From The New York Times, in an opinion piece by Penn economist Corinne Low:
[“What Women Really Want: Work Boundaries.” The New York Times, November 2, 2025.]
Thanks to Stefan Hagemann, gimlet-eyed son of the broad plains of Argenta, for catching the eek. Thanks, Stefan.
*
The Times later caught the mistake, just as I later caught the extra e in the post title’s Eeek.
Related reading
All OCA “sheesh” posts (Pinboard)
Sunday, November 2, 2025
Eek and sheesh
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
comments: 4
Thanks, Michael. I like that epithet very well. I’m about to start the Sunday puzzle. What are the odds that “eke” or “eek” will be an answer? Fair to middlin’, as my dad would say.
Oh, they’re always showing up. Signs point to yes, as the Magic 8 Ball would say. Someday I’d like to see “eek” clued with the reggae artist Eek-A-Mouse.
I realized too late that if I had left out “broad,” your epithet would be made of three dactyls and a spondee, perfect for filling out a line of Homer. But I do like having that word in there.
I've never understood this usage of "eke out." As Garner points out, the phrase "has traditionally meant 'to supplement with great effort or bit by bit; to add (something); to make (something) go further or last longer,'" but that usage is now rare, and "Instead, the phrase is most commonly used nowadays in the sense 'to succeed in obtaining or sustaining (a thing) with great difficulty'." In the excerpt, to my ear, even as corrected, "eke out more hours from each employee" is better described as "squeeze out more hours from each employee," or "wring out" or something similar. "Eke out" just seems wrong.
It does sound to me as if the writer means “to succeed in obtaining,” &c. I can’t agree that “eke out” is plain wrong, but I do agree that “squeeze” or “squeeze out” is much better. I wonder if the writer shied away from that plain language in favor of something that seemed somehow more elegant.
Thanks for a thoughtful response to that phrasing.
Post a Comment