Oct. 6, 2002

After the September 11th attacks, the U.S. declared it was waging a "War against Terrorism". News magazines and television reports also used that term.

Of late, George W. Bush and esteemed news outlets such as the CBC have truncated the term to a "War on Terror". Am I alone in finding this new phrasing out and out wrong not to mention highly amusing?

How exactly does the U.S. intend on obliterating terror? Terror is an intrinsic human emotion. An event can trigger a feeling of terror in a person that has nothing to do with terrorists or terrorism.

Can we look forward to some human bioengineering breakthrough that is going to rewire our psyches to eliminate extreme fear from our being?

When did this abbreviation happen, and why? I must have dozed off.

Judy Kilpinen
Toronto

Aug. 3, 2002

This might be stretching the bounds of "Words," but I don't think so.

Why does the CBC sometimes fall into the use of "9/11" to describe the events of September 11 (or the 11th of September)? It's very American, very "tabloid," and totally inconsistent with Canadian standardised usage (as defined by the federal government) for dating.

I also think it's not very rational, and can lead to confusion when already too many Canadians have difficult knowing whether to use D-M-Y or M-D-Y, when the first one (or even its reverse) would be consistent with standard usage. Everyone knows what "9/11" means, but it just increases inconsistency elsewhere, when confusion is potentially dangerous. I'm not a nationalist, but I do believe in rationality and standards for important things like dates.

I love the site and have recommended it to dozens of friends. Keep it up.

Cheers.

Gordon Robertson

July 1, 2002

This message is in reply to Angus Taylor's Feb. 1 letter about Americans being called Americans.

Mr. Taylor said that he finds it "annoying to have 'America' used to mean the USA. Canada, Cuba, Brazil, etc., are just as much American as is the United States."

I think it's just the way things played out. We are the United States OF AMERICA, but as Mr. Taylor admits, Usanians does sound silly and is a bit awkward to pronounce.

The Canadians could have called themselves North Americans, but they chose to call themselves Canadians. It all happened a long time ago and who knows how it came about, but I am sure that it wasn't to annoy Canadians.

Your American Neighbor,

Kathryn Flynn
Madison, Wisconsin

May 14, 2002

I've really enjoy your Web site. As a dedicated lover of the English language, I've spent many enjoyable hours reading the essays on your page.

Apparently, editorial boards discuss these contentious protocols, and spend considerable time and energy imparting the information to their colleagues.

It comes as little wonder, then, that more relevant issues are not addressed in the corporate media. If editorial boards are left to consider subtle differences between words, and the dilemma of split infinitives, and the proper use of hyphens, there's probably no time left to have a cursory glance at the IMF, World Bank or the effects of globalization; or even begin to look at unanswered questions surrounding September 11.

I have an undergrad degree in Journalism, and accepted the myths of "reporting" the "news". Unfortunately, it looks like our media has devolved into an English 101 class.

Sincerely,

Mary Jane Nelson

Editor's Note: We hope that people who like writing will always have room in their lives to discuss diction, grammar, lexicography, etymology, linguistics and other subjects tied to words. We don't think the existence of Words: Woe & Wonder affects the media's coverage of economics or politics.

By the way, last weekend the World Bank sponsored a meeting in Rome that focused on the role of local governments in international trade. Mayors came from around the world. You'll find coverage in many spots, including on the Web sites of people opposed to the policies of the bank and the IMF. Here, we'll limit our comments to a word in the conference's title: Glocalization. Yikes.

May 7, 2002

Isn't it about time the media adopted some new descriptors for civil servants? They are neither civil nor servants.

'Hammered out an agreement' … Yawn.

You people are the wordsmiths.

Thanks,

L. Smith
Guelph, Ont.

May 6, 2002

I love what you're providing!

Regarding the question of whether to swing with British origins or American neighbours: (Ize vs. Ise) I chose differently, as an immigrant Canadian teacher of primary grade "English". I immigrated here from Britain, (born in South Africa, raised in New Zealand, and therefore of Commonwealth allegiance before British).

As an immigrant, one enters this country made very much aware of the fact that it is (supposed to be) bilingual, French/Anglais in some way. Not as easily detectable as in South Africa (my parents from two opposing cultures were equally fluent in the two official languages, English and Afrikaans, as was everybody else – who also spoke several other languages, especially Swahili). In New Zealand I was taught much of the Maori language and history in schools without any Maoris enrolled. Don't get me wrong. I love Canada's multiculturalism, best in the world. But regarding First Nations and French connections it is nevertheless feeble by comparison.

