Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 To avoid making cursor yet angrier, I won't post this on his thread. But I ran across this hilarious column by a writer -- British, for whatever that is worth -- for the Daily Telegraph. He is taking to task the stodgier Times of London for its use of the phrase "an historic" in a headline. Chivers feels, as I do, that -- well, I'll let him explain: Surely there can be no one to whom the formulation "an historic" sounds natural? No modern style or usage guide that I'm aware of calls for it. Ours says "a/an: an hour, heir; a hotel, historian (if the H is pronounced, use A)." Like every other consonant. When a word begins with an H, if you pronouce the H, it's "a", if you don't pronounce the H, it's "an". An hour, a hand. Simple. Similarly when a word begins with U: if you pronounce it "you", it's "a"; if you pronounce it "uh", it's "an". A use, an underpass.For reasons I don't fully understand, though, "historic" gets different treatment. You wouldn't say "an history book" or "an historian" – I assume – but "an historic", a weird vestigial linguistic limb, a zombie formulation, refuses to die.As always, I have to say, with weariness, it's not wrong. But to almost every modern ear, it sounds fussy, pretentious, overkeen. Ralph Long, the linguist, is quoted as saying that “people who really know little or no English grammar [tend], when in doubt between two constructions, [to] pick the less usual and presumably more elegant”, and I think that's what's going on there. Needless to say, I agree. I also think that's what's going on when people use the reflexive pronoun "myself" incorrectly when they are trying too hard to sound, ahem, proper. To wit: Wrong: Joe, Cindy and myself are going to the movies.Right: Joe, Cindy and I are going to the movies. Wrong: Give the package to Joe or myself.Right: Give the package to Joe or me. As this website explains: "People are afraid to use 'me' even when it's completely correct — 'Give the package to Joe or me' — so they resort to this 'myself' thing that just sounds awful," Steve Kleinedler, executive editor at American Heritage Dictionary, told us. "It points to the fact that you've got anxiety about sounding correct and are going out of your way to avoid saying something wrong that isn't actually wrong.""Me" or "I" is almost always a better option than "myself." If you're not sure which to choose, try the ol' lose-an-object test.• In Kleinedler's example, "Give the package to me," is correct. "Give the package to I" is not. Nor is "Give the package to myself." The same sort of trying-too-hard-to-sound-correct syndrome is at play when people improperly say "I feel badly about that." Of course, it should be "I feel bad about that." Feel is what is known as a linking verb. In this case, it links the subject I to the predicate adjective bad. Thus, what is called for in this instance is an adjective that modifies I, not an adverb that modifies to feel. Ergo, bad, not badly. Other examples of linking verbs are be, am, are, is, was, were, seem, look, feel, sound and taste. With some of those, it is perhaps easier to see the differentiation than with others. For example, most people would say, "This soup tastes bad" rather than succumb to any sort of tendency to say "This soup tastes badly".
Nevo Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Wrong: Joe, Cindy and myself are going to the movies.Right: Joe, Cindy and I are going to the movies. Myself, I would opt for a serial ("Oxford") comma before the conjunction. Per CMS 6.19 (15th ed.), "Chicago strongly recommends this widely practiced usage, blessed by Fowler and other authorities, since it prevents ambiguity." 1
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 My what is a poor worthless Doby sposed to do.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 Myself, I would opt for a serial ("Oxford") comma before the conjunction. Per CMS 6.19 (15th ed.), "Chicago strongly recommends this widely practiced usage, blessed by Fowler and other authorities, since it prevents ambiguity."I tend to agree with you. It's just that more than 35 years of immersion in Associated Press style has ingrained the other usage within me. And, of course, neither is more correct than the other; it's a matter of style preference, as I'm sure you recognize.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) My what is a poor worthless Doby sposed to do.If you are referring to Dobby, the freed house elf in the Harry Potter series, he would never say "myself'; it would be "himself", as Dobby always referred to himself in the third person. Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Nevo Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 And, of course, neither is more correct than the other; it's a matter of style preference, as I'm sure you recognize. As a long-time prescriptivist, I am afraid I cannot agree that both options are equally valid.
