - 0.02% (2)
group - 0.02% (2)
gracie - 0.02% (2)
verb, - 0.02% (2)
you’ll - 0.02% (2)
gaslighting’? - 0.02% (2)
hits - 0.02% (2)
took - 0.02% (2)
purchased - 0.02% (2)
hours - 0.02% (2)
“gaslight” - 0.02% (2)
maria - 0.02% (2)
gomer - 0.02% (2)
tough - 0.02% (2)
january - 0.02% (2)
duke: - 0.02% (2)
vice - 0.02% (2)
1992 - 0.02% (2)
1993 - 0.02% (2)
images - 0.02% (2)
1994 - 0.02% (2)
children - 0.02% (2)
1969 - 0.02% (2)
1997 - 0.02% (2)
files, - 0.02% (2)
text, - 0.02% (2)
verbal - 0.02% (2)
network - 0.02% (2)
particular - 0.02% (2)
video - 0.02% (2)
message - 0.02% (2)
september - 0.02% (2)
products. - 0.02% (2)
vonnegut’s - 0.02% (2)
fired - 0.02% (2)
“breakfast - 0.02% (2)
mills, - 0.02% (2)
cereal - 0.02% (2)
summary - 0.02% (2)
define - 0.02% (2)
bank - 0.02% (2)
irony, - 0.02% (2)
gets - 0.02% (2)
found - 0.02% (2)
critic - 0.02% (2)
plot - 0.02% (2)
mullins - 0.02% (2)
preface - 0.02% (2)
1973, - 0.02% (2)
2009, - 0.02% (2)
words, - 0.02% (2)
(it’s - 0.02% (2)
buying - 0.02% (2)
sacha - 0.02% (2)
quick - 0.02% (2)
for: - 0.02% (2)
lol - 0.02% (2)
david - 0.02% (2)
rises - 0.02% (2)
itself - 0.02% (2)
everyone - 0.02% (2)
mr. - 0.02% (2)
characteristic - 0.02% (2)
pity?” - 0.02% (2)
convince - 0.02% (2)
woo-woo, - 0.02% (2)
girl - 0.02% (2)
limousines” - 0.02% (2)
alan - 0.02% (2)
sheet - 0.02% (2)
affectation - 0.02% (2)
certainly - 0.02% (2)
contemporary - 0.02% (2)
non-u - 0.02% (2)
terms - 0.02% (2)
obama, - 0.02% (2)
capitalization - 0.02% (2)
precise - 0.02% (2)
classes - 0.02% (2)
modern - 0.02% (2)
20th - 0.02% (2)
billionaire, - 0.02% (2)
silent - 0.02% (2)
punctuation - 0.02% (2)
cheat - 0.02% (2)
heritage - 0.02% (2)
contribution - 0.02% (2)
album - 0.02% (2)
person. - 0.02% (2)
original - 0.02% (2)
fall - 0.02% (2)
worked - 0.02% (2)
field - 0.02% (2)
professor. - 0.02% (2)
otherwise, - 0.02% (2)
prominence - 0.02% (2)
fresh - 0.02% (2)
writing, - 0.02% (2)
data - 0.02% (2)
linguistic - 0.02% (2)
storyteller - 0.02% (2)
19th - 0.02% (2)
off-ten, - 0.02% (2)
hanging - 0.02% (2)
subject, - 0.02% (2)
25, - 0.02% (2)
14, - 0.02% (2)
december - 0.02% (2)
‘often’ - 0.02% (2)
inside - 0.02% (2)
qualified - 0.02% (2)
asked, - 0.02% (2)
yagoda’s - 0.02% (2)
surrounded - 0.02% (2)
rested - 0.02% (2)
issued - 0.02% (2)
true - 0.02% (2)
factual - 0.02% (2)
drink - 0.02% (2)
listening - 0.02% (2)
old. - 0.02% (2)
seemed - 0.02% (2)
not. - 0.02% (2)
soften - 0.02% (2)
10. - 0.02% (2)
dictionary, - 0.02% (2)
11. - 0.02% (2)
daily - 0.02% (2)
one. - 0.02% (2)
commonly - 0.02% (2)
10-year-old - 0.02% (2)
lack - 0.02% (2)
(as - 0.02% (2)
pronounced - 0.02% (2)
vogt - 0.02% (2)
word) - 0.02% (2)
smith, - 0.02% (2)
reflect - 0.02% (2)
absolutely - 0.02% (2)
washington - 0.02% (2)
tends - 0.02% (2)
roughly - 0.02% (2)
150 - 0.02% (2)
percent. - 0.02% (2)
what’s - 0.02% (2)
word. - 0.02% (2)
students’ - 0.02% (2)
supplanted - 0.02% (2)
in: - 0.02% (2)
vague - 0.02% (2)
wants - 0.02% (2)
retire - 0.02% (2)
specific - 0.02% (2)
reading - 0.02% (2)
use: - 0.02% (2)
broader - 0.02% (2)
right, - 0.02% (2)
and/or - 0.02% (2)
caught - 0.02% (2)
rarely - 0.02% (2)
chiefly - 0.02% (2)
refers - 0.02% (2)
below. - 0.02% (2)
referred - 0.02% (2)
contains - 0.02% (2)
disease.” - 0.02% (2)
that? - 0.02% (2)
pathological - 0.02% (2)
attests - 0.02% (2)
referring - 0.02% (2)
ago, - 0.02% (2)
weeks - 0.02% (2)
the  - 0.02% (2)
zwicky - 0.02% (2)
trying - 0.02% (2)
(though - 0.02% (2)
(african-american, - 0.02% (2)
send - 0.02% (2)
action, - 0.02% (2)
frost - 0.02% (2)
isn’t - 0.02% (2)
chef, - 0.02% (2)
robinson - 0.02% (2)
hopefully - 0.02% (2)
spend - 0.02% (2)
nancy - 0.02% (2)
scene - 0.02% (2)
dean - 0.02% (2)