I didn't ask, before setting about teaching spelling. I assumed. I assumed that when there was a difference of usage, one should, out of respect for origins, plump not so much for the British usage over the American, as for the French-related over whatever else abounded. Was I so incorrect in my assumption of what would be the proper and polite Thing To Do, when in Canada?

I love the French Canadian language usage segments on CBC's C'est La Vie. My French was Bordeaulais on arrival here. Québßcois is a language unto itself! So I feel that reference, if reference to French is given a fair look at, might need to be to the modern common usage in Quebec, as much as to the ancient derivations I do so love to learn – and thank you for.

Usha Rautenbach
Salt Spring Island, B.C.

May 4, 2002

(Response to Quick Queries and Comments, Arabian vs. Persian Gulf):

Having both been a journalist with CBC for many years, and most recently a resident of Bahrain which is squarely positioned in the midst of 'the Gulf', I can tell you anyone caught calling it the Persian Gulf while standing on the Arabian side is showing his true colors and total lack of respect for the Arab world.

It's actually a bit of a joke there, and a test of who you are, how long you've been there, and where you're from: only Americans and Brits (and the odd Canadian) who're just visiting or are new expats would make the mistake of referring to the body of water to the east as the "Persian" Gulf. It's certainly a sign that all you know of the region is what you saw on CNN during the 'Gulf War'.

At least it provides long-time residents of the region with a bit of a laugh and a quick way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. Sorry, though, to see CBC falling into the old misnomer, however.

Best regards,
Jane Calder

Editor's Note: Your letter confirms our original point: there is disagreement over the term, and Arab states naturally prefer the label Arabian Gulf.

It's true CBC News Online was influenced by a "Gulf War," but this particular conflict was waged long before CNN went on the air. It involved Greeks and Persians (now known as Iranians.)

Misnomer? That body of water has been called the "Persian Gulf" for thousands of years ago, although back then Greek and Latin words were used. Ancient maps and historical documents show this conclusively. In fact it was the Greeks who gave English and other western tongues the very term Persian (Persikos) – their word for Iranian. You'll find versions of "Persian Gulf" in many languages, including French (Golfe Persique) and Spanish (Golfo Persico).

April 25, 2002

My point is small and in no way seeks to trivialize the tragedy of the Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan this month. Rather, I grow rather weary of the CBC's use of those constant quotation marks surrounding the phrase "friendly fire."

Unfortunately that term has become all too common in the last almost 40 years, and even schoolchildren are aware of it's meaning.

When something, even something as insidious as this becomes familiar to all as "everyday language," the use of quotes then indicates a cover up, a distrust of facts even before facts are presented, indeed even an implied hint of wrong-doing beyond the actual event itself, as if that pilot; in this particular case knew full well what he was doing, and was acting with intent.

I am appalled that terms such as this have become so wide-spread in their usage, but they have, we all know what they mean, and the quotes are overkill (another one).

Sandy Thomson,
London, Ont.

Feb. 27, 2002

I am writing in response to the letter published on your Web site on January 23, 2002. The letter lamented the increasing use of "women" as an adjective.

The writer suggests that "women artists would be artists who draw women, just as landscape artists draw landscapes".

While I offer no opinion on the correctness of "woman artists", I cannot envision a valid use of "women artists". A plural noun has no place modifying another noun. This term is just as ridiculous as "landscapes artists", "men servants" or "geese down".

Thank you,

Peter Burka

Jan. 27, 2002

Here’s an example of strange usage. I have read in newspapers and a corporate memo that: "The world is becoming increasingly global"!

This will help geographers in their quest for a good description for the shape of Earth.

Jeffrey Perkins
Calgary

Jan. 23, 2002

I love your site and feel it provides a valuable resource for anyone interested in our language. That is why I am, again, pleading with you to address the issue of people's apparent fear of using the word "female".

CBC has done this on occasion by referring to women artists or the like (who would be artists who draw women, just as landscape artists draw landscapes; as opposed to female artists who are artists who are women). But you are not alone.

Today I received an ad for a business conference on women investors. Are these like equity investors (people who invest in equities and, therefore, referring to people who invest in women) or do I have to skew my language to accommodate the error and infer that they mean to say female investors (and the conference will deal with the issues surrounding investors who are women)?