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 If you are referring to Dobby, the freed house elf in the Harry Potter series, he would never say "myself': it would be "himself", as Dobby always referred to himself in the third person.Of course you are right.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) As a long-time prescriptivist, I am afraid I cannot agree that both options are equally valid. Then it becomes a matter of whose prescriptivism prevails. In the world of newspapers, it would be the AP's. Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 To avoid making cursor yet angrier, I won't post this on his thread. Maybe I'm an outlier but, when it is done politely, I actually appreciate the writing tips from those of you who are professionals. 1
volgadon Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Why does "historic" get special treatment? To reduce confusion as it would invariably sound as if the person were saying "ahistoric." Granted, that isn't entirely proper, but there you go.
The Nehor Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 As a writer and grammar nazi (just ask my colleagues) I have no beef with "an" going before "historic". If said in a pretentious way it is annoying but it flows off the tongue easily enough when not said as an attempt to be solemn.Now the "our Lord and Savior, even Jesus Christ" needs to stop. Either deliver the entire address in Elizabethan English or deliver it normally. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Why does "historic" get special treatment? To reduce confusion as it would invariably sound as if the person were saying "ahistoric." Granted, that isn't entirely proper, but there you go.I don't know about you, but there is a marked difference, in both articulation and intonation, in the way I pronounce "a historic" as opposed to ahistoric. Besides, ahistoric strikes me as uncommon. I think most speakers and writers would be more apt to say non-historic. Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) As a writer and grammar nazi (just ask my colleagues) I have no beef with "an" going before "historic". If said in a pretentious way it is annoying but it flows off the tongue easily enough when not said as an attempt to be solemn. I think most people agree it's not wrong; it's just archaic and unnecessary, and it sounds snooty. Now the "our Lord and Savior, even Jesus Christ" needs to stop. Either deliver the entire address in Elizabethan English or deliver it normally. I agree with you there and could probably find other equally annoying examples. Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 I think most people agree it's not wrong; it's just unnecessary, and it sounds snooty.I find it sounds better if it follows "it is" or its contraction.It's an historic day here as......It is an historic day here as.....I find it flows from the tongue easier in that specific use. In other uses like:We find ourselves at an historic eventIt sounds awful there.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) I find it sounds better if it follows "it is" or its contraction.It's an historic day here as......It is an historic day here as.....I find it flows from the tongue easier in that specific use. In other uses like:We find ourselves at an historic eventIt sounds awful there.Hmm. It sounds equally bad to me in either usage. (By the way, I hope everyone noticed your and my proper use of the linking verb sounds in the above exchange.) Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Hmm. It sounds equally bad to me in either usage.(By the way, did you notice my proper use of the linking verb sounds in the above sentence?)I admit my grammar is much more imprecise here then in other venues. I shoot more for conversational as opposed to formal English.Can you spot the errors there too? Edited November 17, 2014 by The Nehor
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 I admit my grammar is much more imprecise here then in other venues. I shoot more for conversational as opposed to formal English.Can you spot the errors there too? Before I saw this reply, I amended my post to say that you too had used the linking verb sounds properly. And no, I don't spot any errors in your post here.
strappinglad Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 What will we do with those folks 'oo drop their ' haches' all along the sentence?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 What will we do with those folks 'oo drop their ' haches' all along the sentence?Well, as I hinted in the other thread, if you were born and reared in London's East End, different rules might apply.
Nevo Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Now the "our Lord and Savior, even Jesus Christ" needs to stop. Either deliver the entire address in Elizabethan English or deliver it normally. I vote that we also strike "supernal" from the list of approved conference verbiage.
The Nehor Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 I vote that we also strike "supernal" from the list of approved conference verbiage.I actually like the word but I agree it is too often formulaic. I have also heard it used in contexts where I am not sure if they know what the word actually means.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 I actually like the word but I agree it is too often formulaic. I have also heard it used in contexts where I am not sure if they know what the word actually means.It's an ever-present linguistic hazard that a perfectly good word can be ruined through over-use or misuse.
Calm Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Before I saw this reply, I amended my post to say that you too had used the linking verb sounds properly. And no, I don't spot any errors in your post here.Shouldn't "then" be "than"?
Calm Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 I vote that we also strike "supernal" from the list of approved conference verbiage.Wow, it is used quite a bit over the years...I hadn't noticed.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 Shouldn't "then" be "than"?Yeah. Good catch, as we say here in the office.
Recommended Posts