Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Vocabulary and Writing

Recently, a friend of mine forwarded me a link to the following article on archaic words that linger, vestigially, in our modern usage (the article is here).  After enjoying the piece and thinking of some other random and "one shot" words -- words that only occur in a set phrase, I started thinking about vocabulary more broadly.

In fact, this has been on my mind for a while, ever since Revolutionary went through copy-editing. During those rounds of revision, a copy-editor pointed out that I tended to write "amongst" and "midst" which were deemed "archaic" forms.  I hadn't noticed that before, and I went back to short stories and other pieces I had written.  Indeed, amongst and midst cropped up there as well.  Then I paid attention to my speech... and found that I spoke these words (and others on the archaic list).

All this made me think about what language stands out.  I believe that the goal of the copy-editor is to make the writing smooth, in the sense that no word draws the reader out of the story or makes them say, "what?"  Of course, you don't want to be confusing, but more than that, you want the words you write to fit the texture -- the soundscape -- of the story.

Linking to characterization, all characters should use vocabulary that fits their personality; that's an essential of voice.  But more than that, the narrative voice, the way in which setting and scene are described, should be clear, consistent, and, well, I guess like wall-paper: it's there, and it makes the room look nicer, but, after a while, you forget it's there.

So here's my question to you, dear reader... where do you stand on quirky vocabulary?  Do you every drop that strange word into a story?  Do you do that because it is the right word for that moment?  Or because you just like the word?

I once had a character going for a walk after a rain and enjoying that mineral smell that comes up from the sidewalk. The word for that smell is petrachore -- I love both that smell and that word -- and I had my character use it.  When the story was accepted for publication, the editor X-ed "petrachore" out.  I wrote back: but it's the right word!  Answer: maybe, but no one will know what it means.

That is the point of vocabulary... to communicate and express clearly.  I've had (and taught with) English teachers on both sides of the spectrum, those who say "don't use a dime word when a nickel word will do" and those who preach that you should "dress your words from Saks."

These days, I tend to former.  Simple, direct -- the best word for the moment.  It's just that, sometimes, the best word is a little dressy.

Monday, May 20, 2013

The Wall Street Journal on Apostrophes

I'm an English teacher and sometimes we get a bad reputation when it comes to grammar.  Just like librarians are stereotyped as shushing curmudgeons (not true! I know many hip librarians), English teachers are supposed to be sticklers for avoiding sentence-ending prepositions and split infinitives.  I'd like to think I'm not a stickler, but I also have to admit I love grammar.  These two statements are contradictory: take the example of split infinitives -- I know that, in fact, the rule in English makes no sense: it is a holdover from Latin translations.  Because the infinitive in Latin can't be split (it is formed in a single word, as opposed to English's two), translators of Latin were fussy about keeping the infinitive together in English as well.  But if you're not translating Latin, why bother?  Split away!  

I couldn't resist blogging about The Wall Street Journals article on apostrophes, though.  Here's a link.  Delightfully written by Barry Newman, this article looks at the use of apostrophes with place names and how, with increasing frequency, the apostrophes are dropping out.  This is an issue I am sensitive too in part because I teach at a school with an apostrophe in its name... but the apostrophe isn't in the email address.  Now, this omission is clearly for reasons having to do with computer language and the use of such marks as the apostrophe or slash or colon to mean nothing pertaining to grammar but rather pertaining to code.  I get it.  However, it bothers me.

Newman's article focuses on place names (Pike's Peak) that have been dropping their apostrophes.  I was surprised by his assertion that the removal is due to the desire to have a public place seem public and not privately owned, as the possessive apostrophe might imply.  (After all, when it comes to a school name, one doesn't really think that St. George owns St. George's School, right?)  In fact, I had just assumed that people dropped commas (if not out of carelessness) in order to get a shorter name.  I see this all the time: Middleborough (Deborah Sampson's hometown!) is Middleboro on all the highway signs and often on maps.  Space is at a premium (hence, too, Drive Thru versus Drive Through).  But when space isn't at a premium, why not preserve the full name, punctuation and all?  This goes for other abbreviations as well; a map might denote Mt. Washington, but a formal writing situation would ask for Mount Washington.  (One could extend this argument to texting/tweeting, where space is also at a premium.  "dont" and "cant" are used there, but one would never write in this manner in a formal letter... I hope!)

I have sympathy for those in Newman's article who say that the meaning shifts or is lost when the apostrophe is taken out.  Some moment of history (the idea that a pioneer came and "found" a certain valley, for instance) recedes when the apostrophe is lost.  But meaning doesn't really change -- it is clearly a shorthand. What else could "veterans island" mean; how does it make sense except by understanding an apostrophe?    

I had much less sympathy for the person who opined that since we don't pronounce apostrophes, they don't really matter.  You could throw out a lot of letters that way -- it would save some pixels (or ink for the old fashioned) but it wouldn't help clarity at all.  And isn't that what grammar is about?  Clarity... and precise meaning.  Of all the punctuation marks, apostrophes are the ones I am least attached to, so let's hope no one starts a war on commas or semi-colons or (gasp!) the em dash.