my dictionary dilemma

I wrote a while back about having subscribed to the unabridged Merriam-Webster (M-W) dictionary online. It made sense, given the freelance writing work that I am doing. But then the thought occurred to me: have I gone over to the Dark Side?

I have been an advocate of the American Heritage Dictionary (AHD) for decades. I have long loved its more prescriptive as opposed to descriptive approach (though that is a serious oversimplification). The usage notes with the AHD usage panel can be very helpful. In my B. Dalton Bookseller days in the 1970s and 1980s I was able to singlehandedly skew the sales reports in the stores in which I worked, increasing AHD sales at the expense of the whatever-current-at-the-time edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. I would chortle with delight when I saw those reports.

Even today the AHD sometimes includes details not found in the M-W unabridged. When looking up the word "bake-off" for a piece I was writing both M-W and AHD capitalized the phrase and said that it was a Service Mark. But only AHD added the note that it was sometimes used lower case and generically. Similarly, the M-W unabridged does not list "podiatric," while AHD does list it as an adjective under podiatry.

The problem is that it is not clear to me how much in the way of resources are being put into the AHD these days and whether we'll see another edition after the current 5th, given that its publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is a struggling firm. M-W seems to have effectively made the transition to the digital world and appears to be healthily surviving if not thriving.

Yes, I paid for my subscription to the unabridged M-W and that was the Right Thing to do given the work I am doing. But I can't shake the feeling that I am cheating on a long-time faithful lover.

 

compiling a dictionary: an art, not a science

I have been enjoying Kory Stamper's new book Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries. She writes about her life as a lexicographer at Merriam-Webster. The book is thoroughly delightful.

Stamper quotes an article discussing a fundraiser held by Barbara Streisand at her home. The article hyphenates "fund-raiser." Kory writes that this is an example of the transition of a phrase from an open compound to a hyphenated compound.

But wait. I always thought of fundraiser as a single word. I confirmed that by checking out my go-to dictionary, the American Heritage. One word. Then I checked the free online Merriam-Webster, which is based on the M-W Collegiate Dictionary. It showed only the hyphenated version.

hmmm....

I had occasion to sign up and pay for the full, unabridged Merriam-Webster, not on account of this quest, but because of  of the work I was doing for a client. I looked up the word in the unabridged. It is an interesting entry. The main spelling is two words. The second spelling is one word. The third spelling is hyphenated.

This reinforced for me something that I have long known but which I often forget. Dictionaries are not created by some omnipotent Language Being. They are compiled by real people making human decisions. While each dictionary publisher has its own rigorous rules and guidelines, producing a dictionary is an art, not a science.

 

in defense of tautology

I get an email each time the folks at grammarbook.com publish a new blog entry. The pieces are often interesting and I have the opportunity refresh and review my knowledge of various grammar rules. Sometimes, however, the people there can get just a little too fussy and stuffy. Such was the case with a recent discussion of tautologies.

A tautology is, of course, a needless repetition of words. The Grammar Book crew tells us that we should eliminate all tautologies from our writing.

Some tautologies we can clearly do without. "Forward planning" is a good example. Can you plan for the past? However, the article also cites phrases such as "each and every one," "above and beyond," and "vast majority" as forms to avoid.

The piece admits that tautologies will always exist in spoken language. (When I was in the food service business in college the cook would say that he was going to "steam off" the vegetables. The unnecessary "off" is part of the rhythm and cadence of spoken English.) The story then goes on to say, "Careful writers, on the other hand, have the time and the will to infuse their linguistic diets with protein. They cut the sugar and carbs that add calories without nutrients to their thoughts."

What the Grammar Book people fail to acknowledge is that 1) cadence and rhythm matter in written English as well as spoken and 2) the longer version can have a different shade of meaning than the simpler form.

To cite their examples, both "each and every one" and "above and beyond" have a cadence that a stripped down version would be without. They also offer a form of emphasis that would be missing in a simpler version. There are instances where "vast majority" is indeed appropriate. Fifty percent plus one is a majority, but not a vast majority. In a recent ballot initiative in the City of Lake Elsinore, California, the No vote was 3,320, while the Yes vote was 446. In this case, the vast majority of people casting their ballots voted No.

Here's another phrase the blog tells us to avoid: "invited guest." Again, there are times when "invited" might be appropriate. If you are driving down the interstate and are getting tired you might stop and check in at a motel. You are a guest at the motel, but not an invited guest. However, if you receive an invitation to a formal banquet on linen stock with raised ink and then are treated shabbily by the host, someone might write in your defense that you were, after all, an "invited guest."