We don't have man police officers, or man lawyers. These are male officers and male lawyers. Why then do we have woman lawyers or woman doctors? (Women doctors, in fact, would actually be gynecologists regardless of their sex, just as animal doctors are vets and not dogs with a medical degree.)

Please address this issue and help stem the tide of improper grammar.

Thank you,

Brett Tremblay
Toronto

Editor's Note: Others have questioned the use of woman instead of female. It's a topic worth investigating. Stay tuned.

Jan. 21, 2002

The recent article Norwegian cabinet minister ‘marries’ gay lover illustrates how words can carry value judgments. It begins:

OSLO — Norway's finance minister has become the first European government minister to publicly admit to a gay marriage.
Per-Kristian Foss, a Conservative, married Jan Erik Knarbakk earlier this month, a Norwegian business newspaper reported Tuesday. Foss admitted to the partnership but refused further comment. He announced he was gay about a year ago.…

The story ends with the following sentence:

There were no public expressions of disapproval in the liberal, Scandinavian country, and the media reported the event without comment.

It would seem to me that "the media" here does not include whoever wrote this article for the CBC and used the verb "admit" twice in only two paragraphs.

Generally speaking, people do not "admit" to nice things, only to rather shameful and icky things. Surely there's some policy about using more neutral words, like confirm?

I wouldn't have even commented were it not for the concluding phrase, which rang very untrue to me.

Kate Gregory
Ontario

Editor’s Note: A word like “confirm” would have been better. For the record, we do encourage neutral terms in such cases.

Here is an excerpt from the CBC News Online Style Guide:

People do say the darndest things, but they don’t necessarily admit, concede, lament, maintain, or opine.
The words “say” and “said” are short, neutral, and natural.
You may want to write that someone grumbled, shouted or scoffed if you’re certain they did. But don’t bother replacing “say” or “said” with synonyms that sacrifice accuracy, objectivity or just plain conversational style for the sake of variety.

Jan. 17, 2002

Please tell reporters that it is Geneva Conventions. Plural S. There is more than one.

Some reporters get it right. Many do not.

Ron Haggart

Editor's Note: The first Geneva Convention dates back to the founding of the Red Cross in the 1860s. It dealt with the treatment of people wounded in battle. Over the decades, more treaties were signed.

In 1949, there was a meeting called The Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War. Between April and August of that year, several conventions were adopted. One of them was named the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War." It has been referred to a lot in recent weeks in stories about Afghanistan, and is mentioned in a feature on our Web site: PoWs and Unlawful Combatants.

In general, we should use the term "Geneva Conventions." It's OK to mention a specific convention, like the one above, but not if the story implies there is only one Geneva Convention governing protection of rights during war.

Oct. 15, 2001

Some CBC writers would do well to review the subjunctive mood. A news article on anti-terrorism legislation had this to say about NDP MP Bill Blaikie:

Blaikie said the NDP is concerned that the right to peaceful dissent is not removed, or even limited.

I'm pretty sure that they meant this:

Blaikie said the NDP is concerned that the right to peaceful dissent not be removed, or even limited.

Having met Bill Blaikie and knowing that he was in Seattle and Quebec City, I'm pretty sure he would not be worried about a bill that *doesn't* remove people's rights. He would be worried that it *not* remove people's rights.

Interesting how the meaning of the sentence is completely flipped between the indicative and the subjunctive, yes? And they say it's dead in English.

Matt McLauchlin
Montreal

Editor's Note: The complaint is valid. Let's assume that the right to peaceful dissent were not removed, or even limited, by new legislation. It would be odd indeed if the NDP expressed concern about this fact. By the way, the original sentence was changed to: "Blaikie said the NDP wants to be sure that the right to peaceful dissent is not removed or even limited."

As pointed out in the e-mail, many authorities consider the subjunctive virtually dead in English. The revised version of the story, for instance, avoids conditional phrasing and is crystal clear.

"Many of these vestiges of the subjunctive are disappearing," notes the Canadian Oxford Guide to Writing. "Nowadays one rarely hears or sees be instead of am, are or is. Careful writers still prefer were in place of was, though many people are content with "If I was." … Insisting upon be is decidedly old-fashioned. Using the other subjunctives is more a matter of tone than of clarity."

