Category: Language Matters

The Paltry Mentality of the Copy Editor

The copy editor, like a testosterone-crazed male cat, likes to mark his territory. His territory is your manuscript. But like a cat, he is lazy and easily bored, which leads to inconsistency. He starts out changing every occurrence of ‘identical with’ to ‘identical to,’ but then tires of this game so that the end result is a mishmash. He would have spared himself the bother had he appreciated the simple fact that in the English language ‘identical with’ and ‘identical to’ are stylistic variants of each other.

My advice to editors: stick to questions of formatting, and to the correction of obvious spelling and grammatical errors. Keep your political correctness to yourself.  Don't replace the gender neutral 'his' with the abomination 'his/her.'  Keep your stinking leftist politics out of my manuscript.  And don’t try to be what the Germans call a Besserwisser: don’t presume to know better what I want to say and how I want to say it. My writing is an exacting labor of love; your editing is a lousy chore you can’t wait to be done with.

Condign Punishment

There are qualifiers that occur only with the word they happen to qualify but  not with any other word.   A punishment and a remark can both be fitting or appropriate, but only a punishment is condign. One does not hear or read 'condign remark.' Is 'condign' ever used apart from 'punishment'? That is one question. A second: What is the technical term for this linguistic phenomenon? There is one, but I can't remember what it is.

A reader supplied this bit of linguistic evidence that answers my first question:  "Scotus's proposed replacement way of drawing the distinction between condign merit and congruous merit is quite complicated. Underlying it is the claim that the reward for condign merit is everlasting life, and that the reward for congruous merit is the gift of sanctifying grace (i.e., justification)."  (Richard Cross,  Duns Scotus, p. 105)

As for  the second question, I thought the answer might be hapax legomenon.  But that term refers to a word or phrase that occurs but once in a corpus, a phenomenon which is similar to but distinct from the phenomenon I am referring to.

A Charming Malapropism

I heard a pretty lady the other day refer to a barista as a barrister. Barista is Italian for bartender. Bartenders here and abroad mix and serve alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages hot and cold. Entering English the word has suffered semantic shrinkage: a barista typically mixes coffee drinks only.

Baristas and barristers ply their trade in the vicinity of bars: standing behind them or before them, respectively. So the malapropism has a certain 'logic.'

A Checkered Past

Having recently compared two lunch companions to each other in point of having checkered pasts, but aware of recent shifts in the meaning of the phrase, and not wishing to give offense, I quizzed one of them on the meaning of 'has a checkered past' as applied to a woman and to a man. He replied that it suggests that the woman was a prostitute and the man a crook. That answer is not wrong and accords with current usage. But the phrase origninally had no such pejorative connotation as far as I can tell. My old Webster's defines checker, vt, as to vary with contrasting elements or situations and gives the example of a checkered career as a racer. Nothing pejorative about that: the racer's career had its ups and downs. Or one might describe a man whose 20s were spent in the Jesuits, his 30s teaching philosophy, his 40s as a soldier of fortune, and his 50's as an exterminator of insects as having had a checkered past. Nothing pejorative about that either.

Only an idiot thinks that change qua change is good.  And so I hold to the old way of using 'checkered past.'

‘The Wrong Side of History’

I once heard  a prominent conservative tell an ideological opponent that he was 'on the wrong side of history.'  But surely this is a phrase that no self-aware and self-consistent conservative should use.  The phrase suggests that history is moving in a certain direction, toward various outcomes, and that this direction and these outcomes are somehow justified by the actual tendency of events. But how can the mere fact of a certain drift justify that drift?  For example, we are moving in the United States, and not just here, towards more and more intrusive government, more and more socialism, less and less individual liberty.  This has certainly been the trend from FDR on regardless of which party has been in power.  Would a conservative want to say that the fact of this drift justifies it?  Obviously not.

'Everyone today believes that such-and-such.'  It doesn't follow  that such-and-such is true.  'Everyone now does such-and-such.'  It doesn't follow that such-and-such ought to be done.  'The direction of events is towards such-and-such.'  It doesn't follow that such-and-such is a good or valuable outcome.  In each of these cases there is a logical mistake.  One cannot validly infer truth from belief, ought from is, or values from facts. 

One who opposes the drift toward socialism, a drift that is accelerating under President Obama, is on the wrong side of history. But that is no objection unless one assumes that history's direction is the right direction.  Now an Hegelian might believe that, one for whom all the real is rational and all the rational real.  Marxists and 'progressives' might believe it.  But no conservative who understands conservatism can believe it.

As I have said more than once, if you are a conservative don't talk like a liberal.  Don't validate, by adopting, their question-begging phrases.

 

Mark Steyn on Code Language

Thank God for Mark Steyn, a man of intelligence and courage and a resolute foe of liberal-left idiocies. He cites one Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of African-American studies at Princeton, who proffered the contemptible inanity that  “language of personal responsibility is often a code language used against poor and minority communities.”  Steyn comments:

“Personal responsibility” is racial code language? Phew, thank goodness America is belatedly joining Canada and Europe in all but abolishing the concept.

