From: misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:20:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.053028.12371@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>> Sounds graceless, etc., to me.  Shall we take a survey?
>
> No.  The results would be uninterpretable.

   I don't see why.  Not interpretable so as to support *your* view,
perhaps.

> 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.

   Most people don't even consciously realise what words grate on them,
let alone bother to record it.

>>> 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 use of the word "concertize" in a speaker's 
or writer's *presentation* of a *thought* (I sincererly hope).

> Excuse me, but what's to like?  It's a word.

   I prefer certain words to certain other words.  (And so do you, no
matter how much you try to deny it.)  Preferences are likes.

> But you have no evidence that "concertize" elicits an unfavorable 
> reaction in any but a tiny minority of people.

   My evidence is from introspection and analogy.  Do you have any
counter-evidence?

> 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.

   You'd probably consider me one of them, and I've wanted to write for
them (among others) most of my life.  Any adverse effect on my sanity is
for others to judge.

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

   You don't think "Avoid some of the words used by the barbarians at
the gate" is usage advice?

>>>> 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." 
>
> So, what's their proper place?  How can we tell?

   By asking whether a particular verb is useful.  Believe it or not,
we can actually make conscious decisions about that, instead of 
mindlessly proceeding.

> What shall we do with the four-centuries-old habit of adding "ize," 
> an utterly standard procedure in English word formation?

   The same as we can do with any other procedure in word formation -- 
see first how well existing words can do the job.

> Uh huh.  Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs, my man.

   Fuck you, too.

> That's really disappointing.

   Disappointing?  What argument were you expecting me to use?

> 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.

   If you think I'm wrong, we could easily devise an experiment 
completely free of leading questions.

> 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.

   Shakespeare is an *excellent* example.  Yes, he had a larger-than-
average active vocabulary, but no one made better use than he of the 
power of concrete, familiar terms.  See Quiller-Couch's comparison of 
Shakespeare and Marlowe in _On the Art of Writing_.

>>> nor can he state what Sir Alan had said in his own words,
>
>> You're confusing "can" with "does".
>
> Well, why doesn't he?

   Probably to make his text read more smoothly.

> The quotation as it stands is pretty lame, 

   It was chosen for its humorous aptness, not for cogency.

> 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."

   That's good.
 
>>> (This passage gets posted to the group about once a month,
>
>> Now, I *know* that's not true.
>
> [...] for the millionth time, what's wrong with a little hyperbole?

   Often nothing.  When it's not clear that it's hyperbole, possibly 
quite a lot.  A new reader would have had no reason not to take your 
statement as literally true.

>>> 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,

   Why should they be?  I was addressing the "logic" of your 3 sentences
above.

>> 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_.

   Maybe you could.  Has Grace Metalious and his or her teacher written
a book on usage?

> Were you saying something?

   Yes indeed.

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