While there are plenty of situations in which tautology is best avoided (don't you hate those signs that read "ATM Machine"?) tautology is nonetheless one of many components that makes English the rich language that it is.

Use it when appropriate.

 

a victory for the Oxford comma (and for grammar nerds)

Grammar nerds are delighted at the news story this week that the Oxford comma decided a court case. Being a grammar nerd who loves the Oxford comma, I got caught up in the excitement.

The Oxford comma, or serial comma, is the final comma right before the conjunction in a series of words. Some style guides favor it, others say to omit it. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says not to use it. The Chicago Manual of Style tells us we should use it.

Here is an example: "I had eggs, toast, and orange juice." If you omit the final comma (I had eggs, toast and orange juice) the sentence could be read as telling the toast and orange juice that you had eggs for breakfast.

In fact, eliminating ambiguity is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Oxford comma. Take this example: "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." While this was probably never really a dedication in a published book, I love it nonetheless. The implication that the author believes that his parents are Ayn Rand and God really strikes my funny bone.

And the court case? The court case was all about ambiguity. In Maine a group of dairy delivery drivers believed they were entitled to overtime pay. Their employer said they weren't. The relevant statute states that workers involved in the following activities are not eligible for overtime:

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:
(1) Agricultural produce;
(2) Meat and fish products; and
(3) Perishable foods. 

Note the missing comma before the "or." Because that comma was not there, the court read "packing for shipment or distribution" as a single activity, when in fact "packing for shipment" and "distribution" were probably meant to be understood as separate activities. Nonetheless, the judge sided with the (missing) Oxford comma and ruled that the delivery drivers were eligible for overtime.

Here's to the Oxford comma!

 

different styles for different situations

I just finished my second time through the Great Courses lecture series Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths of Language Usage by John McWhorter. It's an enjoyable and fascinating set of lectures about how language is used. Given that McWhorter is a linguist, he is as interested in how language is actually used as he is in how it "should be" used. (Yes, I do seem to have a fondness for linguists.)

In his lecture on texting he suggests that the practice is not as harmful to the language as some people might want to think. He points out that the same questions arose when the use of email first became common. He also suggests that the abbreviations used in texting do not carry over into everyday speech and formal writing. He uses the examples OMG, LOL, BFF, and WTF.

It seems to me, however, that sometimes people do say "o-m-g." It's a nice alternative, perhaps, in polite company to using the the complete phrase it replaces. Someone might also say "b-f-f" I suppose. But people certainly don't go around saying "lol" in everyday speech. In fact "w-t-f" might be a useful euphemism to introduce into casual conversation, but I've never heard anyone say it.

In any case, I think that McWhorter is correct: texting has not had an adverse effect on other forms of communication. He sees four boxes, as he calls them:

• Being a good conversationalist
• Having great formal writing skills
• Making a compelling and effective speech
• Crafting oneself as a "maximally clever e-mailer and as an aggressively clever texter."

McWhorter tells us, "Cultivate your four boxes."

That makes sense to me.

 

automated proofing tools and their limitations

I have a long history with automated proofing tools. That history goes back to about 1990, when I experimented with a couple of grammar checkers while working at a small software company. To put this in context, at that time the only people who used Microsoft Windows were those who used graphic or desktop publishing tools that required it. The rest of us used the command line with the C prompt to start our programs, which, you may remember, we had to use one at a time. It was not until 1992 with the release of Windows 3.1 that the graphical interface came into common use.

The results of the testing I did with these proofing tools were disappointing. Things that should have been flagged weren't and things that did not need to be flagged often were. Sadly, twenty-six years later in the world of Windows 10 little has changed.

In her marvelous Great Courses lecture series, English Grammar Boot Camp, Anne Curzan shows little love for the Microsoft Word grammar checker. She says that it often gets things wrong, and sometimes the rules it tries to enforce are often not even rules. (For example, on not starting a sentence with "and."  She quotes Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage on this point.)

I certainly have my issues with Microsoft tools. The Word 2013 proofing tools failed to flag a repeated "the." The grammar checker in Outlook wanted me to lowercase "give" at the beginning of a sentence (perhaps because it was preceded by "p.m.") and failed to catch a "you" instead of "your" when I used the phrase "your money."

Microsoft is not the only guilty party, however. The proofing tool for my personal blog has its annoyances. It asked me to replace "thyme" with "time" and "adobo" with "adobe." I guess it doesn't have much of an interest in cooking.

The bottom line: Don't put too much trust in the tools. Proofread carefully. Better yet, get someone to proofread your work for you.