Jan. 27, 2002
I've just read your delightful article about word usage in the English
Language (Words of Warning), and was mildly
disappointed that such an authority as Henry Fowler was quoted as saying
"… (‘try and’) is an idiom that should be not discountenanced, but used
when it comes natural."
I cannot help but wonder if Mr. Fowler should have said, "...comes naturally," as
naturally appears to be an adverb modifying the verb “comes”.
In all other respects, this is a great article.
Roland Klos
Jan. 27, 2002
An interesting article. Under the heading of “redundancies” I expected to find "first
priority" or "top priority" etc.
As for the changes in meaning of words, I have been struck by what is
happening to the word "quality". For example, "I spent quality time with
my children". The word "quality" no longer requires an adjective to make
it clear that it was a good or positive experience.
Mel Shannon
Jan. 22, 2002
Regarding near miss in Words of Warning:
“Near” is simply an adjective describing “miss,” which is a noun, not a verb,
in this context.
For example, when two cars almost hit each other, they are near when they miss,
and so the cars have a “near miss.”
Mike Vanoostveen
St. Catharines, Ont.
Editor’s Note: It’s a logical argument, and as mentioned in the column many
dictionaries offer “near collision” as one definition of “near miss.” But some
journalists still avoid using the terms interchangeably – refusing to accept
that “miss” and “hit” can both mean the same thing simply because they’re rammed
against the word near.
English, of course, is full of what appear to be curious contradictions. For instance,
overlook and oversee are synonyms as well as antonyms. You can look
past (“over”) something and miss it, and you can also look down (“over”) something
and supervise it.
The expression near miss, by the way, is relatively new. It was coined during
the Second World War, according to some lexicographers, and originally meant a bomb
that missed its target but still fell close enough to cause damage.
Jan. 14, 2002
Nice new essay (Words of Warning) on the site.
As well, I wanted to thank you for a succinct explanation of "lie vs. lay" that
I found and was able to give to a francophone colleague who's learning English.
He was having trouble understanding the difference, and I was having trouble
explaining it!
Have you thought about setting up an e-mail notification system for when new
content appears on "Words, Woe & Wonder"? I know you say in the main page
that you try to update twice a month, but giving people a heads-up that
there's new content to read would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Bob LeDrew
Ottawa
Editor's Note: Thanks for the compliment, as well as the tip on how to complement
the site with an e-mail notification system. The suggestion has been passed on to
senior editors. Although new articles are generally showcased on the CBC's main
Web page for a few days, not everyone sees them right away.
Jan. 14, 2002
An excellent and informative article.
One comment, however, regarding your list of redundancies – "rules and regulations".
In certain contexts, "regulations" are subordinate to, and made under the authority of,
the "rules", so that they do not have exactly the same meaning.
Keep up the fine work.
Regards,
Charles Manners
Editor's Note: The "rules and regulations" governing pleonasm can be rather subtle
as well, with some grammarians insisting on very small distinctions between redundancy
and tautology. For most of us, however, it's a case of repetition, "plain and
simple."
Jan. 14, 2002
I enjoyed the "Words of Warning" article. Two things:
(1) I do not agree with "Data" being singular, as referenced under "Media". I believe that
'data' is a plural word and has evolved to become singular.
(2) Do you know if it is proper to use the word "cavitate"? Does one need to use the
word "cavitation" instead? (As in: "the water will be in a state of cavitation" as
opposed to "the water will cavitate").
Thank you again for an interesting article.
Sincerely,
Andy McEachern,
British Columbia
Editor's Note: (1) We think data "has evolved to become singular" as well, which
is why we treat it that way now. The change, along with other puzzling plurals, is outlined
in more detail in Media, Mounties and Maple Leafs. Not all
authorities agree data should be considered singular, however. So if you're opposed
to the trend you are certainly not alone.
(2) Cavitate has been used as an intransitive verb since the early 1900s. It's
referred to as a "back formation" because it was coined after the noun cavitation
– defined as the creation of bubbles or cavities in a liquid. Both words are based
on the Latin cavus, which means hollow.
"Back formations" are common. Examples include laze from lazy, emote from
emotion and enthuse from enthusiasm. Some people get all foamed up over these
additions to English, but they're part of the natural ebb and flow of language.
Jan. 13, 2002
Words of Warning was a well written and interesting
article. However I do have a quibble; "redo again" is not always a redundancy. It is
used when something has been redone at least once before.
Lorne Hrynkiw
Editor's Note: True, perhaps, but we're not going to redo our column (again).
Jan. 12, 2002
I just stumbled across your interesting column on use of language on the CBC
and remembered that I swore the next time I heard or saw the phrase "suffer the
children" being used on the CBC to imply that children are being caused to suffer,
I would write in and complain.