Staff at CBC News Online are fallible. They're also professional writers, however, and it would be a mistake to assume that they're unfamiliar with the subjunctive mood based on one slip. During interviews, journalists are constantly faced with mismatched statements between words like would (subjunctive) and will (indicative): "The proposed expansion would cost $10 million and will take five years to complete." Straightening out what grammarians call the "protasis" and "apodosis" is part of our daily routines. Our writers and editors haven't all memorized this terminology, but we do share an objective: clear, accurate sentences.

Sept. 4, 2001

I was delighted to stumble on this link. The English used by CBC is outstanding at all times, as it should be. Our public broadcaster sets a standard.

My pet peeve in this area, however, is news delivery. Almost all newsreaders at CBC have excellent diction and clear delivery so that when I hear someone whose delivery is not up to this usual standard, I cringe. Outstanding news delivery is always present on any of the national news broadcasts, however, sometimes local broadcasts are not always at the same national standard. Excellent news readers at the local level, in my opinion, include Jill Dempsey, Marsha Lederman and Robert Fisher. There are no gaps and awkward pauses and no feeling that the newsreader is preoccupied with other matters …

Common English, slang and poor delivery can be found at almost any given time on almost any given private radio station anywhere. I'm glad to have CBC to raise the bar.

Wendy Balaban
Thornhill, Ont.

Aug. 30, 2001

I am a Brit who has lived in/on several continents and countries, over the past thirty years. Some of those years have been spent living in Vancouver and most recently, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

One thing that I consistently notice is that many Canadians, even well educated ones, misuse or "murder" past or present tense/s. The usage of "COME " instead of "CAME," is but one example.

Also what the heck are the origins of the words "Duatang" and "Touque"? These words seem to be uniquely Canadian.

Pat van der Veer (a.k.a. Sandra Duncan)
Halifax

Editor's Note: According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Duo-Tang is a "proprietary" term (i.e., a company enjoys trademark protection) for a type of folder for looseleaf paper. Centis Consumer Products, which owns Duo-Tang Inc., claims that the clasping mechanism was invented by a man working in a hayloft on the outskirts of Chicago in 1932. As some of us may remember from our school days scribbling in Duo-Tangs, duo is the Latin word for "two," while tang is an Old Norse word for a sharp metal object that is fastened to a handle.

Toque comes from the French Canadian term "tuque," which some etymologists believe may have its origins in an Old Spanish word ("toca") for an type of headdress – specifically, a soft, close-fitting cap worn in the 16th century. There are several ways to spell it. Canadian Press prefers "tuque."

Aug. 29, 2001

My grandfather, when he was alive, expressed frequent and strong annoyance with two misused and abused words: "its" and "veteran." I find myself noting such words whenever they appear, or in the case of "its," when they don't appear.

On a daily basis, one can read newspaper articles, government ads and other materials authored by, one would think, literate and educated people, and observe how often the possessive "its" is not used, in favour of it's or its'. On the use of the word "veteran," my grandfather often pointed out that one apparently could be a called "veteran" of some position with as little as five years experience. I think his concerns precluded the proper use of the word to describe military experience.

Jenny Trapnell
Whitehorse, Yukon

Aug. 21, 2001

Will you pleeeeease explain to your news anchors the difference between "less" and "fewer." And, while you are at it, brief them on when to say "effect" and "affect."

Dyan Cross
Ottawa

Aug. 21, 2001

To me there are three new common-use definitions that have arisen lately that are very annoying:

1) Using "challenge" to replace "problem". Apparently there are no problems left in the world, everything is a challenge.

2) The misuse of the word "key", as in "This is key to the situation". Key is a noun, not an adjective. Something can be the key, or a key, but never simply key.

3) Canadians picking up the doltish American habit of using the word "real" instead of "very," as in: "This is real good."

Wayne Wright
Ottawa

Aug. 16, 2001

Regarding the headline: "Calgary Mom Charged with Murder"

In Canada we have "mums" (or at least we used to have them.) Americans have "moms."

Next you'll be writing "Calgary Mom Charged with Murder, Huh?" Angus Taylor
Victoria, B.C.

Editor's note: Mom is short for mommy. Mum is short for mummy. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary lists mom as "North American," not merely American. Mum is classified as "British and Canadian" slang.

