What is it about the words "processes" and "disoriented" that flummox the most studious and confound the scholarly? We've been saying them correctly for centuries, and suddenly, in the last 5 -7 years or so, no one seems to be able to get them right.

The gut-busting, guffaw-inspiring stand-ins of these decidedly unchallenging words seem to make their most consistent appearance in scientific television documentaries, of all things. This morning on the science channel, whilst watching a show on the effects of zero gravity on the human body and how this will be the biggest hurdle for man to get to mars, I had the unfortunate experience of hearing the female narrator speak of how the effects of space leave astronauts "disorientated." Gulp.

The fact that this verbal butchery was uttered by an ultra-proper,BBC quality, oh-so-upper crust voice only served to sharpen the blow to my already violated sensibilities. And yes, I know she's not responsible for the writing, but how could she not know she was saying a made-up word coined by the unwashed? Presumably she went to some sort of school; how could she not feel she were making a mockery of it and all who have attended there by shirking her obligation to correct the obvious, shouting, glaring, naked-and-jiggly-streaking-across-the-stage-at-the-oscars-whilst-David Niven-announces-an-award mistake?

The answer, as apparent as the trespass, that she did not recognise the error, is hard to process. Which brings us to our second well-degreed offender.

Another recent mangling especially favoured by scientists of all ilks, be they geologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, theoretical physicists or paleontologists is the plural form of the noun "process," wherein the suffix "-es" is no longer pronounced "-is" but "eez" (rhyming with "cheese") and the stress shifts from solely on the first syllable to an equally stressed first and final syllable. (Yes, the mistake is accentuated to hide it's utter ridiculousness.)

Late last night I was watching another show on the space program, this time it was a (rerun) Nova on PBS about the mars rovers and that whole mission. One of the Nasa guys was talking about geological "processeez" on Mars. Jeez. To see a man of science allow this Carollian invention to pass his lips gives me the skeeves. And they say it like it's all scientific and serious.

I'm not sure who gave birth to this atrocity, but I can sort of sort out the wrong (non-) thinking that helped give it legs. There is a group of words whose plural sound like "-eez:" nouns that end in the syllable/phoneme "-ex" like "index," "executrix," "matrix," and everyone's favourite, "dominatrix" (have I missed anyone?) form plurals that end in "-ces" (pronounced "-seez") as in "indices" (in-di-seez), "executrices" (ig-zec-yoo-tri-seez), "matrices" (may-tri-seez), "dominatrices" [dom-in-a-tri-seez (I'm guessing here, as this naughty word is not in my "Oxford Dictionary of Current English")].

Note: "Oxford Dictionary of Current English" also gives the more regular "-xes" plural form for each of the above words (again, it did not have "dominatrix," but I assume the same rule would apply.) In the case of "index," the "-ices" plural form specified "for technical use," whatever that means. I wonder if they have only lately included the more expected "-xes" suffix as a plural option because of use. Anyone know? Maybe I'll consult the grandaddy of dictionaries, the O.E.D.

Another process at work here is called "hypercorrection," whereby people who don't know any better try to sound as if they do, with disastrous consequences. They probably know somewhere in their brain about funky words like index/indices, and think they'll sound knowledgable if they pepper their speech with the funkiness, assuming they've got it right because they heard someone they respect pronounce it that way.

Another example of grammatical hypercorrection is the recent advent of "he/she and I" being used as the object of the sentence (subjective case). Ex: They invited he and I to the party (incorrect). People who do this are used to hearing the correction of "use he/she and I" when they use "him/her and me" as the subject (in the nominative). Ex: Him and me got invited to the party (incorrect). They figure "why not use "he/she and I" in every case; that way I'll be right all the time." Good intentions gone bad. But this is the subject of another post. . .