One of my colleagues told me that so and so did a horrible job on a project. Then, when we got in a meeting, she said, "That was a brilliant job you did on that project. I just have a few suggestions."

Is that hypocritical? Being two-faced? Or is there another word for it?

Trying to be tactful to the person concerned perhaps? The word "brilliant" is a bit too much, maybe "good" would have been enough. On the other hand if someone's work is that poor, I think it would be better to tell them and try to help them achieve better results.
Hypocritical and two faced- yes, a bit. Better to be honest and tactful.

Remember, we think of brilliant a little differently than you do in the UK. To Americans, it often means what WordNet defines as: "of surpassing excellence." Einstein, for example, was "brilliant." So it seems a far cry from "horrible" to "brilliant," or from Homer Simpson to Einstein.

It's certainly hypocritical, but possibly good management. Your colleague may well have had a quiet word with the author of the project and told him or her what she really thought. However, in the interests of team building she didn't want to criticize the work too strongly at the meeting. "Brilliant", though, sounds like going too far.

By the way, you're right about the fact that "brilliant" is a sadly debased word this side of the pond. I'm glad to hear that it's still used properly over there.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Remember, we think of brilliant a little differently than you do in the UK. To Americans, it often means what WordNet defines as: "of surpassing excellence." Einstein, for example, was "brilliant."

My internal OED says that 'brilliant' is an attribute applicable to persons or plans or ideas -- i.e. it involves high-quality thinking or effective and efficient purposeful activity. In this sense, 'brilliant' might be viewed as the superlative of 'bright'.

I think the British scope must indeed be different, because on the (superb, hilarious, naughty) Britcom "Couplings" I've heard it used in a context where I would use 'great' or 'fantastic' or 'neat' or 'far out' etc. As in: "... and she thinks you're sexy." "Brilliant!"

In the above example, there's no thinking or good planning involved, nor even excellence in an achievement sense: it's just a very desirable state of affairs. In such a case, it would never occur to me to use 'brilliant'.

Ranito

It seems that our friends in the UK sometimes, out of fundamental politeness, invert the intensity of adjectives.

Titanic hits ice: "Spot of trouble."

But step on your toe: "Frightfully sorry."

Thus in Kalleh's case, a severe critique likely means you have done an excellent job, while "brilliant" merely softens the impact of subsequent advice.

quote:

It's certainly hypocritical, but possibly good management.

Perhaps, Arnie. But then what is the difference from people who say, "With all due respect...", as we discussed in another thread? Aren't they the same, really?

By the way, this is an entirely different word question, but does anyone know if there is a word for a worm scientist? Saranita brought up worm scientist in one of her limericks on OEDILF, and I think there might be a word for it. Is there?

Helminthology is the study of parasitic worms. Vermology?

It is very easy to criticise others and we can find fault all the time if we want to. However, as I learnt many years ago when I became a trainer, being critical of a person's performance, while necessary if any correction is to be learnt, needs special techniques.

For example, it is almost always wrong to start your critique by saying something like, "...I disagree..." or, "...you did this wrongly..."

Phrases like "...With respect..." are often used to preface criticism in order to soften its blow, but they are a poor tool since they invariably flag the criticism that is to follow. Use them by all means if you want the party you are criticising to marshall his or her defences as soon as you start your critique - but avoid them otherwise.

Generally the most effective way to criticise is to start with the positive (there are few performances that are so poor that there is nothing good about them) and praise the good aspects. For example:

"...Thank you for the report - it's very thorough and covers all the angles..."

That gives proper initial praise for the job and you can then give more praise as appropriate as you go into details.

Then go on to any poorer aspects - and using a question is a good device here - and make your negative point. For example:

"I wasn't quite clear in my mind by what you meant when you talked about so and so. Did you mean such and such?

That gives the criticised person the chance to accept that something is wrong or to correct a possible misunderstanding. And by saying, "...I wasn't quite clear..." you are implying that maybe the fault is yours, not the other person's.

It's quite a difficult thing to do when someone has made a real mess of something - but it works far better than does any direct criticism.

To my mind your detractor was rather over-using the praise technique by saying your report was "brilliant", since most will realise that it was more likely to be competent and workmanlike rather than brilliant.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

quote:

"...Thank you for the report - it's very thorough and covers all the angles..."

This, no doubt, for a report on wheels, barrels, tubes, and other round things? Or if an English genealogy study, all the Angles?

I see your point, Richard. However, I remain perplexed about this board's acceptance of language like, "That was a 'brilliant' piece of work, but I'd like to see it reorganized and reworked," versus, "With all due respect, I'd like to disagree with you on your ideas for...." I just don't see much of a difference. To me with both you are trying to be tactful and supportive. While posters didn't like "with all due respect," the "brilliant work" wording is thought to be "good management." Go figure. I guess that's why I will never go into politics!

quote:

remain perplexed about this board's acceptance of language like, "That was a 'brilliant' piece of work, but I'd like to see it reorganized and reworked," versus, "With all due respect, I'd like to disagree with you on your ideas for...." I just don't see much of a difference.