July 22, 2001

Two words we don't hear anymore: "nodraft," a little car window that has pretty much gone, and "conniption."

When I was young we all had conniption fits. We don't seem to have them any more.

Gary LeDrew
Uxbridge, Ontario

July 12, 2001

As a teacher and Senior Citizen, I want to comment on the speakers often interviewed on CBC programs.

The broadcasters are usually quite clear and well-spoken. But the guests, including some university teachers and other high-profile professional people, are often quite boring to listen to because of their frequent use of 'um', 'uh', 'you know', and other samples of poor public speaking.

Why are our schools turning out such speakers?? I often stop listening to such interviews.

I realize that the broadcaster cannot be expected to preview or correct the guests. Perhaps someone could do some articles or programs addressing this issue.

Maybe some speakers might get the message and take some public speaking courses such as those given by 'Toastmasters'.

Jean Harrison

June 23, 2001

My peeve is "protest against".

How can you protest for? Shouldn't it be "so and so protested the use of ..."?

Maureen Harding

Editor's Note: You're certainly not alone. But as pointed out in the essay Static over Style, many authorities now consider "protest against" unobjectionable, including the Canadian Oxford Dictionary.

The 1998 Globe & Mail Style Book actually advises its writers to put a preposition (such as "against" or "over") after protest to describe active disapproval. (For example, "the students protested against tuition hikes.") It suggests dropping the extra word only when protest refers to a solemn and formal declaration, as in "protest one's innocence."

June 22, 2001

I was appalled that your story "Lastman's gaffe could jeopardize Toronto's Olympic bid" used the euphemism "gaffe" when the comments in question were clearly racist.

Mel Lastman's comments are shameful and the CBC is excusing them by providing favourable media coverage. Shame on you. People from Mombasa don't boil people alive in pots, but racists claim they do.

Michael McDonnell
Edmonton

June 21, 2001

I am puzzled from time to time at the "different" pronunciation some of the CBC personnel use for words like tour and tourism. Do you have a guide that suggests that these words should be pronounced to rhyme with four (as in the number 4) because my dictionaries persist in using a different pronunciation (toor and toorism).

Isn't English lovely? We can't baffle learners of English with case, etc. but we sure give them a rough time with spelling and pronunciation!

Charles Manahan
Scarborough, Ont.

June 12, 2001

My comment is not about the news but about the way it is presented in its written form. The initialism 'MP' stands for Member of Parliament. Making the initials plural follows the same rules as making the full term plural: you add the letter "s" (MPs). It does not require an apostrophe.

Also, I realize that the traditional rules forbidding a split infinitive were at times dogmatic. However, I take exception to the overuse and misuse of split infinitives. Sometimes your authors use a split infinitive when an unbroken infinitive would be more succinct and would not break the flow of the sentence the way a misplaced adverb often does.

Thank you for reading my e-mail.

Kirk Dand
Maple Ridge, B.C.

Editor's Note: Yes. The use of MP's and MPs' should be restricted to possessive statements about, say, an MP's speech or MPs' salaries. Otherwise it's just MPs. We're aware of the rule, but sometimes mistakes slip by.

"To quickly move" on to split infinitives, putting an adverb in one place instead of in another may not be the least bit jarring to the majority. As pointed out in our essay To Boldly Split Infinitives, the construction itself is not wrong. Even authorities who are not big fans of split infinitives have endorsed them – as long as the wording is natural, and the sentence's meaning is clear.

Your complaint, however, has been forwarded to CBC News Online's senior editor. Our goal should never be making something harder to read. When that happens, we've failed.

May 14, 2001

Greetings:

I just discovered the "Words: Woe and Wonder" section of CBC's Web site and thought you would perhaps be the best route to take to cure a long-standing irritant.

I have lived in Winnipeg for over fifteen years and have lost count of the number of times I've heard local CBC announcers invoke "Hudson's Bay" instead of the correct "Hudson Bay".

Perhaps they should be informed of the fact that Hudson Bay was never owned by Henry Hudson.

Thanks. I feel so much better now.

Roy Jemison
Winnipeg

Editor's Note: For years, CBC Radio's pronunciation guide has included an entry about Hudson Bay. Announcers are reminded that there's a distinction between Hudson Bay and the Hudson's Bay Company. Of course that doesn't mean every radio and television broadcaster gets it right every day. Your observation has been passed on.

