From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:55:14 GMT

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?

>> 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.)

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.
 
>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

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

> (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.

> 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.

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.

misrael@csi.uottawa.ca			Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.