From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:30:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.045514.19372@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.042636.4241@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan10.173503.26973@rose.com>, peter.churchill@rose.com (Peter Churchill) writes:

>> Um, what's graceless, dissonant, nasty, brutish, or whatever about it?
>> Sounds like a lot of other perfectly good words to me...

>   Sounds graceless, etc., to me.  Shall we take a survey?

No.  The results would be uninterpretable.  On the other hand, we 
could go sifting through discussions of language over the past century
to see how often "concertize" has been mentioned as an offensive word.
We could also get an idea of who has used it, and where.

>>> the very fact it caused gnashing says something about its usefulness.

>> How do you reckon that?

>   When I write, I usually try to elicit a favourable reaction, rather
>than gnashing, from my readers.  (There are exceptions, of course.)

Well, the original example, a month ago, elicited *one* gnash -- actually
a query -- from the target audience, i.e., about 700 people at Princeton's
Richardson Auditorium.  Nate Randall, the concert manager, tells me that 
nobody mentioned it to him.  

Also, the text being the artist's boilerplate, one would suppose that
the agent who was responsible for distributing it would do something
about it if it elicited too many gripes.  I'd say it's unlikely that
it does.

>> Special Relativity caused a lot of gnashing, too.

>   -- because of its *content*.  I doubt that Einstein *presented* it 
>in a manner calculated to provoke gnashing.

We're not talking about the *presentation* of "Concertize," either.
We're talking about the word itself, and any special virtues/vices
it may have.

>> In matters of language, gnashing about a perfectly common word
>> can be induced by the gnashing of one pundit's teeth.

>   "If it's 'perfectly common', then I *have* to like it."  That seems 
>to be a philosophical tenet of yours, Roger, but it ain't one of mine.

Excuse me, but what's to like?  It's a word.  A commonly understood
word.  Some people use it.  Others don't.  Most of those who do, use
it in one special way.  Some of those who don't, aren't aware of that
special way.  A very few people worry about the class of words to which
it belongs.

>> Look back to the 19th C's gnashing about "donate," "greed," or any 
>> number of other words we find quite useful today.

>   So?  I'd rather write to elicit a favourable reaction from *today's*
>readers than be vindicated by posterity.

Again, where is the mass of unfavorable responses to a word like "concertize"?
a.u.e is hardly a barometer of mass tastes in words.

If people didn't *understand* "concertize," you'd be right in eschewing
it.  Since you don't like it, you're likewise right to use another word
or phrase.  But you have no evidence that "concertize" elicits an 
unfavorable reaction in any but a tiny minority of people.

As for those 19thC words, the only people who complained were, if you
will, professional complainers who felt they knew what the language
*ought* to be.  If you wish to write for them, be prepared to be 
driven crazy.

>> Dean Swift felt the same way about "mob."  Would you have respected
>> his wishes?

>   I would have weighed his arguments and made up my own mind, just as I
>do with usage advice today.

Swift wasn't giving usage advice, either.  He was complaining about the
barbarians at the gate.

>>> Fowler probably puts his pen on the particular offensiveness of 
>>> "concertize" to the general ear when he comments: "Most verbs in 
>>> -ize are inelegant. Sir Alan Herbert has compared them to lavatory 
>>> fittings, useful in their proper place but not to be multiplied 
>>> beyond what is necessary for practical purposes." 

>   Not Fowler.  Gowers.  Fowler preceded Herbert.

>   As it happens, I agree with Herbert and Gowers.

So, what's their proper place?  How can we tell?  What shall we do 
with the four-centuries-old habit of adding "ize," an utterly standard
procedure in English word formation?  Shall we, on the counsel of a 
few who take esthetic exception, avoid it?  Or shall we go on using
words naturally?

>> Yet the general ear (Unless you've recently been promoted to General) 
>> doesn't give a flying at a rolling about words ending in "-ize."

>   Does so.  Most people react instinctively a lot more than they
>consciously realise.

Uh huh.  Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs, my man.  That's 
really disappointing.  How the hell do you know what people's 
instinctive reaction to a word ending in "ize" is?  Don't tell
me, let me guess: a leading question or two.  Yeah, that's the 
ticket.

>> Note also that Fowler can't tell you *why* the words are inelegant, 

>   I can, and so could Fowler have.

>   When you read, the words that reverberate deeply in your mind are, 
>first, words you learned as a child and secondly, words similar in 
>form to those you learned as a child.  The more you have to 
>intellectualize when reading text, the deader the text feels.

I learned what "concert" means when I was four, and what "ize" means
around that time.  I learned the nuance of "concertize" somewhat later
(perhaps I was 8 or 9).  

As for your thesis, it's nonsense.  If it were true, Shakespeare would
be insufferable.  His extravagant use of language is *not* limited to
words like those I learned at my mother's knee.  (Of course, she kept
a dictionary strapped to it...8-)  )

>> nor can he state what Sir Alan had said in his own words,

>   You're confusing "can" with "does".

Well, why doesn't he?  The quotation as it stands is pretty lame, 
something you'd expect around the bar, right after "he uses statistics
as a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support rather than illumination,
haw, haw."

>> (This passage gets posted to the group about once a month,

>   Now, I *know* that's not true.  I've read this group for continuous 
>stretches much longer than a month, and I've *never* seen that passage
>quoted here.

Well, I saw it last time the "ize" had it, and before that, too.  Now,
for the millionth time, what's wrong with a little hyperbole?

>> OK: what's bad about it?  Show your work.  repeated use of "alas" will
>> not constitute proof.

>   Yes, it will.  "I dislike X" and "In my opinion X is bad" are 
>equivalent statements.

Neither one is equivalent to Fowler/Gowers' text, nor to the blanket
statements about the rightness or wrongness of the word we find all through 
your posting.

>In article <1993Jan9.200804.8817@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>> Strunk and White didn't invent the language, Charles,

>   True.

>   You said you write for pay, Roger.  Have you written anything that's
>sold as well as _Charlotte's Web_?  If not, maybe you could learn
>something from Strunk and White.

By that criterion, I could learn a lot more from Grace Metalious, author
of _Peyton Place_.  Were you saying something?

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english