March 16, 2001

I've already sent a rocket to Newsworld over (a story tonight) about the Point Lepreau nuclear power station which "SPRUNG a leak".

Two months ago or so, it was an Indonesian ferry boat that "SUNK". And we had the sad Americanism: "Honey, I SHRUNK the kids".

Five years ago some U.S. insurance TV ad had the chap saying, "I didn't fit the plan – it FIT me". I think the past participle of fit is "fitted". No?

And the word "herb" is pronounced like "hotel". Yes, they were both silent "H"s at the turn of the century – 1900 not 2000.

What is going on there? They can't all be anchors' errors.

Ferg Kyle

Editor's Note: Have we sprung a leak? Are we sinking fast? Perhaps it's simply the natural evolution of language, touched on in our essay Static over Style.

Here's what was broadcast on The National: "The Point Lepreau power plant near Saint John has been shut down for more than a week now. A heavy water pipe there sprung a leak."

Although sprang is usually considered the past tense of spring, sprung is not wrong, according to the 1997 Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage. The past participle is always sprung. ("The boat had sprung a leak before we were far from shore.")

Most authorities would side with your observation that the past tense of sink is sank. Although sunk is sometimes used in conversation it's rarely found in writing, according to the same Oxford Guide. The past participle is always sunk. (For example, "the ship has sunk.")

It appears that distinctions involving the word shrink have already shrunk out of sight in many places. "Although the usual past tense of shrink is shrank, some authorities also allow shrunk," according to Oxford. The past participle can be either shrunk or shrunken.

Writing "it fit the bill" or that "the shoes fit me" is perfectly acceptable. Indeed, there's a world of difference between saying "the boat fit in the harbour" and "the boat was fitted in the harbour" -- the first suggesting there was enough room and the second implying that equipment was put on board. Another example is supplied by Oxford: an education can both "fit you," in the sense that it suits you, as well as leave you "fitted" (prepared) for a specific career.

The history of the aspirated letter h is dealt with at length in our essay A and An, Eh?. In a nutshell, there are only a few words in English that begin with a silent h, including heir, honest, honour, and hour. In some parts of the world, there's an appetite to toss herb in this category as well. In North America, for example, the h in herb is not sounded. In Britian, however, it generally is.

March 16, 2001

Like nails on a chalkboard, the misuse of less and fewer sends chills down the spine. The guideline for each is quite simple, and yet people persist in using the wrong one.

If you can count the items, it's fewer; if you can't, it's less.

For example ... Less sugar, but fewer sugar cubes. Less cake (implying a smaller piece), but fewer cookies.

Stuart Brook
Kanata, Ontario

March 14, 2001

I would like to compliment the staff on the general clarity of the news items posted online. Once in a while there are a few grammatical errors, but on the whole the news items are well written.

I appreciate clear English, and the staff has done very well in this regard.

Well done!

Laura Cowan
Montreal

January 15, 2001

Hello All.

I've just found your Web site – thanks to Yahoo, via their Weekly Picks list (Nov. 13, 2000) – and look forward to a thorough and enjoyable review of it!

I'm hoping it's feasible for you to respond to me personally or add your response to the site re the following question:

Which is correct: bored WITH or bored OF? To me, the former sounds correct and the latter causes the same shuddering reaction as hearing nails on a blackboard! However, perhaps it's me who's off the mark.

Thanks very much for the site and in advance for addressing my question.

Cheers,
J. Taylor
Cambridge, Ontario

Editor's Note: Many authorities on language share your reaction to bored of. Nails on a blackboard? Try a dentist's drill boring into a tooth.

According to the 1995 Oxford Essential Guide to the English Language: "In standard English you're bored with something or bored by something. Bored of is not regarded as acceptable, so don't use it in writing."

But fewer people respect the convention these days. Indeed, it appears some writers are actually fond of the term bored of – something the 1996 New Fowler's Modern English Usage calls "a regrettable tendency."

Rejecting bored of outright may be a case of trying to enforce old rules that are based more on personal preference than logic, especially since a lot of other adjectives are linked to the very same preposition (such as tired of, ashamed of and proud of.)

January 12, 2001

Dear news editor,

In your article titled "Canadian sailors head to Arabian Gulf"), the author has a number of references to Arabian Gulf. I must point out that no such a place as "Arabian Gulf" exists anywhere in the world. The author was most likely intending to refer to the Persian Gulf.

