Write It Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers

Language is both a natural phenomenon and a science.  It evolves from earlier forms, and it's rules are descriptive rather than proscriptive, like physics.  But unlike physics, the rules change. More like biology, then, especially ostriches and bats.  The point is language rules never apply 100% of the time.  And there may be a time when a rule ceases to exist altogether.  Will/shall usage used to be a big deal grammatically, but when was the last time you used shall except for a conscious effect?

Ambrose Bierce, of The Devil's Dictionary fame, was a usage critic on top of being a journalist and satirist.  In his 'blacklist', Write It Right, he lists his grammatical pet peeves.  Last year, Jan Freeman, a modern usage critic, "appraised and annotated" Bierce's famous list.  I stumbled on this book in Barnes and Noble and jumped for joy that my favorite cynic had another volume to add to my library that I hadn't previously heard of.  I didn't expect my entire view of how language evolves to be shaped by this book, but I am now an aspiring usage maven.

Most of Bierce's entries are, for various reasons, now obsolete. Bierce resists slang, particularly anything commercial (paying your dues) or American, which was seen as less refined than British English by American scholars of his day.  And many of his peeves appear to be unique to him and have no basis in traditional grammar rules.  Bierce spends most of his time trying to pin a single exact meaning for each term and to expurgate all other meanings under the banner of clarity. (See first example.)  Each entry lists the word Bierce is banning, usually as a substitute for another word—wet for wetted (Bierce believes in regular past tense forms ending in -ed.) Next he provides an example in quotes (which sometimes illustrates something entirely different).  And if he felt it necessary, a diatribe on what is wrong with the example.  I have listed Bierce's entry in bold following the style of the book.  Following each entry, Freeman describes the history of the usage Bierce condemns—what etymological dictionaries say, usage by creditable authors, and how the argument stands today. Frequently she analyzes Bierce's reasoning and makes fun of him. A very few entries—Authoress and Former—get wholesale agreement from Freeman. Here are my favorite examples, illustrating Bierce's whim and Freeman's wit and wisdom:

Space for Period. "A long space of time." Space is so different a thing from time that the two do not go well together.
If Bierce had been reading physics, instead of news of the war in Mexico, he might have heard of "the space-time manifold of relativity" before he disappeared around the end of 1913. If he had lived another few years, the OED would have published the S volume, showing that space had meant "duration, period" even before it meant "extent, area," and that both senses were current in the 14th century. Bierce being Bierce, he would probably have concluded that the 14th century needed a good editor; but "space of time" is so natural that even Bierce, not surprisingly, used expressions like "a moment's space" in his published work.

Over for About, In, or Concerning. "Don't cry over spilt milk." "He rejoiced over his acquittal."
Over had been used in this way since Old English, but what was good enough for King Alfred, William Caxton, Shakespeare, and Hardy was apparently too imprecise for Ambrose G. Bierce.

Finally, some vocab you'll run across in this book that made this non-maven's head spin:

solecism— a nonstandard or ungrammatical usage
neologism— a new word, meaning, usage or phrase
maven— a person who has special knowledge or experience, an expert
pleonasm— the use of more words than are necessary to express an idea; redundancy
shibboleth— a common saying or belief with little current meaning or truth
lexicography— the writing, editing, or compiling of dictionaries
etymon— an earlier form of a word in the same language or an ancestor language

Old government, Young Country

Every now and then I am surprised by remembering that the French Revolution occurred after (and in response to) the American one.  Which led me to my recent realization: America is a young nation with an old government.  Most, if not all, European countries trace their ethnic roots to before the Roman Empire. But few of the nations' current governments were formed prior to the 19th century.  1991 was a good year for nation forming, after the fall of the USSR.  1945, ditto after the end of WWII.  Even the UK didn't become "united" until 1800, then lost part of Ireland in 1922.  Actually, only very small, out-of-the-way countries have managed to keep a single government thru the upheaval of the 20th century. Without further ado, countries whose most recent change in governance is still older than the USA:

Andorra- 1278 (modernized 1993, whatever that means)
San Marino- 1600 (World's oldest constitution still in effect)

Yeah, really just one country.  Several come close, but treaties and occupations are sticky business and Wikipedia isn't all that clear in the side bar lists.

