Friday, January 14, 2005

Playing catch-up

Having been out of town most of the last week, I'm just now catching up on some reading. Here's some stuff to check out:

I missed PBS's "How to Speak American" last week, alas. But it looks as if the program's Web site offers the next best thing. It's extensive. I've barely made a dent in the articles here, but I've found some good ones already, such as this one on why the OED has created a North American office. It's written by Jesse Sheidlower, who was mentioned here yesterday. And it also points out that Sheidlower is the author of "The F Word." (And I will use this opportunity to ask Mike Marlett if I can please get back my copy before we both forget that it's mine.) I love the Track that Word feature, with the definitions of recent coinages in such categories as college (e.g. off the hook), 20th-century miscellaneous (brewski) and Dictionary of American Regional English (blue norther). I could go on and on. And I probably will later. If you have a few hours (days?) to kill, check it out.

William Safire writes about "tongue-tippers," or "terms used in place of words on the tip of the speaker's tongue but just beyond linquistic reach." Whatchamacallit, doodad, hootis ... He hunts down the origin of a couple, but most elude him. (And a side note here. I found this play on words annoying: "I touched database with Google and can offer only one previous citation..." Groan.)

James Kilpatrick writes about misplacement of "only." He says: "No little dog's trick of the writing art is easier to master. No rule of prose composition is more widely abused." He offers plenty of examples of misuse -- not that any of us need them. We all have plenty of our own.

There'll be more to come, I'm sure.

10 Comments:

At 8:42 AM, January 15, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:14 AM, January 15, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:06 AM, January 15, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:34 AM, January 15, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:29 AM, January 15, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

(Consolidated post)

Re: Kilpatrick

Oy, not this again!

Granted, it’s often advisable to move “only” away from the verb to a position that provides greater clarity, especially in print.

But sometimes it’s better to leave “only” in its natural position rather than forcing it next to the item it purportedly modifies.**

The natural position is usually easiest on the ear, and it sometimes yields the greatest clarity.

Hypothetical example:

“The boy was only allowed to eat only two meals a day.”

Everybody knows what that sentence means. The kid was deprived of food. He was prohibited from eating more than two meals a day.

But the editor changes it to:

“The boy was allowed to eat only two meals a day.”

So now what does it mean? The kid had a low appetite, and his parents indulged him by letting him eat fewer than three balanced meals a day, right? Or maybe he filled up on junk food the rest of the day.

Rule No. 1: Watch out for foolish rules.

Rule. No. 2: If a rule makes a sentence sound foolish , it’s probably a foolish rule.

Rule. No. 3: If it’s a foolish rule, it’s probably not really a rule.

Rule No. 4a: If you hear an editor ranting about the ubiquitous breaking of a rule, it’s probably a foolish rule.

Rule No. 4b: It might be a foolish editor.

-------------------------------------------
** Like other adverbs, “only” often modifies a whole clause or sentence, not just a single word of phrase. Moving the “only,” even when doing so is warranted, isn’t necessarily a matter of grammar. It’s just a matter of precision and clarity.

 
At 1:31 PM, January 15, 2005, Blogger Nicole said...

I'll agree that some people are a little too hard-core about changing the position of "only." If it makes the sentence sound weird, leave it alone.

But that's the exception in the written word. In most cases, "only" belongs close to the word it's modifying. It's simply clearer that way and avoids the possibility of confusion.

 
At 10:46 PM, January 16, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

An excerpt from a post by Geoffrey Pullum, one of the testy linguists over at Language Log:

"The word 'only' is frequently positioned so that it attaches to the beginning of a larger constituent than its focus (and thus comes earlier), and that is often not just permissible but better. Ian Fleming's title 'You Only Live Twice' was not copy-edited to 'You Live Only Twice.' Why not? Because he knows how to write, and he didn't let an idiot copy-editor change his writing into mush, that's why."

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000918.html

 
At 11:02 PM, January 16, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

By the way, I’m not endorsing Language Log’s virulent brand of descriptivism, but much of what is said there is on the money and should be considered essential reading in our craft. Think of those guys as expert witnesses. Part of our job is to accept or reject their testimony as we see fit.

 
At 1:22 PM, January 17, 2005, Blogger Nicole said...

I don't agree with it, either, Peter. I understand where you're coming from. But I do enjoy reading the site for the same reasons you mention. It's instructive for us to question the rules we blindly follow and make sure that we're actually helping readers.

 
At 4:19 PM, January 17, 2005, Blogger Peter Fisk said...

Crap. I just noticed that I mistyped the example.

One more time, for the record, the original:

“The boy was only allowed to eat two meals a day.”

An editor changes it to:

“The boy was allowed to eat only two meals a day.”

Which erroneously changes the meaning.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home