If this is a simple mistake on the part of the author please point out the correct name to your readers so they are aware of the problem.

In case this change of name in the CBC article is intentional (based on a new policy or some other reason) I must state my objection. Persian Gulf has been the historical name of the mentioned body of water literally for thousands of years. You can go back to ancient Greek texts from Aristotle and other reputable historians and find numerous references to the name Persian Gulf.

Also, legally speaking, this very same body of water is recognized by United Nations and all other international organizations as the Persian Gulf.

Consequently, using any other name but Persian Gulf is both legally and historically incorrect.

I hope that a reputable, respected, and impartial news organization such as the CBC News would take the appropriate steps to ensure that the correct historical and legal names are used to refer to geographical locations around the world. As a loyal viewer of your news programs I would be extremely disappointed to see anything less.

With highest regard,
Reza Aliabadi
Vancouver, B.C.

Editor's Note: Just as Iran used to be known as Persia, the narrow arm of the Arabian Sea along its coast has actually had a few names over the years, including the Sea of Erythras and Sinus Persicus.

According to the 1999 Cambridge Encyclopedia, this part of the Arabian Sea is now called the Persian Gulf, Arabian Gulf, or sometimes just the Gulf.

Several other western reference books, including the 1998 Canadian Oxford Dictionary, also list Arabian Gulf as a synonym for Persian Gulf.

But most modern atlases and language authorities appear to prefer Persian Gulf, and some historians have argued that Arabian Gulf is both inaccurate and confusing because it's an old name for what's now called the Red Sea.

Many Iranians passionately insist on Persian Gulf – partly because it goes to the heart of a debate over sovereignty of the waterway, including islands in the region.

A few years ago, for example, some protesters proposed boycotting Royal Dutch Airlines because one of its maps included the words Arabian Gulf. Within weeks the company agreed to change the name back to Persian Gulf, according to the online magazine Iranian Bulletin.

In addition to trying to remain neutral in a sensitive territorial dispute, there's another compelling reason the CBC should consider sticking with Persian Gulf in news stories: some Canadians might not be familiar with the label Arabian Gulf. Clarity, of course, is as important as accuracy.

A few newsrooms have already ruled on this question. For instance, the 1998 Globe and Mail's Style Book instructs journalists to write "Persian Gulf, not Gulf of Arabia." But other manuals, including those from the Canadian Press and New York Times, are silent.

Your concerns have been passed on to senior journalists at CBC News who set editorial guidelines for the corporation's journalists.

January 4, 2001

"Words: Woe and Wonder" is an excellent feature. Please keep up the good work!

The article "Static over Style" reminded me of a curious argument I had with a colleague over the proper Canadian spelling of words ending with the suffix "ize." He contends that "ize" is an Americanism and that "ise" is the British (and Canadian) way. I consider both to be correct, though I prefer to use "ise," probably because this lessened the confusion for me as a young Anglophone lad in a French Immersion program.

I need some help on this one. According to the Oxford dictionary on my shelf, "ise" is a variation of "ize," and "ize" is the principal entry. Neither are designated as particular to British or American English.

However, after a quick check of the Merriam-Webster Web site, it appears that "ise" is not recognised as American English.

Even more intriguing: I use the Canadian English setting for the "spell checker" function in my word processor. I've noticed that it rejects "ize" as a misspelling, offering only the "ise" form.

I consider this to be a hypercorrection. The American spell checker, of course, rejects "ise" in favour of "ize."

Some questions spring to mind. First, what are the origins of the two variations, "ise" and "ize," and is one "more correct" than the other for Canadian usage?

Second, are a growing number of Canadians (and Britons, I suppose) beginning to view "ize" as incorrect, or at least as an Americanisation? If yes, do others see the irony in Bill Gates et al. unwittingly redefining Canadian English?

Cheers,

Trevor Fenton
Waterloo, Ontario

Editor's Note: It doesn't take long to realize (realise) that English spelling is untidy, if not a downright mess. But what some people find confounding others celebrate as charming.

Why are ise and ize scattered about pell-mell? It all began with izein in ancient Greek, which evolved into izare in post-classical Latin and then iser in French.

English has been colonized with words from all three languages, including pulverize, moralize, and monopolize.