phrase, - 0.02% (2)
“one - 0.02% (2)
bobby - 0.02% (2)
suggested - 0.02% (2)
be, - 0.02% (2)
previously - 0.02% (2)
hughes - 0.02% (2)
either - 0.02% (2)
better - 0.02% (2)
popularity - 0.02% (2)
them, - 0.02% (2)
feel - 0.02% (2)
that. - 0.02% (2)
remember - 0.02% (2)
longer - 0.02% (2)
michigan - 0.02% (2)
long, - 0.02% (2)
order - 0.02% (2)
steps - 0.02% (2)
blogger - 0.02% (2)
course, - 0.02% (2)
supposedly - 0.02% (2)
carter - 0.02% (2)
rogers: - 0.02% (2)
junior - 0.02% (2)
dream - 0.02% (2)
sucked,” - 0.02% (2)
woo-woos.” - 0.02% (2)
“halloween - 0.02% (2)
“all - 0.02% (2)
charts - 0.02% (2)
alicia - 0.02% (2)
‘x.’ - 0.02% (2)
mcconnell - 0.02% (2)
jazz - 0.02% (2)
currently - 0.02% (2)
winston, - 0.02% (2)
philadelphia - 0.02% (2)
complete - 0.02% (2)
deliver - 0.02% (2)
audrey - 0.02% (2)
described - 0.02% (2)
small - 0.02% (2)
first, - 0.02% (2)
appeared - 0.02% (2)
enough: - 0.02% (2)
comments - 0.02% (2)
76ers. - 0.02% (2)
towns - 0.02% (2)
multiple - 0.02% (2)
color,” - 0.02% (2)
earth - 0.02% (2)
beautiful - 0.02% (2)
autumn - 0.02% (2)
ever,” - 0.02% (2)
kelly - 0.02% (2)
leaves - 0.02% (2)
chair - 0.02% (2)
“mind-boggling.” - 0.02% (2)
known - 0.02% (2)
separate - 0.02% (2)
presumably - 0.02% (2)
wall - 0.02% (2)
bustamante - 0.02% (2)
aimed - 0.02% (2)
angel - 0.02% (2)
out. - 0.02% (2)
“laguardia - 0.02% (2)
consider - 0.02% (2)
area,” - 0.02% (2)
mayor - 0.02% (2)
blasio - 0.02% (2)
exactly - 0.02% (2)
finest - 0.02% (2)
world.” - 0.02% (2)
spoil - 0.02% (2)
effort - 0.02% (2)
1983 - 0.02% (2)
irving - 0.02% (2)
columnist - 0.02% (2)
i’ve - 0.02% (2)
recently - 0.02% (2)
assignment - 0.02% (2)
paper.” - 0.02% (2)
longtime - 0.02% (2)
they’re - 0.02% (2)
rendition - 0.02% (2)
folk - 0.02% (2)
practice - 0.02% (2)
clunky - 0.02% (2)
we’re - 0.02% (2)
hearing - 0.02% (2)
soundtrack - 0.02% (2)
travel - 0.02% (2)
‘woo-woo - 0.02% (2)
hamilton - 0.02% (2)
“everybody - 0.02% (2)
sentences. - 0.02% (2)
quote, - 0.02% (2)
baker - 0.02% (2)
goes - 0.02% (2)
thing, - 0.02% (2)
use, - 0.02% (2)
periods - 0.02% (2)
stem - 0.02% (2)
(which - 0.02% (2)
feature - 0.02% (2)
game - 0.02% (2)
ginsberg - 0.02% (2)
1989 - 0.02% (2)
train - 0.02% (2)
habit - 0.02% (2)
another - 0.02% (2)
implies - 0.02% (2)
“our - 0.02% (2)
filler - 0.02% (2)
miss - 0.02% (2)
policies - 0.02% (2)
consult - 0.02% (2)
second - 0.02% (2)
convey - 0.02% (2)
newly - 0.02% (2)
“that” - 0.02% (2)
prominent - 0.02% (2)
tomorrow, - 0.02% (2)
association - 0.02% (2)
wolf - 0.02% (2)
might - 0.02% (2)
notice - 0.02% (2)
attribution, - 0.02% (2)
appropriate - 0.02% (2)
used, - 0.02% (2)
wonderful, - 0.02% (2)
etta - 0.02% (2)
“said” - 0.02% (2)
alex - 0.02% (2)
i’d - 0.02% (2)
result - 0.02% (2)
professor, - 0.02% (2)
he.” - 0.02% (2)
began - 0.02% (2)
cases - 0.02% (2)
quote: - 0.02% (2)
preceded - 0.02% (2)
tells - 0.02% (2)
say. - 0.02% (2)
catch - 0.02% (2)
comic - 0.02% (2)
heard” - 0.02% (2)
trademark - 0.02% (2)
source, - 0.02% (2)
woo) - 0.02% (2)
desirable - 0.02% (2)
like: - 0.02% (2)
(woo - 0.02% (2)
interview. - 0.02% (2)
apply - 0.02% (2)
exchange, - 0.02% (2)
heard.” - 0.02% (2)
west - 0.02% (2)
standard - 0.02% (2)
yes, - 0.02% (2)
list, - 0.02% (2)
‘hoo - 0.02% (2)
(or - 0.02% (2)
omit - 0.02% (2)
in the - 0.72% (72)
of the - 0.52% (52)
at the - 0.26% (26)
that i - 0.26% (26)
to the - 0.25% (25)
on the - 0.25% (25)
woo woo - 0.21% (21)
is the - 0.21% (21)
as the - 0.18% (18)
with the - 0.18% (18)
that the - 0.18% (18)
the new - 0.18% (18)
new york - 0.17% (17)
and the - 0.17% (17)
for the - 0.16% (16)
the internet - 0.16% (16)
bought it - 0.16% (16)
the most - 0.16% (16)
he said - 0.15% (15)
it off - 0.14% (14)
the word - 0.13% (13)