Neither is especially good and you will see that my posting suggested that I didn't think the word "brilliant" was appropriate.

As I am not privvy to the content of the report I can only make general suggestions but my own response, assuming that the report had at least some virtues, would be for the chair or facilitator to say something like, "...Thank you for the report and the effort you've put into it. It certainly..." {the facilitator will mention here anything positive about it - if is genuinely nothing at all that's good then he or she would just move on} and say:

"I was a little unclear about the way some of the sections were organised, as it seems to me that you put XYZ before ABC - and that was before you had established KLM. Have I got that right or am I simply confused?"

Then the writer can answer and resolve the matter of the organisation of the report. Once that's been done, if there are still outstanding issues the facilitator should say, "...You also suggested that we replaced "this and that" with "that and this". Can you tell me how that would work if we were in a "so and so" situation?" Then the writer can deal with this aspect.

If there are genuinely so many problems with the report that it is just unworkable, then the writer will probably realise it by the time he or she has dealt with two or three points and will say something like, "...Well, it's becoming clear to me that this needs more research. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to take it away and do some more work on it..."

I don't know whether that's a political response but it would certainly mine as a facilitator.

Kalleh: does anyone know if there is a word for a worm scientist?
zmj: Helminthology is the study of parasitic worms. Vermology?

OED differs a bit. It gives helminthology as the study of helminths, and defines that last as "A worm, esp. an intestinal worm." Thus 'helminth' and 'helminthology' can include worms that are not intestinal or parasitic; they pertain to worms generally.

OED also gives "vermeologist: - One who treats of worms; a helminthologist," but has no cite other than an old Webster's.

Finally, a scolecology is "a treatise on worms".

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:

OED also gives "vermeologist: - One who treats of worms; a helminthologist," but has no cite other than an old Webster's.

Isn't the human appendix referred to as the vermiform appendix? Thus an appendix to a treatise on intestines is...?

quote:

Finally, a scolecology is "a treatise on worms".

Now I'm REALLY cornfoosed! I thought it was the study of crooked spines.

A vermiculturist is someone who farms, breeds and cares for worms, such as a professional worm farmer. Not necessarily a scientist, though.

Well, Asa, the appendix is worm-shaped. Here is one of mephistopheles and my limericks on OEDILF on the "appendix":


My appendix, a worm-like projection
With no function, yet prone to infection,
Was attached to my colon.
Now ugly and swollen,
It's the pride of my surgeon's collection.

quote:

Originally posted by saranita:
A vermiculturist is someone who farms, breeds and cares for worms, such as a professional worm farmer. Not necessarily a scientist, though.

Well, yes, I can imagine that being an attractive occupation to mention when you're chatting a lass up in a bar, you just can't lose then , can you!

quote:

Originally posted by Erik Johansen:

Well, yes, I can imagine that being an attractive occupation to mention when you're chatting a lass up in a bar, you just can't lose then , can you!

Asking a woman to come to my place so I could show her my worm never got ME anywhere!

quote:

Originally posted by wordnerd:

OED also gives "vermeologist: - One who treats of worms; a helminthologist," but has no cite other than an old Webster's.

If OED feels free to list this as a genuine word (and by "genuine word" I mean a word that has a meaning and is occasionally used)...but can't find any cite other than an old Webster's, then I gotta ask: Is this really a word??? The OED/Webster's thing looks slightly incestuous. Reminds me of the community (reputedly invented by Mark Twain)which "earned a precarious living by taking in one another's washing."

I don't imagine there is a great rush to become a scientist who studies worms, but those few who have apparently been called need to have something as a title.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
I don't imagine there is a great rush to become a scientist who studies worms, but those few who have apparently been called need to have something as a title.

Fair enough. I'm sure that there are scientists out there who study worms. How is it, then, that OED failed to find a use of the word vermeologist somewhere in the scientific literature? Did they simply not look hard enough?

quote:

when you're chatting a lass up in a bar

Erik, is this how you meant to say that, or is there a mistake? We'd not say "chatting a girl/woman/lass up" here.

quote:

then I gotta ask: Is this really a word???

And...how often we've asked questions like that here!

quote:

is this how you meant to say that

That's fairly standard, if informal, British use, although "lass" shows Erik's Geordie roots. As a southern softie, I'd use "girl".

To "chat up" a girl means, roughly, "flirt with".

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Howell:
If OED feels free to list this as a genuine word ... but can't find any cite other than an old Webster's, then I gotta ask: Is this really a word???

OED includes words like this often enough that it has a special symbol (a superscripted --0) indicating that it has no non-dictionary cites.

And OED includes quite a few such words. The symbol appears about 3500 times, on a search, and there are further words [vermeologist being one] for which OED neglected to attach the symbol, though applicable.

quote:

To "chat up" a girl means, roughly, "flirt with".

Well, I don't normally flirt with women , but I am fairly sure we don't "chat up" women, and I know we don't "chat up" men.

quote:

Well, I don't normally flirt with women Wink, but I am fairly sure we don't "chat up" women, and I know we don't "chat up" men.

I think the US expression is something like "come on to".

Or "hitting on".