I’ve read numerous, somewhat snobby or even snooty, blog posts that profess to set everyone straight on what is and is not proper use of the English language. Many of the most common examples cause me to wonder if any of the bloggers own a dictionary of the English language.
Herewith are a few of the oft-cited examples that illustrate more wishful thinking than facts. Don’t believe me? Go look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls (or your Merriam-Webster Collegiate).
- Datum/data and agendum/agenda (there are other similar examples). In each of those pairs, the first word is a singular form and the second a plural form, always, right? Not so fast grammar mavens. Although datum is a proper singular form of data, so is data (which can be used either in singular or plural constructs). Agendum is singular for agenda…but so is agenda (which, in plural form, would then become agendas). Just because the Latin words data and agenda must become datum and agendum in singular forms, that does not mean that such is the only way to do it English. The words may have originated with Latin, but they have been absorbed into English — and, yes, modified in the process. You may use datum and agendum, but don’t suggest that those who won’t are somehow grammar-deficient.
- Insure vs ensure. Many people insist that the only proper use of insure is when you are referring to insurance companies or their policies. This misconception probably stems from the fact that both insure and ensure (along with assure and even secure) can mean to make certain, but only insure can be used in the context of insurance companies and their policies. If you’re talking about insurance companies and policies you must use insure. Otherwise, you have multiple choices…including insure!
- Irregardless. Like it or not, this is a legitimate English word, although it is considered nonstandard. Personally, I don’t use it, preferring the less-grating regardless. But, hey, if you like irregardless, go for it.
- Hopefully. According to M-W, the use of hopefully as a substitute for “I hope” dates back to the early 18th century. Using it in that manner is “entirely standard.” You may not like it — in which case, don’t use it that way — but don’t denigrate it when others do.
- Unique. For some reason, many self-anointed grammar guardians insist that the only acceptable use of unique is in its one-of-a-kind sense and, thus, should never have a qualifier. M-W clearly demonstrates that unique has, for a long time, also meant unusual and, in that sense, can certainly include a qualifier such as many or very.
- They/their/them. Many people find the use of these pronouns with a singular verb particularly offensive, despite the centuries-old history of such use. M-W notes that “ English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun.” The protectors of political correctness and gender-neutral language would rather force really aggravating and artificial constructs (e.g., he/she, s/he, he or she) down our grammatical throats. Some even advocate the alternating use of he and she whenever you don’t know the gender of the antecedent. Spare me from such PC nonsense. Whenever I read such constructs, it interrupts the flow of the text and cause me to wince (and, on occasion, to stop reading altogether). Since at least the days of Shakespeare, speakers and writers of the English language have used they/their/them as a singular pronoun. Anyone who doesn’t like it, can choose to use their own preferred method.
I could have looked up each of the above words in the online M-W and provided links, but why should I take all that time when I’m quite sure each of you is able to do your own research. Or, Heaven forfend, pick up the printed dictionary that is right there on your desk. in the process, you might learn something you hadn’t been looking for.
Despite the above, I recognize that most editors and/or publishers have their own style guides, which may mandate a particular solution. If so, so be it.
OK, now let loose the “slings and arrows” of rebuttal. But don’t bother unless you can back it up with reliable references!
Great post! One of the things that pings my sonar is if I’m using a word in dialogue or narative. We jus’ don’t speak an’ write da same.
However, a small amount of dialect in dialogue goes a very long way. Very few writers are sufficiently adept to write in dialect for long stretches without irritating the reader.
Sure agree with that. EG was to ill.
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
The #1 grammar rule should be: “Avoid using grammar that some might think is ignorant–but ignore such ‘errors’ in other people’s writing.”
Lester,
Good rule…unless you’re an editor who’s being paid to find all those nasty little grammar infringements.
Kaveh,
Yes, ePub is a solution…but I hope not the best solution we can come up with. As I said in the post, I think it is an unnecessarily complex and fussy format, particularly for more complex books.
I’d much prefer a standard based on HTML but allowing for use of all the HTML capabilities and with CSS required. HTML is much simpler and less prone to serious failure due to minor coding errors.
Pingback: Sunday Wash-Up, 1st November « Shack's Comings and Goings