Published: October 06, 2008 02:43 pm            

Small but mighty nit

Practically all of us have heard or used the term “nitpick” in some fashion. This is usually accompanied by derision and varying degrees of negative connotation. It is reasonable to assume readers know the meaning(s) of “pick” but how many know and understand the actual meaning of “nit?”

By dictionary definition, a nit is the egg of a louse or an insect. My reference indicated the physical size of a nit is about one-fiftieth (1/50th) of an inch in diameter.

Assuming a uniform size, one square inch of a flat surface could host about 2,500 nits. I have no idea how many nits are produced at any one time. It could be a number between one and many. I certainly have no prurient interest in inventorying a number of nits.

At this juncture, we could conclude that a nitpicker — amateur or professional — works with tiny minuscule units. If overdone, the reputation of these meticulous people suffers in the telling. Rightly or wrongly, nitpickers have earned their reputations. Regrettably, it can cost a company or an organization.

Some years ago, I engaged a local organization to type an important report for a client. One page had three rather gross typographical errors. When challenged, the service owner refused to make any corrections.

My client was paying for significant detailed analysis with hard recommendations. My fees were far beyond minimum wages by a significant shift in decimal points. A glaring error in my report would reflect badly on my professional reputation.

I never went back to that service. An organization that does not/will not stand behind their product raises questions of competence and ability. In all good faith, I felt that I could not rely on them for future projects. Therefore, I took my work to the city.

An adage can be quite useful in defining a professional nitpicker. I believe that Benjamin Franklin had this to say, “Trifles make perfection and perfection is no trifle.” Without comment, this is cited only as a reference or observation. This belies the familiar term of “close enough for government work.”

On a more personal note, I began to wonder and ponder think about the term “nitwit.” I had never before realized the physical size of a nit nor had I contemplated the size of a wit in a nit. Arguably, if a nit has a wit, I assume this element could be isolated and measured.

Actually, “nitwit” is a gentle term that brings strong and harsh meanings when referring to a person. Most of us have known and associated with a few nitwits in our lives.

My trusty thesaurus included synonyms — no acronyms — for the simple “nitwit.” An incomplete list of other meaningful words included idiot, dolt, nincompoop, fool and DIMWIT.

I cheerfully admit there are times when my attempts to communicate only obscure and hide the real story. This is partly due to my more creative attempts failing to create a golden aura of understanding.

Readers may question my sometimes fascination with words. Well, without words, we would have no communications. And that leads to the story about the third-grader.

His teacher sent a note home with him. The boy said it was because he was illiterate. The mother sent back a note that said, “My son is not illiterate. He knows who his parents are.”

If we do not understand, there can be no communication. I wonder if a woman knitting a sweater actually has a half-knit sweater.



Grady Easley is retired from gainful employment but can be reached at page65@att.net

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.