Expert administrative help at your fingertips!

Click to enable
RSS feed.

Next issue:
September 2, 2007

Request
Word-wise
by e-mail.

Archive

May 20, 2007

June 24, 2007

Language Corner

The Times (and Words) Are a-Changing

English has tremendous fluidity. It readily adopts words from foreign languages, often without immediately "anglifying" their spellings or pronunciations. As Shakespeare so aptly demonstrated, English also allows words to be used as various parts of speech without any alteration of form. And English shapes itself differently each generation by accepting and rejecting popular usages and vocabulary. Writers should be ever aware of the changing nature of their artistic medium.

We have gradually taken to speaking in letters or acronyms rather than full words especially where technology has become ingrained in our everyday life and work. Companies have IT departments. We can communicate via IM. We connect our hardware with USBs. We spend millions on ISPs, DVDs, and MP3s. Such pseudo-words are common and acceptable in almost any modern context.

Technology has given us new functions for old words. Text, for example, is no longer just a noun. The sight of a mouse on a desk does not necessarily send a person running for traps. And the modern version of spam is far more universally hated than the canned pork of the same name. Again, readers are accustomed to and will readily accept these usage shifts.

For decades, stylebooks frowned upon the use of impact as a verb meaning "to affect," insisting that, when used as a verb, it could only mean "to cause to stick or lodge." Nowadays, these same manuals acknowledge that "to affect" is indeed a common and understood usage. Even the newest editions of both the layman-preferred Merriam-Webster and the linguist-revered Oxford English Dictionaries have included a number of modern terms that were unacknowledged or termed non-standard in previous editions.

In the past fifteen years or so, we have lost many of our problems only to have them replaced by issues. While stunning or incredible events in the eighties and nineties were often described as awesome, in this century they are more likely to be pronounced amazing. While not earth-shattering, generational lexical choices such as these bear thoughtful consideration because they can subtly date a person's writing. For this reason, it may be advisable to choose traditional over modern word choices--or vice versa--depending on one's intended audience.

English morphs in various ways. We writers would do well to weigh choices to determine which will work best for our audiences and, when necessary, edit accordingly.

Not-so-idle Musings

Moral e-lemma

But all too often, e-mail is just disappointing. Oh, how many times I've laughed until my sides hurt, or thought of someone who'd really appreciate reading a poem or prayer that came my way, or wondered how that little start-with-your-age number trick worked...only to be turned off by a closing statement that implied an awful fate if I didn't forward the message. You know the type: "Now make a wish. Send this to ten friends in eight minutes, and your wish will come true within a week. Don't break the chain!"

Nothing makes me click "delete" faster than an e-mail that attempts to shame me into forwarding it. These messages are poignant and have a message truly worth passing along, then ruin it all by making a preemptive judgment: "Make your choice now. Don't think about who in your address book wouldn't want this story. You don't hesitate to forward jokes and pictures, so take a good look at yourself and see why you're not forwarding this. If you are not ashamed to share your faith, pass this along."

In e-mail as in any other writing, a well-crafted message speaks for itself. It doesn't need to use threats to get passed along. Many a good preacher will attest that evangelizing has to be subtle to be effective. Strong-arm tactics usually don't work. When I've taken the time to read an e-mail only to be threatened or have my morality questioned in its closing lines, I feel like I've been tricked. The only defense I'm left with is to delete.

And I do. Hmph.

Word-wise Challenge

New Challenge:

I had rather eccentric political and social ideas compared to some other writers of my day. I was considered a bit of a radical even among my closest friends, one of whom was Ralph Waldo Emerson. The subject and setting of my most well-known written work was recognized, protected, then preserved as a National Historic Landmark in the last two decades. Who am I?

News Notes

Hu...HUH?

If anyone cannot attend the training seminar next week, ___ should contact HR for alternate training arrangements.

There are several options. I personally prefer the simplicity of the "universal he," but it does make many women grit their teeth, and I risk offending my audience when I use it. He or she works fine once or twice, but if the memo extends to a few paragraphs, repeating he or she becomes tiresome and clunky. They is a reasonable solution, but it also has great potential for incorrect usage when the memo writer simply inserts it without recasting the first half of the sentence with plurals.

In recent weeks, an alternate solution has once again been in the news and popping up in search engine results for "English language." Jake Shivery promotes the use of hu, the one-size-fits-all of the pronoun world. This invented pronoun is intended to stand for gender-specific pronouns, resulting in much simpler constructions.

While a genderless singular pronoun would undoubtedly be easy to learn for non-native English users, linguistic history tells us it is very unlikely to be adopted by current fluent speakers. It's true English speakers readily accept new vocabulary as it organically enter common usage. But I can't imagine English users would adopt a new pronoun just because it is available. Our current options may be unwieldy at times, but they are not hard to apply correctly with a minimum of brain work. Hu is clever but unnecessary.

Language just doesn't take well to deliberate change. Can you think of a single word--other than new product or technology names--that was intentionally introduced and actually stuck? A little research reveals only a handful, notably the name prefix Ms. Successful introductions are indeed uncommon.

If hu is to be adopted, it is already taking a long time. The Web site that houses Shivery's proposal has been around for several years, yet many people never heard of hu before a new article about it appeared in a number of newspapers around the country last month. (See Southeastern Virginia's local reaction to the article here.) Hu would need many more exposures in mainstream media before it became widely known, and many more than that before it began to be used in everyday language.

Perhaps if a recognized personality were to use hu in a university convocation speech, political debate, or other widely publicized forum, the pronoun would soar to instant recognition. But even then, the buzz would more likely generate parody than scholarly discussion.

Many comments (See here) ranging from thoughtful to incredulous have appeared thus far. On balance, they confirm that the English-speaking world is simply not prepared to accept this unnatural pronoun. I can't help but agree.

Usage Tip

If vs. Whether

• If indicates conjecture and can be used correlatively with then.
• Whether indicates
two or more possibilities and can be (often redundantly) used correlatively with or not.

While it is worth noting that the two words are not entirely interchangeable, it is also true modern English speakers often don't recognize a difference between if and whether. The Chicago Manual of Style, regarded by most editors as the definitive authority on usage, states that while if is indeed acceptable in casual use, whether is "irreproachable" in both casual or formal use when all other factors are equal. When in doubt, err to the conservative and choose whether.

Correct: I don't know if rain is expected today.

But preferable: I don't know whether rain is expected today.

Unless otherwise noted, all Word-wise articles are written by AnnaLisa Michalski. Admin Maven does not provide permissions for reprinting articles by guest writers. Please contact guest writers directly for permissions.