york times - 0.12% (12)
but the - 0.12% (12)
he was - 0.12% (12)
thing i - 0.12% (12)
if the - 0.11% (11)
off the - 0.11% (11)
the person - 0.11% (11)
the quote - 0.11% (11)
i bought - 0.11% (11)
quotes a - 0.1% (10)
“that is - 0.1% (10)
from the - 0.1% (10)
/ benyagodablog - 0.1% (10)
/ leave - 0.1% (10)
a comment - 0.1% (10)
i ever - 0.1% (10)
most ridiculous - 0.1% (10)
ridiculous thing - 0.1% (10)
a person - 0.1% (10)
use of - 0.1% (10)
benyagodablog / - 0.1% (10)
leave a - 0.1% (10)
the time - 0.09% (9)
from a - 0.09% (9)
all the - 0.09% (9)
this is - 0.09% (9)
the country - 0.09% (9)
about the - 0.09% (9)
have to - 0.09% (9)
has been - 0.08% (8)
jones said. - 0.08% (8)
that he - 0.08% (8)
the verb - 0.08% (8)
he said. - 0.08% (8)
2015 / - 0.08% (8)
the term - 0.08% (8)
in his - 0.08% (8)
that a - 0.08% (8)
was the - 0.07% (7)
a long - 0.07% (7)
it offline - 0.07% (7)
to his - 0.07% (7)
direct quote - 0.07% (7)
going to - 0.07% (7)
the phrase - 0.07% (7)
the internet.” - 0.07% (7)
if you - 0.07% (7)
i don’t - 0.06% (6)
it’s a - 0.06% (6)
quotation marks - 0.06% (6)
by the - 0.06% (6)
jones, a - 0.06% (6)
at least - 0.06% (6)
what i - 0.06% (6)
bill gates - 0.06% (6)
it’s not - 0.06% (6)
sort of - 0.06% (6)
“a person - 0.06% (6)
“i bought - 0.06% (6)
not the - 0.06% (6)
there is - 0.06% (6)
of his - 0.06% (6)
he had - 0.06% (6)
with a - 0.06% (6)
you can - 0.06% (6)
it was - 0.06% (6)
and that - 0.05% (5)
to get - 0.05% (5)
the winner - 0.05% (5)
the subject - 0.05% (5)
to say - 0.05% (5)
is that - 0.05% (5)
said the - 0.05% (5)
such a - 0.05% (5)
when i - 0.05% (5)
ever heard,” - 0.05% (5)
into the - 0.05% (5)
irony and - 0.05% (5)
to indicate - 0.05% (5)
will rogers - 0.05% (5)
that were - 0.05% (5)
should be - 0.05% (5)
a sentence - 0.05% (5)
i love - 0.05% (5)
spoke at - 0.05% (5)
man that - 0.05% (5)
to make - 0.05% (5)
the idea - 0.05% (5)
want to - 0.05% (5)
that it - 0.05% (5)
kind of - 0.05% (5)
at commencement. - 0.05% (5)
the first - 0.05% (5)
sense that - 0.05% (5)
you get - 0.05% (5)
the university - 0.05% (5)
against the - 0.05% (5)
before the - 0.05% (5)
a good - 0.05% (5)
a comma - 0.04% (4)
quote is - 0.04% (4)
a wuss,” - 0.04% (4)
‘woo woo’ - 0.04% (4)
the internet, - 0.04% (4)
he did - 0.04% (4)
a journal - 0.04% (4)
the long - 0.04% (4)
is part - 0.04% (4)
person who - 0.04% (4)
sense of - 0.04% (4)
many other - 0.04% (4)
of “a - 0.04% (4)
part of - 0.04% (4)
one of - 0.04% (4)
end of - 0.04% (4)
the ads - 0.04% (4)
ellen jones, - 0.04% (4)
the use - 0.04% (4)
as opposed - 0.04% (4)
able to - 0.04% (4)
are some - 0.04% (4)
of american - 0.04% (4)
the end - 0.04% (4)
in your - 0.04% (4)
opposed to - 0.04% (4)
the gaslight - 0.04% (4)
one or - 0.04% (4)
new rule. - 0.04% (4)
for example, - 0.04% (4)
at some - 0.04% (4)
way to - 0.04% (4)
is against - 0.04% (4)
can be - 0.04% (4)
is not - 0.04% (4)
episode of - 0.04% (4)
he has - 0.04% (4)
in this - 0.04% (4)
indirect quote - 0.04% (4)
the country. - 0.04% (4)
but there - 0.04% (4)
“arnold is - 0.04% (4)
long way - 0.04% (4)
did not - 0.04% (4)
and in - 0.04% (4)
it with - 0.04% (4)
the speaker - 0.04% (4)
said. wrong: - 0.04% (4)
that would - 0.04% (4)
quotation marks, - 0.04% (4)
more than - 0.04% (4)
the american - 0.04% (4)
was so - 0.04% (4)
the question - 0.04% (4)
of irony - 0.04% (4)
the best - 0.04% (4)
thing the - 0.04% (4)
of quotes - 0.04% (4)
had been - 0.03% (3)
in any - 0.03% (3)
about it - 0.03% (3)
or some - 0.03% (3)
sophomore bill - 0.03% (3)
that ever - 0.03% (3)
quote has - 0.03% (3)
i have - 0.03% (3)
that that - 0.03% (3)
that was - 0.03% (3)
after a - 0.03% (3)
of what - 0.03% (3)
or that - 0.03% (3)
