Dictionary Of Disagreeable English: A Curmudgeon's Compendium of Excruciatingly Correct Grammar

Rating:
Summary: Descriptivists Have Had Their Day
Review: From the Introduction

A catalog of confusions

Lexicographers are descriptivists, language liberals. The use of "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" does not displease a descriptivist. A prescriptivist, by contrast, is a language conservative, a person interested in maintaining standards and correctness in language use. To prescriptivists, "disinterested" in the sense of "uninterested" is the mark of uneducated people who do not know the distinction between the two words. And if there are enough uneducated people saying "disinterested" (and I'm afraid there are) when they mean "uninterested" or "indifferent," lexicographers enter the definition into their dictionaries. Indeed, the distinction between these words has all but vanished owing largely to irresponsible writers and boneless lexicographers.

Words, we are told, with the most citations are included in the Merriam-Webster dictionaries. Are then words with the fewest omitted, or in danger of being omitted? Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary includes "alright," but what word was not included so that an inanity, an illiteracy like "alright" could be kept in? "Boeotian" is not defined in Merriam-Webster's; nor is "diaskeuast" defined; nor "logogogue"; nor "nyctophobia"; nor "myriadigamous"; nor "ubiety"; nor "womanfully"; nor hundreds of other words that a college student might find infinitely more useful than the entry, the misspelling and definition of, "alright."

All it takes for a solecism to become standard English is people misusing or misspelling the word. And if enough people do so, lexicographers will enter the originally misused or misspelled word into their dictionaries, and descriptive linguists will embrace it as a further example of the evolution of English.

Merriam-Webster's laxicographers, further disaffecting careful writers and speakers, assign the meaning "reluctant" to the definition of "reticent." "Reticent" means disinclined to speak; taciturn; quiet. "Reluctant" means disinclined to do something; unwilling; loath. Because some people mistakenly use "reticent" to mean "reluctant," dictionaries now maintain "reticent" does mean "reluctant."

Ignominies of Grammar and Usage

* abberation Misspelling of aberration. * New employment data Friday will either corroborate recent evidence showing the economy is improving, or indicate that last month's job gain was an abberation. USE aberration. * Hedman had been a player in search of one, redemptive moment that would grant him forgiveness in the eyes of the fans after his abberation in Munich. USE aberration.

Abberation is how aberrant users of the English language spell aberration. The language has its deviants, its descriptive linguists, its dictionary makers.

* enervate Solecistic for energize (or similar words). * Even the hurricanes, the torrential downpours, skies solid black with furious clouds, could do nothing but enervate and invigorate me. USE energize. * Fashion is photography's Frankenstein monster; a hideous parody of the photographic art rudely constructed with bits and pieces discarded from other art forms, which seeks not to elevate, illuminate, invigorate, enervate or inspire but exists only to serve its own purpose: to sell a rather ordinary garment at a grossly inflated price. USE energize. * Mitchell plays his curmudgeonly role with a vitality and energy that seems to enervate the rest of the cast. USE invigorate. * Any disease process anywhere in the body is affected, at least in part, by the ability of the nervous system to enervate and enliven that area. USE invigorate.

Enervate -- never innervate -- is an antonym, not a synonym, for invigorate or energize. Enervate means to weaken or enfeeble, to debilitate or deplete the energy of.

That aspect of it in particular is not to my taste, although on the whole, I believe it's been a very successful and enervating and exciting convention. -- Ben Affleck, actor

Not only did Affleck embarrass himself by saying enervating when he meant invigorating, or perhaps, energizing, he, embarrassing himself further, chided one or two people he was talking to when they questioned his use of the word. It's all too dreadfully benervating.

* volumptuous Idiotic for voluptuous. * Our glamour sets are for the woman who wants to create a volumptuous lip. USE voluptuous. * On October 8, 1997 an astonishingly large, volumptuous pumpkin appeared nestled atop Cornell's McGraw Tower. USE voluptuous. * Sensual, volumptuous actress Gina Lollobrigida (born Luigina Lollobrigida) was a sex symbol in her native Italy before becoming a Hollywood star. USE voluptuous. * I'm 5 ft tall, blue green eyes, long brown hair, and volumptuous. USE voluptuous.

Voluptuous means full of, characterized by, or producing delight or pleasure to the senses; suggesting sensual pleasure by fullness and beauty of form; fond of or directed toward the enjoyments of luxury, pleasure, or sensual gratifications. Volumptuous, except among lumpen lexicographers, means nothing at all; it is not a word.



Rating:
Summary: Precision of Language: What a wonderful idea!
Review: Robert Hartwell Fisk definitely warrants his (self-described?) label of curmudgeon; and I say that with great admiration. If you have a long list of grammatical pet peeves, his Dictionary of Disagreeable English will furnish you with an entertaining source for putting people right. If you couldn't care less about precise English, don't bother. But if you appreciate the appropriateness of "couldn't" as opposed to the ghastly "could care less" that has become so common today, then buy this book in quantity and give it to all of your friends!

It is a bit intimidating to write a review of this book, as there is the fear of provoking a mild (or worse) response from the author regarding errors within the review, however I will try. Fisk provides evidence of errors that range from common misspellings and mispronunciations to such flagrant misuse of words that their meanings are completely distorted. I was gratified to find the a number of words and phrases that rank among my linguistic pet peeves, and I was shocked to discover too many errors of my own usage.

Mr. Fisk chooses his targets carefully, with wit and sarcasm -[...]- such that you can't help but lose time moving from one entry to the next. He provides examples of each mistaken use, followed by a suggestion that would make the sentence more precise.

Interestingly enough, he does not appear to favor a return to the language of the Victorians. He readily acknowledges that English is a living language, and he even makes a few allowances for the "creative" use of words by some technical disciplines. Nonetheless he loudly denounces what I might call Dilbertarian business-speak at every opportunity. He even coins a new word of his own, "lexicographers" to refer to dictionaries and editors that are all to willing to bend to the noise of popular vocabulary, at the expense of clear communication.

Congratulations Mr. Fisk! Fight on... and fight well!