“Code language” is code language for “total bollocks.” “Code word” is a code word for “I’m inventing what you really meant to say because the actual quote doesn’t quite do the job for me.” “Small government”? Racist code words! “Non-confiscatory taxes”? Likewise. “Individual liberty”? Don’t even go there! To an incisive NPR racism analyst, the elderly gentleman telling his congressman “I’m very concerned by what I’ve heard about wait times for MRIs in Canada” is really saying “I’m unable to overcome my deep-seated racial anxieties about the sexual prowess of black males, especially now they’re giving prime-time press conferences every night.” With interpreters like professor Harris-Lacewell on the prowl, I’m confident 95 per cent of Webster’s will eventually be ruled “code language.”

Enjoy Steyn's brilliance in its entirety. 

 

On Writing Well: The Example of William James

From the mail bag:

I've recently discovered your weblog and have enjoyed combing through its archives these past several days. Your writing is remarkably lucid and straightforward — quite a rarity both in philosophy and on the web these days. I was wondering if perhaps you had any advice to share for a young person, such as myself, on the subject of writing well.

To write well, read well. Read good books, which are often, but not always, old books. If you carefully read, say, William James' Varieties of Religious Experience, you will learn something of the expository potential of the English language from a master of thought and expression. If time is short, study one of his popular essays such as "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life."  Here is a characteristic paragraph:

Continue reading “On Writing Well: The Example of William James”

An Inappropriate Use of ‘Inappropriate’

Too many people nowadays are afraid to use no-nonsense words like ‘wrong,’ ‘immoral,’ and the like. So they employ ‘inappropriate’: ‘Clinton’s behavior in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky was inappropriate.’

Sorry, but that is an inappropriate use of ‘inappropriate.’ Mr. Clinton’s behavior with his subordinate was morally wrong. The following sentence illustrates an appropriate use: ‘It would have been inappropriate of Mr. Clinton had he attended the black tie affair dressed in a swimsuit.’

Digital Camera Warnings

My Canon PowerShot SD600 digital camera is a marvel of engineering. The amount of human intelligence embodied in this object the size of a pack of cigarettes — please forgive the politically incorrect comparison — is staggering to this old engineering student. All the more remarkable, therefore, is the ineptitude of the writing found in the User Guide. The following bolded passages are verbatim quotations:

Do not look directly at the sun or at other intense light sources through the viewfinder that could damage your eyesight.

But isn't a viewfinder that could damage one's eyes a serious design flaw?

Wrist strap: Placement of the strap around the child's neck could result in asphyxiation.

So it is not just any child that could be asphyxiated  in this manner, but only some particular child? A child whose head is so tiny that one could get the wrist strap over it?

Memory card: Dangerous if accidentally swallowed. If this occurs, contact a doctor immediately.

Is swallowing it harmless if done deliberately?

Continue reading “Digital Camera Warnings”

A Punctilio Anent the Post Immediately Preceding

I just wrote, quite consciously, "There are expressions whose currency is due to no good reason . . ." Strictly correct would have been, "There are expressions the currency of which is due to no good reason . . . ."   Since 'whose' is the possessive form of the personal pronoun 'who,' it ought not  be used when the antecedent denotes an inaminate referent.  Or at least that is a rule purists will obey.  It is  a trade-off between strict correctness and stiltedness.

In the very next sentence I have "you can be sure" for the strictly correct "one can be sure."  It is a similar trade-off.  Do you want a tone that is formal or familiar?

The main thing, I suppose, is that a good writer writes consciously, aware of the rules, but breaking them when it serves his purpose. Split the infinite, begin with a conjunction, end with a preposition  if  it gives your sentence the flow and feel you desire.

On Being Impacted

There are expressions whose currency is due to no good reason, but simply reflects the suggestibility of people. Let someone prominently placed commit a linguistic howler, and you can be sure that others will fall in line. The perfectly good word ‘affect,’ used as verb, has fallen into desuetude to be replaced by the miserable ‘impact’ used as a verb. Thus, ‘Mary was deeply impacted by her father’s death.’ You mean her sire’s demise induced constipation in the poor girl? Why this barbarism when ‘Mary was deeply affected by her father’s death’ is available? Part of the answer has to be that people are lemmings who uncritically repeat whatever they hear.

'Impactation' is correctly used in this curious medical article dredged up from the bowels of the Internet: Rectal Impactation Following Enema With Concrete Mix.

On the Correct Usage of ‘Infers’ and ‘Implies’

Within the space of a few days, I caught two TV pundits and an otherwise competent writer misusing 'infer.' Why do people have such a  difficult time with the distinction between inference and implication?  I will try to explain the matter as simply as I can.

