Time for some changes?
By Doug Fisher
Don’t stop sweating
the small stuff, but maybe we sweat some of it too much.
I heard that often at the recent American Copy Editors Society
conference in Houston.
These can be fighting words
between those who say English usage has crumbled and those
who see it as elitist, or worse, to presume you can dictate
how people use their language. It’s especially difficult
for editors and teachers whose job descriptions, even if
often unstated, involve upholding some kind of standard.
But when the discussion turns
to whether it’s time to stop skirmishing about the
word “over” or stop reflexively changing “like”
to “such as,” ACES President John McIntyre,
who oversees copy desks at The Sun in Baltimore; Bill Walsh,
master of theslot.com and a copy desk chief at The Washington
Post; and others make an important point: Ours is a living
language, and as journalists we should always assess whether
our standards remain useful. Many of those standards are
more tradition than rule.
And while style, grammar
and standards are vitally important – studies clearly
show such things affect readers’ perceptions of credibility
– it’s too easy to fixate on the small stuff
and miss larger problems.
In that spirit, here are
some things I think it’s time to reassess:
Another (and other):
The AP says use it for comparisons of like amounts (or things).
I’m not ready to deviate – yet. But another
is so widely misused that I wonder if it makes a whit of
difference. The correct form: The city spent $5 million
this year and will spend an additional $4 million next year.
(Or better: will spend $4 million more next year.) But I
see many a newspaper with another $4 million. (Likewise,
with other: He’ll have to convince the other 45 senators
should be avoided if he hasn’t convinced 45 already.
Better is convince the 45 other senators.)
None: Based
on AP’s entry and, probably, their English teachers,
many journalists see none almost exclusively as the singular
not one. But from H.W. Fowler to Wilson Follett, John Bremner,
George Arnold and the widely cited chronicler of current
American English usage, Bryan A. Garner, none in the plural
sense has long been allowed. The word should be paired with
a singular or plural verb as sense dictates, and often the
plural will work better. Follett noted no difference in
sense between “none of these opinions seems to be
held” and “none of these opinions seem to be
held.” “Contortion and absurdity result when
the rule prescribing an invariable singular fights with
the plain sense,” he wrote. The New York Times prefers
the plural.
“Percent”
repeated: Must we use the word after each number
if the context is clear? Is “profit margins are from
6 to 8 percent” likely to be misunderstood? This isn’t
like saying something costs from $3 to $4 million, with
possible momentary confusion. We’ll probably still
teach this until AP drops it because so many papers follow
AP, but it’s time to rethink this one.
Like vs. such as:
Many editors have this notion that “like” does
not include what you’re talking about and “such
as” does, so if you’re having desserts “like”
cake, you’re having desserts, just not cake. It’s
a distinction not widely supported by usage experts, and
if you’re going around reflexively changing “like”
to “such as,” is that the best use of your time?
The Times goes too far, I think, in describing “such
as” as stilted and mandating “like.” I
think it’s time to follow the advice of modern usage
experts like Garner – don’t worry about it.
Over: My
prescriptivist inner child cheered when AP dropped its mishmash
entry for this word and simplified it to, “More than
is preferred with numerals.” But with the loose uses
so ingrained, is this a losing cause? For now, I’m
inclined to stay the course, and I still prefer to read
that people argue about things, not over them. But I also
like Walsh’s position that over is more correct in
cases like “company earnings increased 34 percent
over the past two years.”
Web site:
We can try and explain why it’s two words with Web
capitalized, as Walsh does (“’site’ is
not a suffix”), but it’s tough to erase the
often-written “website” when we write webcam,
webcast and webmaster. That makes this one worth thinking
about.
What do you think? Are there
others you think should be re-examined, or have I proposed
slaughtering some sacred cows? Let me know.
*****
Short notes:
After last month’s column suggesting “at the
age of” be shortened to “at age,” Judy
Salter, editor of The Hartwell (Ga.) Sun, wrote: “I
not only hate ‘at the age of’ – I hate
‘at age,’ ... Isn’t the age factor implicit
in the usage?”
She’s right. “Age”
isn’t needed. But it can be useful to vary cadence
(At age 20, he was destitute. At 30, he owned his company,
and at 40 he was a billionaire). Thanks, Judy.
“Presumptive”
is popular in election-season phrases like “presumptive
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.” But
why not use “likely” or “expected”
and avoid possible misinterpretation? I tested 50 copy-editing
students, and more than a third mixed up presumptive and
presumptuous. Read more about it on the
Web log.