lot of - 0.03% (3)
over the - 0.03% (3)
kent thought - 0.03% (3)
the man - 0.03% (3)
the world, - 0.03% (3)
used to - 0.03% (3)
quotes are - 0.03% (3)
a disaster - 0.03% (3)
barack obama - 0.03% (3)
addressed congress. - 0.03% (3)
2. the - 0.03% (3)
seventh richest - 0.03% (3)
man in - 0.03% (3)
the following - 0.03% (3)
university will - 0.03% (3)
richest man - 0.03% (3)
software pioneer - 0.03% (3)
an entry - 0.03% (3)
to write - 0.03% (3)
the great - 0.03% (3)
winner was - 0.03% (3)
do not - 0.03% (3)
your story. - 0.03% (3)
a great - 0.03% (3)
be closed - 0.03% (3)
it’s okay - 0.03% (3)
i’m going - 0.03% (3)
so much - 0.03% (3)
example, if - 0.03% (3)
ngram viewer - 0.03% (3)
frequency of - 0.03% (3)
the whole - 0.03% (3)
two sentences - 0.03% (3)
and it - 0.03% (3)
his new - 0.03% (3)
the material - 0.03% (3)
will be - 0.03% (3)
2, 2015 - 0.03% (3)
person that” - 0.03% (3)
you want - 0.03% (3)
they are - 0.03% (3)
you should - 0.03% (3)
to your - 0.03% (3)
at her - 0.03% (3)
i know - 0.03% (3)
instead of - 0.03% (3)
best work - 0.03% (3)
may 28, - 0.03% (3)
— and - 0.03% (3)
team has - 0.03% (3)
web page - 0.03% (3)
than a - 0.03% (3)
him the - 0.03% (3)
taking a - 0.03% (3)
the 76ers - 0.03% (3)
coach brett - 0.03% (3)
best holiday - 0.03% (3)
as well - 0.03% (3)
you know, - 0.03% (3)
a sense - 0.03% (3)
the old - 0.03% (3)
think of - 0.03% (3)
an episode - 0.03% (3)
is also - 0.03% (3)
television broadcast - 0.03% (3)
what he - 0.03% (3)
would be - 0.03% (3)
a journalism - 0.03% (3)
comma after - 0.03% (3)
he said, - 0.03% (3)
said. “it’s - 0.03% (3)
heard,” jones - 0.03% (3)
rolling stone, - 0.03% (3)
holiday of - 0.03% (3)
the year,” - 0.03% (3)
–the new - 0.03% (3)
go,” he - 0.03% (3)
in which - 0.03% (3)
to find - 0.03% (3)
tarantino’s best - 0.03% (3)
how old - 0.03% (3)
of higher - 0.03% (3)
the film - 0.03% (3)
wasn’t tarantino’s - 0.03% (3)
reporting profiles - 0.03% (3)
bill kent - 0.03% (3)
thought the - 0.03% (3)
not have - 0.03% (3)
film wasn’t - 0.03% (3)
i would - 0.03% (3)
of saying - 0.03% (3)
is gaslighting - 0.03% (3)
the art - 0.03% (3)
brett brown - 0.03% (3)
to go,” - 0.03% (3)
higher education - 0.03% (3)
the more - 0.03% (3)
in fact - 0.03% (3)
and writing - 0.03% (3)
according to - 0.03% (3)
the oxford - 0.03% (3)
around the - 0.03% (3)
a sign - 0.03% (3)
ben yagoda - 0.03% (3)
dictionary of - 0.03% (3)
“this team - 0.03% (3)
there’s a - 0.03% (3)
york times, - 0.03% (3)
of champions - 0.03% (3)
is most - 0.03% (3)
almost always - 0.03% (3)
is all - 0.03% (3)
there was - 0.03% (3)
age of - 0.03% (3)
i could - 0.03% (3)
when a - 0.03% (3)
other than - 0.03% (3)
english dictionary - 0.03% (3)
that in - 0.03% (3)
the writer - 0.03% (3)
the lan - 0.03% (3)
and you - 0.03% (3)
edition of - 0.03% (3)
you have - 0.03% (3)
the dictionary - 0.03% (3)
who said - 0.03% (3)
indicate a - 0.03% (3)
“bought it - 0.03% (3)
has the - 0.03% (3)
on his - 0.03% (3)
have been - 0.03% (3)
“i did - 0.03% (3)
get the - 0.03% (3)
exact words - 0.03% (3)
to speak - 0.03% (3)
rather than - 0.03% (3)
new age - 0.03% (3)
the expression - 0.03% (3)
in new - 0.03% (3)
with an - 0.03% (3)
he would - 0.03% (3)
and then - 0.03% (3)
to use - 0.03% (3)
chronicle of - 0.03% (3)
i said - 0.03% (3)
28, 2015 - 0.03% (3)
“woo woo” - 0.03% (3)
of new - 0.03% (3)
reference to - 0.03% (3)
to replace - 0.02% (2)
every assignment - 0.02% (2)
within a - 0.02% (2)
the finest - 0.02% (2)
urban airport - 0.02% (2)
to me, - 0.02% (2)
disaster area,” - 0.02% (2)
and only - 0.02% (2)
junior alicia - 0.02% (2)
“laguardia airport - 0.02% (2)
that this - 0.02% (2)
best work. - 0.02% (2)
mcconnell said. - 0.02% (2)
be used - 0.02% (2)