Despite the fact that we lack a unifying ethnic culture (or perhaps because) our country has managed to survive from inception under a single government.  And if you believe that its just our size that has kept us from the invasions that have afflicted Europe, look at Imperial Russia (or China).  In a time when patriotism is partisan, this is something all Americans can be proud of.

Summer Classics- Complete Short Stories of Mark Twain

Mark Twain needs no introduction.  And fair warning, The Complete Short Stories took me a year to read, not a summer.  On the plus side, this collection took "complete" to heart.  Even stories that appear in longer books, but can be read stand-alone, are included.

The stories range from rambling, plotless tales to morality stories usually about the the perils of assumptions and misplaced faith.  Frequently, the story you start reading seems abandoned and you end in a completely different story altogether.  Almost all of the stories are told first person, ala the oral tradition Twain's prose mimics.  He also regularly interrupts the narrator as the author, giving his work an audited feel.

There are a few stories worth specific note.  Everyone familiar with Twain will know "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."  His first short story, it is classic Twain, but a poor representation of the breadth of Twain's style.  There are shockingly few stories that have the same countrified narration.  Twain satirizes every walk of life in America and Europe across history, and, although he brings a distinct Americanism to his writing, he comes off more cosmopolitan than you would expect.

"A Double Barreled Detective Story" is unusual because Twain interrupts to explain a joke, an interruption that lasts for several pages.  The reader is unsure if Twain's stated reasons are true (he says people wrote him about the paragraph, but there is no way to tell real author's notes from contrived ones) and why the story even needed the joke to begin with because the style shift is very dramatic for a single unconnected paragraph.  Here is the offending (yet brilliant) paragraph for your perusal (the less obvious contradiction is in bold).

"It was a crisp and spicy morning in early October. The lilacs and laburnums, lit with the glory-fires of autumn, hung burning and flashing in the upper air, a fairy bridge provided by kind Nature for the wingless wild things that have their homes in the tree-tops and would visit together; the larch and the pomegranate flung their purple and yellow flames in brilliant broad splashes along the slanting sweep of the woodland; the sensuous fragrance of innumerable deciduous flowers rose upon the swooning atmosphere; far in the empty sky a solitary esophagus slept on motionless wing; everywhere brooded stillness, serenity, and the peace of God."

Taken as a whole, Twain's short stories read like Aesop's fables, Grimm's fairy tales, and PG Wodehouse thrown in a blender, although even that doesn't hint at all the genres he spoofs.  While no single story compares to the finesse of plot and character found in his classic novels, there may not be a better Twain primer in existence.

Acronyms, abbrevs, and redundancy

In our fast paced society, we can't be bothered to spell it all out—literally.  We have invented a new shorthand with txt-ing and abbrevs (thank you SoCal) and acronyms. And we usually know what is meant. Mostly. Well, you may not know what RSVP stands for, but you understand the concept. And eventually, as in the case of RSVP, you see the letters as the concept, which introduces a few interesting problems.

RAS syndrome is the redundant use of one or more words that make up an acronym. For example, the syndrome literally reads Redundant Acronym Syndrome syndrome. Other examples include PIN number (personal identification number number) and ATM machine (automatic teller machine machine).  In the case of PIN, i can understand needing to add a clarifying word to the acronym to separate it from a pin or pen.  For other reasons behind this phenomenon check out the Wikipedia page.

The other problem as I see it has less to do with stylistic blunders and more with being bamboozled as consumers.  Everyone should be aware that msn is an acronym for Microsoft Network. But using their acronym seems to me to soften the impact of their expansion into other media (if you are the sort of person who dislikes big corporations).  And this isn't me pointing a finger at Microsoft, because most people know that one; many companies do this.  When SBC (now merged with AT&T) took over various smaller companies they changed their name to its acronym and then claimed it wasn't an acronym of Southwestern Bell Company and in fact didn't stand for anything.  The break-up and re-merging of the Bell companies is rather interesting but a bit off-topic for this post.

I don't really want to spend more time discussing name changes, mergers, and monopolies, although in an American acronym discussion these topics are frequent and extend back for decades.  Instead, here are several common acronyms I've collected and their meanings.  I'll leave you to spot the irony and age of  some of them.