While it's true that ise is often defined as a "British" preference, ize is actually a better choice most of the time, according to Britain's leading authority on language: the Oxford English Dictionary. (OED)

Since the suffixes of verbs that end with ise and ize are usually based on either Greek or Latin, editors at Oxford have insisted that ize is the more logical choice. They've also argued that many modern words, such as bastardize, Anglicize, and Americanize should be spelled this way for consistency.

"There is no reason why in English the special French spelling (iser) should ever be followed" in these cases, according to the OED. Exceptions are old words that are not even remotely related to izein, including advertise, apprise, comprise, devise, enterprise, exercise, and surprise. (Many Canadians would probably be quick to surmise a French connection.)

For decades most people in Britain appear to have ignored the organization's advice to use ize most of the time. Which is why the 1998 Canadian Oxford Dictionary offers second spellings of words like Canadianize (Canadianise), and then labels them "British."

North Americans, on the other hand, seem to have adopted the practice of using ize far more frequently, according to the 1997 Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage.

To further complicate matters, many news agencies (including the Canadian Press) pick ize over ise in words like organization but opt for yse instead of yze in verbs like paralyse and analyse. (Here lyse comes from the Greek noun lysis.) The Canadian Oxford endorses both spellings, with yze listed before ize each time.)

Before our eyes glaze over, it's worth noting that some old French words originally based on Latin had ise at the end, but over the years these turned to ice – suffixes that survive in English today with words like justice and service.

A final point: although spell checkers are handy they're not intended to act as arbiters of proper English – which is why the better ones are designed to be customized to suit one's own preferences. To expand on a point made in the essay "Static over Style," allowing someone to change the way words are spelled in a dictionary is just one more reason Jonathan Swift would probably hate booting up a computer today.

Blair Shewchuk
CBC News Online

December 20, 2000

I always enjoy reading new pieces at the "Words, Woe, and Wonder" site, but have a nit to pick in the "Static over Style" article.

Indeed, the word "yahoo" did come from Jonathan Swift. But the web search engine Yahoo! may not be an allusion to "Gulliver's Travels" – it is an acronym, the letters standing for "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle."

The Yahoo web site says the creators of the search engine chose it because they both thought of themselves as "Yahoos" – but given how Swift saw that race, I find that unlikely. They also use the acronym explanation.

Bob LeDrew
University of Ottawa

Editor's Note: Thanks for the tip on etymology, which has been added to the essay.

It's quite possible the Web browser's founders were inspired by the existing word yahoo, which by the late 20th century had evolved to mean excitement and approval. (Otherwise the company's acronym came out of thin air.)

Regardless, of course, Swift would undoubtedly be angry that someone had appropriated his combination of letters.

December 11, 2000

(Reaction to a recent news story "Slang term removed from B.C. place names"):

Pardon my political incorrectness, but I always thought that the word "squaw" was of Indian origin. If I am not mistaken, it comes from the language of the Algonquians, meaning woman.

I am sorry, but this political correctness is really a new form of McCarthyism rearing its ugly head. This is the scourge of the 1990s. What next? Rewrite all that is politically incorrect at this moment?

Both Hitler with his book burnings, and Stalin with the Gulag, tried to convert people. It will never work! Leave things the way they are and learn its historical impact.

Thank you!

Des Miklos
Hamilton, Ontario

December 8, 2000

(Reaction to a recent news story "Researchers say B.C.'s iceman was young and healthy"):

How could a 550 year old skeleton be a "First Nations man?" The term "First Nation" was created less than 20 years ago, and applies to Indian reserve land bases and sometimes to Indian bands, not to people.

The man could more accurately be described as "Aboriginal" or "Indigenous," but then what else would he have been 550 years ago?

Tom Jewiss
College of Law
University of Saskatchewan

May 17, 2000

I enjoy the Web site, Words Woe & Wonder in its entirety. Bravo for creating such interesting content.

It would be nice, however, if the articles were dated. Since you intend to update the site every second Monday, it may become difficult for regular readers to discern a previous article from a new one without some form of marker (a "new" gif perhaps), date-stamp (at the beginning or end of the article), or a list of updates (that would list the new articles under Monday's date, perhaps on its own page).

Thank you for your time.

Rebecca Downey

Editor's Note: There's something new on our site. It's the word new, which now appears next to the most recent entries. We've also started putting dates at the bottom of articles. Thanks for your suggestion, as well as the closing pun about time.

top | main index | archived letters | contact us