brackets and - 0.02% (2)
year,” junior - 0.02% (2)
blasio said. - 0.02% (2)
area,” mayor - 0.02% (2)
is, you - 0.02% (2)
quote should - 0.02% (2)
alicia mcconnell - 0.02% (2)
a single - 0.02% (2)
“halloween is - 0.02% (2)
a short - 0.02% (2)
sucked,” he - 0.02% (2)
material you - 0.02% (2)
when quoting - 0.02% (2)
a relatively - 0.02% (2)
out is - 0.02% (2)
work. “it - 0.02% (2)
“it’s all - 0.02% (2)
“it sucked,” - 0.02% (2)
quotes can - 0.02% (2)
less than - 0.02% (2)
of them - 0.02% (2)
two or - 0.02% (2)
said it - 0.02% (2)
airport is - 0.02% (2)
however, if - 0.02% (2)
bill de - 0.02% (2)
rules for - 0.02% (2)
mayor bill - 0.02% (2)
fine products. - 0.02% (2)
in 1973, - 0.02% (2)
the 1960s - 0.02% (2)
irony in - 0.02% (2)
like jimmy - 0.02% (2)
and other - 0.02% (2)
his time - 0.02% (2)
wasn’t a - 0.02% (2)
such as - 0.02% (2)
also rises - 0.02% (2)
the sun - 0.02% (2)
— the - 0.02% (2)
i’m talking - 0.02% (2)
intended to - 0.02% (2)
the time, - 0.02% (2)
use on - 0.02% (2)
general mills, - 0.02% (2)
sun also - 0.02% (2)
don’t you - 0.02% (2)
all this - 0.02% (2)
well and - 0.02% (2)
it make - 0.02% (2)
i think - 0.02% (2)
were made - 0.02% (2)
for this - 0.02% (2)
it offline” - 0.02% (2)
and she - 0.02% (2)
the preface - 0.02% (2)
he wasn’t - 0.02% (2)
the matt - 0.02% (2)
his long - 0.02% (2)
way into - 0.02% (2)
not one-off - 0.02% (2)
maria yagoda - 0.02% (2)
thing ‘often’ - 0.02% (2)
let’s call - 0.02% (2)
woo-hoo for - 0.02% (2)
of writing. - 0.02% (2)
language and - 0.02% (2)
blog about - 0.02% (2)
writing and - 0.02% (2)
with so - 0.02% (2)
but it’s - 0.02% (2)
of this - 0.02% (2)
the words - 0.02% (2)
reason i - 0.02% (2)
his wife - 0.02% (2)
the world.” - 0.02% (2)
following year - 0.02% (2)
bypass surgery - 0.02% (2)
his and - 0.02% (2)
a series - 0.02% (2)
not merely - 0.02% (2)
unwilling to - 0.02% (2)
and not - 0.02% (2)
and his - 0.02% (2)
the list - 0.02% (2)
irony is - 0.02% (2)
my daughter - 0.02% (2)
if they - 0.02% (2)
de blasio - 0.02% (2)
was in - 0.02% (2)
the country’s - 0.02% (2)
country. he - 0.02% (2)
the line - 0.02% (2)
up with - 0.02% (2)
probably the - 0.02% (2)
speak on - 0.02% (2)
rogers to - 0.02% (2)
their own - 0.02% (2)
to provide - 0.02% (2)
but he - 0.02% (2)
d. roosevelt, - 0.02% (2)
new deal - 0.02% (2)
york times” - 0.02% (2)
would have - 0.02% (2)
times in - 0.02% (2)
the popularity - 0.02% (2)
the unemployment - 0.02% (2)
years earlier - 0.02% (2)
a radio - 0.02% (2)
and limousines” - 0.02% (2)
will rogers: - 0.02% (2)
and ellipses - 0.02% (2)
airport in - 0.02% (2)
finest urban - 0.02% (2)
replace it - 0.02% (2)
expect to - 0.02% (2)
out to - 0.02% (2)
a recent - 0.02% (2)
try to - 0.02% (2)
back in - 0.02% (2)
” … - 0.02% (2)
1993 ” - 0.02% (2)
the early - 0.02% (2)
the history - 0.02% (2)
looking into - 0.02% (2)
it from - 0.02% (2)
my brother.” - 0.02% (2)
expect the - 0.02% (2)
ear was - 0.02% (2)
sentence in - 0.02% (2)
comment i - 0.02% (2)
2015may 28, - 0.02% (2)
deal to - 0.02% (2)
the day - 0.02% (2)
for his - 0.02% (2)
the national - 0.02% (2)
that rogers’ - 0.02% (2)
it’s the - 0.02% (2)
distribution of - 0.02% (2)
of getting - 0.02% (2)
some way - 0.02% (2)
to work, - 0.02% (2)
that every - 0.02% (2)
the only - 0.02% (2)
we read - 0.02% (2)
and it’s - 0.02% (2)
the broadcast, - 0.02% (2)
rogers had - 0.02% (2)
i. the - 0.02% (2)
the context - 0.02% (2)
too woo - 0.02% (2)
19th century, - 0.02% (2)
pronounce it - 0.02% (2)
even if - 0.02% (2)
there are - 0.02% (2)
he wrote - 0.02% (2)
published in - 0.02% (2)
commonly used - 0.02% (2)
deal of - 0.02% (2)
i knew - 0.02% (2)
14, 2015 - 0.02% (2)
whole thing - 0.02% (2)
call the - 0.02% (2)