AAA/ Triple-A— American Automobile Association
ABC— American Broadcasting Company
AT&T—American Telephone and Telegraph
BMW— Bavarian Motor Works
CBS—Columbia Broadcasting System
CNN—Cable News Network
DVD—digital video disc (some of these I hope are familiar) OR digital versatile disc
DVR— digital video recorder
FDA— Food and Drug Administration
LASER (yes, laser)— light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation
LP—long-playing [record album]
M&M's—NOT AN ACROMYN, the letters do stand for founders Mars and Murrie
MGM— Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
NBC—National Broadcasting Company
NRA— National Rifle Association
PRC— People's Republic of China (you might find this on a clothes tag)
RADAR—radio detection and ranging
RSVP—Respondez sil vous plait (please reply, making 'please rsvp' redundant)
SONAR— sound navigation and ranging
SMS—short message service (aka texting and other stuff sent to your phone)
TBS— Turner Broadcasting System
TLC— The Learning Chanel or tender loving care
TNT— Turner Network Television
USDA— United States Department of Agriculture
VCR—videocassette recorder
VH1— Video Hits One
VHS— video home system

PS- most of the above are actually initialism. Turns out there are terms for different types of acronyms. Search acronym on Wikipedia for more on the differences.

Please Explicate Your Semantics.

The fourth definition of interpret is "to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity."  First, any performer would argue that good interpretation takes the audience's understanding into account as well.  Secondly, this is true of all interpretation in the practical, human sense.  It is not possible to interpret outside of your own understanding.  Which, despite attempts at total objectivity, makes 'meaning' very personal and nuanced.  And yes, I am talking about language.  Internet comments (along with much of the rest of our lives) could do with a quick discourse on how to make yourself understood in a way that fosters intelligent conversation and debate. So, a few nouns and verbs to kick us off:

semantics— the study of meaning and changes in meaning and form, the interpretation of a meaning of a word

hermeneutics— the science/theory/methodology of interpretation, esp. scripture

exegesis— critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp the Bible

explicate— to make clear the meaning of, explain, interpret

translate— to explain in terms more easily understood, interpret

elucidate—to make lucid or clear, explain, clarify

clarify— to make clear or intelligible, free from ambiguity

Clear, transparent, lucid.  The light of meaning.  There are entire fields of study surrounding meaning.  Arguing semantics is the basest form of the study of semantics.  It is the catch-all for not wanting to listen to your opponent's arguments.  Meaning is, quite obviously, very near and dear to me. I believe if we all carried around dictionaries (We do! They're called iPhones.) then we could avoid at least half of the silly arguments that cluster around the free exchange and debate of ideas.  The first step to successful communication is to know what it is you are saying.  The second is to know that the other person does too. We filter and interpret and tailor our dialogue depending on the setting.  You use different vocabulary when talking to a six year old versus a sixty year old. What generally lacks though is a level of conscientiousness that not only communicates ideas but digests outside ideas.  We listen.  Not just to what is said, but to what is meant.  I can feel better about myself by correcting my friend's grammar, or I can strengthen our friendship by endeavoring to let them know I understand what they are saying.  Always remember, they are filtering what they say through their own interpretation of language and experience AND SO ARE YOU.

Don't worry, this is as preachy as I am likely to get.  Also, note that semantics has devolved to mean only one aspect of its original meaning, much like 'cynic'.  To sum up: attend to your structure and to anything put forth for critique, and beyond that try to cross the barriers of semantics and take heed of underlying meaning!

Summer Classics- P.G. Wodehouse

I know. Wodehouse is an author, not a book.  But the genius of Wodehouse is best seen in his body of work, not in any individual book or story.

Most literate people have heard his name, even more are familiar with his most famous character, even if they are unaware of the connection.  Jeeves is one of the world's most celebrated butlers (even though he is a valet).  He even has a search engine named after him.

In the Jeeves cannon, Jeeves is employed by Bertie Wooster, a gentleman bachelor with more good humor than intelligence.  He refers his every crisis and those of his friends to Jeeves.

I was first introduced to Wodehouse (and Jeeves and Wooster) several months ago, when I moved into an apartment that until recently had been guest housing for the theatre I used to work at.  Among a few coffee table books about the geographical area was a copy of Jeeves in the Morning (which I absconded with, with a few others).  After I finished it, I went around the corner to a used bookstore and bought out their collection of Wodehouse.  A few days ago I repeated the exercise.