Well I didn't on the last two occasions but I remembered now. The phrase is
usually found as a title or heading of a piece. Surely we all know that it comes
from the King James Bible and means "tolerate the children" – rather the
opposite to the slant it is often given.
In fact I get the vague impression that its use is also meant to imply that Christianity
somehow condones the suffering of children.
Walter Driedger
Calgary
Editor's Note: Suffer has had many meanings over the centuries, including
"to put up with pain" and "to tolerate foolish people." It comes from a Latin term
for "to bear."
Suffer in the passage you cite from the King James Bible (Mark 10: 13-15)
actually means "allow" the children to follow the teachings of God, according to
some scholars. As you correctly point out, the quotation has nothing to do with
anguish.
Jan. 12, 2002
In the article Words of Warning, you write:
"Another example is centred around. Since the construction first appeared
in the middle of the 19th century, many editors have pointed out that objects cannot
be centred around anything. Centres are points, and while they may be 'on' things they
can't actually orbit them, according to this logic. Sneaky prepositions manage to get
around, however, despite the best efforts of grammarians to erect fences."
Speaking of fences, what about building a fence centred around a house? In this case,
one might think that the house is centred inside the fence.
But if the house already exists, and a new fence is being constructed so that the
house will be located in the centre, it makes sense to me that one could say:
"Build the fence centred around the house!"
Robert Sinclair
Editor's Note: You could certainly have a fence circle a house, but centre
one? If you asked for an estimate to "build a fence centred around a bungalow," a
circumspect contractor would probably want clarification on the cirumference.
Jan. 12, 2002
As I understand it, "near miss" is a technical term used by the Department of Transport, the NTSB, and other such agencies. It is used to describe a situation wherein two vehicles have violated the safety margin between them.
For example, any aircraft coming within 500 feet of a large commercial aircraft has caused a
"near miss". The two aircraft were too near one another, but (fortunately) missed.
If the term was used in the context of specific minimum distances, I think the term would be allowable, despite its seeming self-contradiction. In its technical use, the phrase is always hyphenated. Just my two cents.
Keep up the great work.
Sean Crutcher
Jan. 12, 2001
One is reminded of the newscaster (not CBC) who said there were no serious fatalities.
There was another one who said someone had died early in his life which, apparently,
is different from dying late, i.e. at the end, of one's life.
Ronald C. Stevenson
Fredericton, N.B.
Jan. 11, 2002
Ah, I just finished reading Words of Warning. It was like sinking my teeth into a cool, ripe mango! What a treat to read about language, in language that shows such respect for language, while still poking a bit of fun at it all, and at all of us. Thank you for this delicious snack.
As an editor for corporate publications, advertising, Web sites, annual reports and more, I am quite used to reading with a critical eye, to the point where reading is difficult without a red pen in hand. The redundancies, confused tenses, abused infinitives and misused adjectives that are sent my way can be a great source of amusement, or merely cause for annoyance, depending on the proximity of the deadline.
I have "bookmarked" this page and will share it with family and friends.
Thank you very much!
Shauna Pratt
Burnaby, B.C.
Jan. 11, 2002
Fantastic article. I enjoyed it immensely. When I was attending university in New York City,
I had an English professor who was fanatical about such things. (He would call people "morons"
and "jokers" if they used the wrong phrase in their writing.) It would have done his curmudgeonly heart good, I think.
That being said, I wish CBC News would pay more attention to proofreading Web site-posted articles! Most of the time, the flagrant grammatical errors (even in HEADLINES, for goodness' sakes!) are simply amusing, but sometimes they wind up making an important point unclear. And often, it's not just a matter of a "typo." It's more often someone using the wrong word (such as "discrete" instead of "discreet.") This type of error, which occurs frequently, makes CBC look amateurish. It's a common enough problem that I've sometimes been tempted to call CBC News and ask if they could use my services as a proofreader/editor!
Anyhow, thanks again for attempting to enlighten the public. That is the highest and noblest aim of anyone, I should think.
Cheers,
Dave Klein
Spruce Grove, Alberta
Jan. 11, 2002
I enjoyed your Words of Warning column very much. I have printed it and will keep it handy.
My comment is simply this: the English mistakes I encounter on your Web site
are, I think, generally not caused by ignorance of the rules. Rather, they are the result
of rushed writing and poor editing. To my mind, the best thing you could do to improve
the quality of English on your site is to proofread more carefully.
I might also add that I visit the CBC and BBC News sites several times each day, and
have found that the BBC site has far fewer errors. (I appreciate, of course, that the BBC
site is probably much better funded than the poor old CBC.)
Name withheld by request
Vancouver
top | main index | archived letters | contact us