white house - 0.02% (2)
the case - 0.02% (2)
who were - 0.02% (2)
to her - 0.02% (2)
association with - 0.02% (2)
(woo woo) - 0.02% (2)
with other - 0.02% (2)
so many - 0.02% (2)
the catch - 0.02% (2)
hugh herbert - 0.02% (2)
among the - 0.02% (2)
earth first - 0.02% (2)
first use - 0.02% (2)
quote from - 0.02% (2)
that there - 0.02% (2)
had become - 0.02% (2)
but in - 0.02% (2)
article by - 0.02% (2)
front of - 0.02% (2)
a pathological - 0.02% (2)
pathological disease.” - 0.02% (2)
referring to - 0.02% (2)
couple of - 0.02% (2)
comment a - 0.02% (2)
who that? - 0.02% (2)
to pronounce - 0.02% (2)
of why - 0.02% (2)
off-ten and - 0.02% (2)
are all - 0.02% (2)
popularity of - 0.02% (2)
know is - 0.02% (2)
picked up - 0.02% (2)
wrote in - 0.02% (2)
thing — - 0.02% (2)
think it’s - 0.02% (2)
university of - 0.02% (2)
the language - 0.02% (2)
years, young - 0.02% (2)
must have - 0.02% (2)
(african-american, born - 0.02% (2)
born in - 0.02% (2)
the movie - 0.02% (2)
the my - 0.02% (2)
line of - 0.02% (2)
in often.” - 0.02% (2)
a regional - 0.02% (2)
and who - 0.02% (2)
age journal, - 0.02% (2)
say that - 0.02% (2)
ads email - 0.02% (2)
has an - 0.02% (2)
quotes from - 0.02% (2)
make cheever - 0.02% (2)
to give - 0.02% (2)
gets mooney - 0.02% (2)
lucy show - 0.02% (2)
a plot - 0.02% (2)
the lucy - 0.02% (2)
love lucy - 0.02% (2)
ben zimmer - 0.02% (2)
the book - 0.02% (2)
editor of - 0.02% (2)
united states - 0.02% (2)
of that - 0.02% (2)
happens when - 0.02% (2)
so often - 0.02% (2)
your own - 0.02% (2)
last year. - 0.02% (2)
used the - 0.02% (2)
newly prominent - 0.02% (2)
words or - 0.02% (2)
she added - 0.02% (2)
the source - 0.02% (2)
email list, - 0.02% (2)
person into - 0.02% (2)
comment the - 0.02% (2)
is gaslighting’? - 0.02% (2)
you hear - 0.02% (2)
here’s an - 0.02% (2)
i’ve been - 0.02% (2)
use it. - 0.02% (2)
who are - 0.02% (2)
form of - 0.02% (2)
a rather - 0.02% (2)
a very - 0.02% (2)
times, march - 0.02% (2)
son, who - 0.02% (2)
about a - 0.02% (2)
of love - 0.02% (2)
2, 2016 - 0.02% (2)
for “woo - 0.02% (2)
me, and - 0.02% (2)
for rolling - 0.02% (2)
it the - 0.02% (2)
in reference - 0.02% (2)
aired on - 0.02% (2)
any case, - 0.02% (2)
symptomatic of - 0.02% (2)
that any - 0.02% (2)
as symptomatic - 0.02% (2)
to him - 0.02% (2)
possible to - 0.02% (2)
and put - 0.02% (2)
gomer pyle - 0.02% (2)
writer of - 0.02% (2)
through to - 0.02% (2)
can get - 0.02% (2)
get through - 0.02% (2)
cite for - 0.02% (2)
that my - 0.02% (2)
up the - 0.02% (2)
sophomore audrey - 0.02% (2)
how many - 0.02% (2)
a quote. - 0.02% (2)
quote within - 0.02% (2)
never use - 0.02% (2)
also true - 0.02% (2)
commas and - 0.02% (2)
in all - 0.02% (2)
and periods - 0.02% (2)
and don’t - 0.02% (2)
into your - 0.02% (2)
way, a - 0.02% (2)
one thing, - 0.02% (2)
are like - 0.02% (2)
than what - 0.02% (2)
implies you - 0.02% (2)
something other - 0.02% (2)
to mean - 0.02% (2)
long as - 0.02% (2)
or two - 0.02% (2)
quotes should - 0.02% (2)
an indirect - 0.02% (2)
after “said.” - 0.02% (2)
closed tomorrow, - 0.02% (2)
factual information - 0.02% (2)
you are - 0.02% (2)
surrounded by - 0.02% (2)
what someone - 0.02% (2)
quotes an - 0.02% (2)
other words - 0.02% (2)
think he - 0.02% (2)
beyond that, - 0.02% (2)
too similar - 0.02% (2)
change color,” - 0.02% (2)
the leaves - 0.02% (2)
it when - 0.02% (2)
“i love - 0.02% (2)
kelly jones, - 0.02% (2)
ever,” said - 0.02% (2)
beautiful autumn - 0.02% (2)
made it - 0.02% (2)
the 76ers. - 0.02% (2)
in order - 0.02% (2)
have a - 0.02% (2)
to it. - 0.02% (2)
preceded by - 0.02% (2)
or she - 0.02% (2)
ever heard.” - 0.02% (2)
journalism professor, - 0.02% (2)
alex jones, - 0.02% (2)
or more - 0.02% (2)
