Before commenting (in sorrow or with glee) on the apparent misspelling in today's headline, please read to the end of the post.
Self-appointed guardians of the language go by various titles: grammar gurus, language mavens, usage police. What most have in common is a compulsion to point out the linguistic shortcomings of others and bemoan the sorry state of the English language--whether they know what they're talking about or not.
As Professor David Crystal demonstrates in The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left (Oxford University Press, 2007), such lamentations have been heard since the days of Aelfric the Grammarian, a thousand years ago. In a spirit of "zero tolerance," these crusaders denounce the perceived foibles and infelicities of other English speakers--or "idiots" as they often prefer to call them.
Recently, a columnist for The New York Observer spotted a redundancy in the sports pages of The New York Times: "The Czechs played the way they can; the Americans reverted halfway back toward 1990 when they were drubbed, 5-1." The columnist snarled and pounced:
We all know that the verb "reverted" contains the direction "back" in it. To add "back" is thoroughly redundant. . . . To return is to turn back. Adding the word "back" may appear to solidify your meaning but it only exposes your ignorance.
To which an even more observant reader replied:
Now, we all know that the verb "contains" already contains the meaning "in it." To add "in it," as Phil does, is thoroughly redundant. Adding the phrase "in it" may appear to solidify your meaning but it only exposes your ignorance.
A perfect illustration of Muphry's Law: the principle that any criticism of the speech or writing of others will itself contain at least one error of usage or spelling.
Trust me: anyone who assumes the role of grammar guru better be prepared for nit-picking rejoinders. And now please feel free to comment.
More About Grammar and Usage:
Image: The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left, by David Crystal. Oxford University Press, 2007
Comments