Another Word about Words

By Bob Gaydos

Since writing in January about how much I miss Bill Safire writing the On Language column in The New York Times Magazine and what a waste I thought it was to spend an entire page in the magazine on the word “inchoate,” as was the case on that occasion, I haven’t had the energy to venture back into that space. Until last weekend.
 
Big mistake.

The column was written by Ammon Shea, who is described as “a consulting editor of American dictionaries for Oxford University Press.” A dictionary guy, which is really not the same thing as a language guy. Shea spends the whole column telling us that — despite what educators, research and experience tell us — the size of one’s vocabulary is not necessarily as important to a successful life as .. ta da! … how one uses all the words one knows.

Now he tells us.

But wait. Shea, the dictionary guy, then goes on to posit (a word he would probably like) that most of us underestimate the pure joy of learning arcane, obscure, unpronounceable words we will never, ever use. He particularly likes groak. He also tossed in catillate, vitulate and brochity. Don’t bother, you’ll never use them.

Anyway, as I once again rued the day the On Language column became a column about words people never use, which, in effect, makes it a waste of time, I remembered that I had asked our literate  Zest readers for their own pet language peeves. And so, with apologies and appreciation, I offer them now.

*  *  *

Lee Luce of Warwick was especially worked up: “We, too, read the NY Times Magazine and often rue the passing of Bill Safire. So you want pet peeves? I have the normal ones – “diametrically opposed,“ “Bill and me went …”, “my cohorts and I.”

“But my current grammatical pet peeve is the increasing use of the word it. My first English college professor hated when anybody used the word  and I suppose it stuck. Her thesis was that over-use of the word it asks the reader to work and decipher what it stands for in the sentence. Why not just write what you mean without asking the reader to decipher your code? She even went so far as to say that a writer was better off using more words in place of the word it than were necessary in order to make the meaning clear. Worse than using the word in a sentence was to start a sentence with the word It.

“Some quick examples from the January 11 issue of Time magazine:

  • ‘The Interview Issue: How They See It” (What is it?)’
  • Perhaps it was the economy, or maybe it was our mindlessly divided’ … political climate.’ (What is it?)’
  • ‘It turned out to be a fortuitous coincidence…’ (What is it?)’
  • ‘It may seem like this vast nation…’ (What is it?)’

“All examples are within the first seven pages of the magazine. I’m ready to cancel my subscription. Now I must confess my husband, an excellent writer, does not agree with my rantings on the use of the word it. And I’ve never seen anything written, except for the venerable team of Strunk & White, to support my visceral reaction to use of the word when not necessary. Maybe I’m just a lone grammatical voice crying in the wilderness.”

Bigsky offered this: “I realize that this column isn’t choate, so I look forward to the next one. Kindly address flammable and inflammable next time.” (Well, yes, they do mean the same thing, making one unnecessary.)

Fellow Zester Michael Kaufman wrote: I think the one that annoys me most is the way people write “loose” when they mean “lose,” as in, “I think I may loose my job.” One of the worst editors I ever had told me he didn’t appreciate my insouciance. After reading your post I checked: There is no such word as souciance.

LeeAgain wrote: “I joiced mightily at your choice of subject this week.”

From Carrie Jacobson, zest artist/writer: All those snoots who use “choate” probably went to Choate. My current peeve is “gentleman,” as in “the gentleman in handcuffs has been charged with murder.” A man is not necessarily a gentleman. In fact, I’d say, in this day and age, a man is almost never a gentleman! (Except for you.)

From jacquesdebauche: “My pet peeve is the use of “issue” when what is really meant is “problem.” In the relevant sense, an issue is a matter of dispute, while a problem is a source of perplexity. For example, if you come out of the house in the morning and discover that your car has a flat tire, that’s a problem. If you want to borrow your wife’s car to get to work, that could be an issue. I suspect this (mis)usage grew from the same M.B.A. thinking that, twenty years ago, replaced “problems” with “opportunities.”

Ernie Miller: “My particular peeve is the use of the word decimate to say something has been 100% percent annihilated. The Romans would decimate; they would take 1/10th of something. I suspect few people took Latin as I did, though for a year only. When one thinks about it, it is a pretty strong punishment to remove 10 percent of something be it a population, cattle, or wenches. (Oops, that sounds like a pirate.) Every time I hear decimate to represent total annihilation, I cringe. Thinking about it, with inchoate meaning incomplete, decimate is also an incomplete action/event. Both words are then used wrong or bastardized to mean complete? Complete what?”

And Fred Madeo of Ithaca: “Enjoyed your piece on William Safire and language and usage. I climb the wall whenever I hear the following: ‘Having said that, saying that, that having been said, that said,’ and ad infinitum. It is what I call a ‘language virus‘ that catches on like one catches a cold. That said, I shall sign off.”

Me too. Well said, all. And thanks until next time.

Bob can be reached at bob@zestoforange.com

Tags:

Leave a Reply