of two - 0.02% (2)
in quotes - 0.02% (2)
okay to - 0.02% (2)
an e-mail - 0.02% (2)
or even - 0.02% (2)
to ask - 0.02% (2)
write something - 0.02% (2)
except in - 0.02% (2)
are okay - 0.02% (2)
so when - 0.02% (2)
words and - 0.02% (2)
to persons - 0.02% (2)
and why - 0.02% (2)
talk to - 0.02% (2)
you could - 0.02% (2)
person is - 0.02% (2)
the person. - 0.02% (2)
written about - 0.02% (2)
on this - 0.02% (2)
a chef, - 0.02% (2)
thing that - 0.02% (2)
subject of - 0.02% (2)
or long - 0.02% (2)
short or - 0.02% (2)
i’m not - 0.02% (2)
refer to - 0.02% (2)
so use - 0.02% (2)
use: “i - 0.02% (2)
wants to - 0.02% (2)
the reason - 0.02% (2)
that” in - 0.02% (2)
chart below - 0.02% (2)
attests that - 0.02% (2)
seen in - 0.02% (2)
was sometimes - 0.02% (2)
and irving - 0.02% (2)
to those - 0.02% (2)
nor is - 0.02% (2)
and sometimes - 0.02% (2)
chiefly to - 0.02% (2)
an interview - 0.02% (2)
the interview - 0.02% (2)
to include - 0.02% (2)
if identification - 0.02% (2)
you’re using - 0.02% (2)
the reader - 0.02% (2)
quotes 1. - 0.02% (2)
search for: - 0.02% (2)
a little - 0.02% (2)
some years - 0.02% (2)
25, 2015 - 0.02% (2)
yagoda’s rules - 0.02% (2)
was jimmy - 0.02% (2)
jimmy smith, - 0.02% (2)
before name, - 0.02% (2)
identification is - 0.02% (2)
(as in - 0.02% (2)
only if - 0.02% (2)
quotes of - 0.02% (2)
make sense - 0.02% (2)
rule. wrong: - 0.02% (2)
said she - 0.02% (2)
a sophomore, - 0.02% (2)
commencement. 9. - 0.02% (2)
the seventh - 0.02% (2)
the president, - 0.02% (2)
barack obama, - 0.02% (2)
a look - 0.02% (2)
punctuation of - 0.02% (2)
capitalization and - 0.02% (2)
for my - 0.02% (2)
24, 2015 - 0.02% (2)
art and - 0.02% (2)
bought it off - 0.13% (13)
new york times - 0.12% (12)
i bought it - 0.11% (11)
the new york - 0.11% (11)
off the internet - 0.11% (11)
“that is the - 0.1% (10)
thing i ever - 0.1% (10)
is the most - 0.1% (10)
ridiculous thing i - 0.1% (10)
/ benyagodablog / - 0.1% (10)
the most ridiculous - 0.1% (10)
most ridiculous thing - 0.1% (10)
/ leave a - 0.1% (10)
leave a comment - 0.1% (10)
benyagodablog / leave - 0.1% (10)
2015 / benyagodablog - 0.08% (8)
bought it offline - 0.07% (7)
off the internet.” - 0.06% (6)
“i bought it - 0.06% (6)
spoke at commencement. - 0.05% (5)
wrong: “that is - 0.05% (5)
i ever heard,” - 0.05% (5)
as opposed to - 0.04% (4)
have to be - 0.04% (4)
the new rule. - 0.04% (4)
the use of - 0.04% (4)
a person who - 0.04% (4)
of “a person - 0.04% (4)
a long way - 0.04% (4)
sophomore bill kent - 0.03% (3)
is a wuss,” - 0.03% (3)
you want to - 0.03% (3)
will be closed - 0.03% (3)
university will be - 0.03% (3)
the winner was - 0.03% (3)
is a disaster - 0.03% (3)
the film wasn’t - 0.03% (3)
thought the film - 0.03% (3)
of the year,” - 0.03% (3)
wasn’t tarantino’s best - 0.03% (3)
jones, a journalism - 0.03% (3)
to indicate a - 0.03% (3)
best holiday of - 0.03% (3)
for the verb - 0.03% (3)
you have to - 0.03% (3)
to go,” he - 0.03% (3)
“this team has - 0.03% (3)
tarantino’s best work - 0.03% (3)
if the person - 0.03% (3)
jones said. wrong: - 0.03% (3)
way to go,” - 0.03% (3)
has a long - 0.03% (3)
coach brett brown - 0.03% (3)
richest man in - 0.03% (3)
man in the - 0.03% (3)
bill kent thought - 0.03% (3)
chronicle of higher - 0.03% (3)
it off the - 0.03% (3)
with the t - 0.03% (3)
the oxford english - 0.03% (3)
“bought it off - 0.03% (3)
“a person that” - 0.03% (3)
–the new york - 0.03% (3)
breakfast of champions - 0.03% (3)
an episode of - 0.03% (3)
there is a - 0.03% (3)
according to the - 0.03% (3)
on the ads - 0.03% (3)
for example, if - 0.03% (3)
the end of - 0.03% (3)
there is no - 0.03% (3)
less than a - 0.02% (2)
let’s call the - 0.02% (2)
“it sucked,” he - 0.02% (2)