The test to determine whether a use of 'infer' is correct is whether or not the thing said to be inferring is a mind. If it is a mind, then the use is correct; if it is not a mind, then the use is incorrect.  Some examples:

  • The author's citations infer that Serling drew inspiration from a diverse group of authors and philosophers. This use of 'infer' is incorrect because a citation is not a mind, and so cannot engage in any such mental operation as inference. 'Imply' would be correct.
  • Seeing Tom's car in front of Sally's house, Bill inferred that Tom was visiting Sally. Correct. It is correct because the thing doing the inferring, Bill, is an entity capable of the mental operation of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises.
  • Pelosi's 'astroturf' remark inferred that protesters at town hall meetings are organized agitators. Incorrect. A remark is the content of a remarking; it is something that a person says. What a person says is not a mind but a proposition, and a proposition, not being a mind, cannot infer anything. 'Implied' would be correct.
  • Pelosi implied that town hall protesters are organized agitators when she made her 'astroturf' comment. This is a correct use of 'implied.' But note that 'imply' has two main uses. One is the strictly logical use according to which implication is a relation between propositions. The other is the nonlogical use according to which implication is a relation between a person (or a mind) and a proposition. Pelosi implied that the protesters are organized in the sense that she suggested that this is so. In most cases one can substitute 'suggests' for 'implies' when the latter is employed nonlogically.
  • Are you implying that I'm a liar? This is a correct use of 'implying.' The word is being used in the nonlogical sense just explained. One can replace the question salva significatione with 'Are you suggesting that I'm a liar?'
  • Are you inferring that I am a liar? This is also correct inasmuch as the addressee may indeed be inferring that the speaker is a liar. The addressee may be concluding from the speaker's shifty eyes and other 'body language' that he is not telling the truth.
  • What you said infers that I'm a liar. This is incorrect because what a person said cannot engage in any mental operations such as the operation of drawing a conclusion from a premise. 'Implies' would be correct. 'Implies' would then be being used to express a relation between two propositions.

In sum, inference is the mental operation of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises.  Only minds can infer.  So uses of 'infer' and cognates are correct only  in application to minds.  Any use of 'infer' that implies that a nonmind can engage in inference is incorrect.  So the following is incorrect: Any use of 'infer' that infers that a nonmind can engage in inference is incorrect.    Implication in its strictly logical sense in a relation between propositions.  Hence the slogan: Only minds infer; only propositions imply.

Unfortunately for the slogan, the water is muddied by the fact that 'implies' has the two distinct uses lately explained.  So here is a more accurate slogan: Only minds infer; only propositions logically imply, though persons can conversationally imply.

On ‘Political’ and ‘Partisan’

People often use 'political' when they should use 'partisan.' A man appeared on C-Span some months ago whose name and the name of whose organization I have forgotten. The man headed an outfit promoting a strict interpretation of the U.S. constitution. Throughout his talk he repeated the remark that his organization was not political, not political, not political!

Nonsense, I say. What could be more political than questions about constitutions and their interpretation, and organizations that promote a particular style of constitutional interpretation? What the man wanted to say was that his outfit was not partisan, not affiliated with any particular political party such as the Republican Party, or the Democrat Party.

'Political' is not a dirty word. How could it be when the human being, by nature, is zoon politikon, a political animal? Aristotle, who appreciated the latter point, also appreciated that the political life cannot be the highest life. That honor goes to the theoretical life. The vita activa subserves the vita contemplativa.

Political Correctness in the U.K.

Is there no limit to PeeCee idiocy?  Apparently not.  Liberals will throw themselves into the arms of any incoherence.  See this Times of London piece.  'Ethnic minority' is to be blacklisted as offensive.  The same of course goes for 'blacklisted.'  But if you are offended by these words and phrases, then your stupidity offends me!  And you should be offended by it too. You should deeply regret that you have let yourself sink into this bog of nonsense.

Stateside, the totalitarian thrust of the Obama administration will bring in its train even more PC.  So get ready for ever deeper assaults on common sense.  Just remember what I told you: PC derives from the CP.  See my Dorothy Healey on Political Correctness for documentation.  And while you're at it, take a gander at Of Black Holes and Political Correctness: If You Take Offense, Is that my Fault?

Do you value liberty? Do you value free speech?  Then speak out against the liberal-left assault on common sense and the English language. 

‘Blog’ and ‘Blog Post’

I note that there are still people who confuse 'blog' with 'blog post.'  'Blog' is elliptical for 'weblog.'   They are interchangeable terms.  Presumably, no one will refer to weblog entry as a weblog.  It makes as little sense to refer to a blog entry as a blog.   

A blog is composed of blog posts.  It is not itself a blog post, nor is a blog post a blog.  Roughly, a blog is to its posts as a book to its chapters.  Since you wouldn't refer to a chapter of a book  as a book, you shouldn't refer to a post on a blog as a blog.

Every weblog is a website, but not every website is a weblog. A weblog is a regularly updated website consisting mainly of relatively short entries called 'posts' which are arranged in reverse chronological order.  That's the essence of it.  Hyperlinkage and comments I would not build into the definition, nor would I require daily updating. You are free to differ.  I admit, though, that comments — assuming you can attract people capable of making good ones — and hyperlinks add considerably to a blog's interest.  As a general rule, if you are quoting from a source that is available online, you ought to link to it.