These novels and short stories are so accessible that the less pretentious reader may be shocked to discover its 'classic' status.  Even (or especially) fairly young readers can enjoy these books.  For the discerning adult, they are a romp into the Britain of early last century, which to my mind is escapism at its finest.

But to fully appreciate the literary merit of Wodehouse, you have to sample several of his books.  It was about the fifth book in, for me, when it hit me— Wodehouse is brilliant.  At first, the stories come across formulaic and simplistic.  But the further you read, the more you notice and appreciate his subtle humor.  However, the shock for me was the consistency.  Few novelists can manage over a dozen novels and many dozen short stories, written largely unchronologically, to have no apparent discrepancies. Furthermore, the deeper you get, the more layered the characters become.  Wodehouse spends very little time repeating himself, preferring to recommend the reader to the book containing the necessary back story.

If you're looking to expand your repertoire but are afraid of names like Steinbeck or Dickens, or if you're just looking for a good bedside reader (I speak from experience), then Wodehouse is a must read.  But if your used bookstore is out, I may have beaten you to them.

I want to be an American idiom

If there is a body of work that at first glance appears to be an entirely unnecessary edition to the library of a well-informed person, then it would be The Dictionary of Cliches.  The fact this book has had at least ten printings is rather ironic (no, really, check my post on irony).  The nature of the cliche is such that anyone fluent in the language already knows its meaning, making a dictionary redundant.  But before looking at the usefulness of this volume, here's a few definitions for clarity (with important differences italicized):

idiom— an expression that cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements and is peculiar  to a people or place

cliche— a trite stereotyped expression that has lost originality and impact thru overuse

proverb— a short popular saying usually of unknown ancient origin expressing a commonplace truth or useful thought

adage— a traditional saying expressing a common experience or observation, a proverb

saw— a sententious saying, maxim, proverb

maxim— an expression of a general truth or principle, particularly an aphoristic or sententious one

aphorism— a terse saying embodying a general truth or astute observation

slang— very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more metaphorical, playful, elliptical, and ephemeral than ordinary language

A cliche can be an idiom, proverb, or adage as long as it is in common (over)use.  Time also appears to be a factor.  So much slang is so ephemeral that while it may be temporarily overused it also quickly falls out of common usage and becomes culturally antique.

But why a dictionary?  First off, to put collected knowledge into one place.  Students, teachers, writers, and English learners have easy access to the ideas and expressions prominent in our culture.  Expressions only vaguely understood are concretely defined.

More usefully, the origins/history and earliest usage of each cliche is included.  That's one advantage this dictionary has over Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, a much more extensive volume of English idiom and allusion.  Many of the Brewer's entries list only definition (likely because an origin and history cannot be found or concisely stated). The following are few exerts from The Dictionary of Cliches.

More or Less— To a greater or lesser extent; maybe yes and maybe no; it's ambiguous.  How often one hears this formula for inexactitude and how old it is! It goes back to around 1225 in the Ancren Riwle, where it appears as "more oder lesse."

Now or Never— Here is one's last, or only, chance to do something.  The phrase dates at least from Chaucer's time (the 14th century), since he used it in Troilus and Criseyde (1380). The modern sense is clearer in John Daus's translation of Sleidanes Commentaries (1560): "Therefore thought they now, or els never, yt [that] God was on theyr side."

Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating— The way to test whether something came out as it was intended is to try it.  The pudding may look good on the table, but the only way to know for certain is to taste it. As you might expect, it is an old proverb.  One version of it dates to the 14th century.  A translation in 1682 of Boileau's Le Lutrin offered this: "The proof of th' pudding's seen i' th' eating."

Note the playful style and careful dating of each entry. Any saying older that last century is dated by usage in literature.  And most of the entries are old.  English idiom far predates modern spelling (In a some borrowed cases it predates English!).  I feel obligated to point out that the "proof" is NOT "in the pudding".

Knowing the origins of the phrases we use is important for any profession involving writing, creative or journalistic.  Or public (or publicized) speaking. Madelaine Murray O'Hare infamously used the phrase "the writing is on the wall." Had she realized its biblical origin, she probably would have refrained.

With the advent of instant information via the internet, there may be little demand for any sort of reference book, despite the credibility of information being substantially higher.  But my advice is to not judge this book by its cover. That's so cliche...