tarantino’s best work. - 0.02% (2)
language and writing - 0.02% (2)
seen in the - 0.02% (2)
bought it offline” - 0.02% (2)
that were made - 0.02% (2)
of saying i - 0.02% (2)
it offline because - 0.02% (2)
is “i bought - 0.02% (2)
irony and pity?” - 0.02% (2)
sun also rises - 0.02% (2)
“it’s all candy - 0.02% (2)
and the first - 0.02% (2)
alicia mcconnell said. - 0.02% (2)
the year,” junior - 0.02% (2)
“halloween is the - 0.02% (2)
you get a - 0.02% (2)
the following year - 0.02% (2)
the sun also - 0.02% (2)
i know is - 0.02% (2)
1993 ” … - 0.02% (2)
franklin d. roosevelt, - 0.02% (2)
deal of his - 0.02% (2)
new york times” - 0.02% (2)
the country. he - 0.02% (2)
the popularity of - 0.02% (2)
kelly jones, a - 0.02% (2)
equal distribution of - 0.02% (2)
brackets and ellipses - 0.02% (2)
airport in the - 0.02% (2)
the finest urban - 0.02% (2)
replace it with - 0.02% (2)
distribution of wealth - 0.02% (2)
de blasio said. - 0.02% (2)
area,” mayor bill - 0.02% (2)
a couple of - 0.02% (2)
within a quote - 0.02% (2)
in the world.” - 0.02% (2)
finest urban airport - 0.02% (2)
it with the - 0.02% (2)
expect to replace - 0.02% (2)
mayor bill de - 0.02% (2)
a disaster area,” - 0.02% (2)
“laguardia airport is - 0.02% (2)
2015may 28, 2015 - 0.02% (2)
if the material - 0.02% (2)
material you want - 0.02% (2)
when quoting from - 0.02% (2)
for the term - 0.02% (2)
did every assignment - 0.02% (2)
that would become - 0.02% (2)
of the phrase - 0.02% (2)
old is gaslighting’? - 0.02% (2)
autumn ever,” said - 0.02% (2)
part of a - 0.02% (2)
to at least - 0.02% (2)
all i know - 0.02% (2)
the question of - 0.02% (2)
got a pathological - 0.02% (2)
edition of the - 0.02% (2)
in reference to - 0.02% (2)
the subject of - 0.02% (2)
(african-american, born in - 0.02% (2)
as you can - 0.02% (2)
all the time. - 0.02% (2)
if a chef, - 0.02% (2)
subject of your - 0.02% (2)
the person is - 0.02% (2)
but it’s not - 0.02% (2)
going to be - 0.02% (2)
the university of - 0.02% (2)
the 19th century, - 0.02% (2)
the seventh richest - 0.02% (2)
writer of the - 0.02% (2)
ads email list, - 0.02% (2)
supposed to be - 0.02% (2)
a sign that - 0.02% (2)
i love lucy - 0.02% (2)
episode of the - 0.02% (2)
the lucy show - 0.02% (2)
get through to - 0.02% (2)
for “woo woo” - 0.02% (2)
seemed to be - 0.02% (2)
york times, march - 0.02% (2)
to get too - 0.02% (2)
woo woo has - 0.02% (2)
you get the - 0.02% (2)
a sense of - 0.02% (2)
the white house - 0.02% (2)
the whole thing - 0.02% (2)
is a great - 0.02% (2)
pioneer bill gates - 0.02% (2)
the most beautiful - 0.02% (2)
the idea of - 0.02% (2)
quote within a - 0.02% (2)
example, if the - 0.02% (2)
write something like: - 0.02% (2)
said in a - 0.02% (2)
heard,” jones said. - 0.02% (2)
alex jones, a - 0.02% (2)
in your own - 0.02% (2)
made it clear - 0.02% (2)
something other than - 0.02% (2)
76ers. “this team - 0.02% (2)
been the most - 0.02% (2)
beautiful autumn ever,” - 0.02% (2)
said kelly jones, - 0.02% (2)
love it when - 0.02% (2)
the leaves change - 0.02% (2)
“this has been - 0.02% (2)
a quote has - 0.02% (2)
as long as - 0.02% (2)
bill gates spoke - 0.02% (2)
a direct quote - 0.02% (2)
at commencement. 9. - 0.02% (2)
she is against - 0.02% (2)
here are some - 0.02% (2)
if identification is - 0.02% (2)
was jimmy smith, - 0.02% (2)
2. the winner - 0.02% (2)
for my journalism - 0.02% (2)
into your story. - 0.02% (2)
one or two - 0.02% (2)
qualified to speak - 0.02% (2)
or if the - 0.02% (2)
do not use - 0.02% (2)
is also true - 0.02% (2)
if the quote - 0.02% (2)
he or she - 0.02% (2)
that the person - 0.02% (2)
whole thing ‘often’ - 0.02% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.