Words of 2003

1 January 2004

It seems as if every linguistic group or web site comes up with its own annual list of words of significance for that year. So why should we be any different? What follows is a selection of words that we believe exemplifies and symbolizes 2003. While some of these words and phrases were coined in 2003, most were not. But they all represent some aspect of the past year.

axis of weasel, n., those countries which led opposition to the war in Iraq, especially France and Germany. Interestingly, the phrase was first coined on Usenet 2002 referring to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. In 2003, the term was either picked up or re-coined with the newer meaning. The term is a play on Bush’s “axis of evil.”

Bennifer, n., a 2003 vogue term for celebrity couple Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez.

coalition of the willing, n., those countries prepared go to war in Iraq, i.e., US, UK, Spain, Australia, and Italy. President Bush coined the term in November 2002.

CrackBerry, n., jocular nickname of the handheld, BlackBerry email device, so called because use of a BlackBerry and the ability to access email anywhere is addictive like crack cocaine, 2001.

curse of the Bambino, n., 2003 was another one of despair for the Boston Red Sox, who have not won a World Series since they traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1920.

debaathification, n., the process of removing Baath party officials from positions of influence in Iraq. The term dates back to at least the first Iraq war in 1992 and is modeled on the denazification of Germany in the 1940s.

downer cow, n., cattle that cannot walk because it is injured or sick for some reason. The term, which dates to at least 1994, rose to prominence in December 2003 with the discovery of a BSE-infected cow in Oregon.

embed, embedded, n. & adj., a journalist who lives an travels with a military unit, accepting certain restrictions on what can be reported for access. The term is Pentagon jargon dating to 1995. The antonym, unilateral, did not catch on in the public consciousness.

fauxmosexual, n., a fashion-conscious, heterosexual male, a blend of faux + homosexual. Cf. metrosexual.

flash mob, n., a spontaneous, electronically-organized gathering in a public place for no particular purpose, a play on flash flood.

freedom fries, n., a term that epitomizes mindless, flag-waving patriotism, after an attempt by several US Representatives to rename French fries in the House cafeteria in protest of French opposition to the war.

GITMO, abbrev., Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Long a standard military abbreviation, this term came to public consciousness with the use of this base as a prison for those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.

Governator, n., jocular term for Arnold Schwarzenegger, a blend of governor + terminator.

-izzle, affix, used in a jocular faux-dialect similar to Pig Latin. The final syllable in a word is dropped and –izzle added in its place, e.g., fo’ sho’ becomes fo’ shizzle. The practice was started and popularized by rapper Calvin “Snoop Dogg” Broadus in 2001, but reached mainstream culture in the past year.

kinetic, going kinetic, kinetic targeting, adj., v.phr., & n., military slang opening fire or dropping bombs on a target, cf. soft targeting, or the dropping of leaflets on a target or location.

mad cow, n., popular name for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), 1989. The first case of mad cow in the United States was discovered in December 2003.

manscape, v., shaving and grooming of male body hair, coined on the TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, after landscaping.

metrosexual, n., a fauxmosexual.

MOAB, abbrev., acronym officially standing for mass ordnance air blast or, popularly, mother of all bombs, a 21,000 lb bomb fielded in 2003, the acronym also has Biblical associations.

old Europe, n., the traditional US allies in Europe, esp. France and Germany, as opposed to the new allies like Poland and the Czech Republic. Old Europe generally opposed the US/British war in Iraq, while new Europe generally supported the war. Coined by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

phishing, n., a method of gathering financial or Internet account information by sending fraudulent emails to people asking for the information, a variant of fishing, influenced by phreaking. The term and practice date to at least 1996, but rose to prominence in 2003 when several major banks were victims of phishing expeditions.

punk’d, part., describes the victim of a practical joke, from the name of a 2003 MTV program that featured practical jokes played on celebrities.

quagmire, n., used in 2003 as a reference to the war in Iraq by those who believed it would lead to a bloody, unresolved mess. The term hearkens back to Vietnam.

queer eye, n., fashion sense, esp. that stereotypically exhibited by gay men, from the name of the 2003 television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, where a team of five gay men perform a make over on a heterosexual man.

recall, n. & v., political practice in some US states that allows the removal of elected officials through petition and vote. The term dates to 1902, but the practice was little used until 2003 when California governor Gray Davis was removed from office in this manner.

roadmap, n., business jargon for a plan, in 2003 it was used as the name for a Middle East peace plan proposed by the US, Russia, the EU, and the UN.

SARS, abbrev., Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a new respiratory disease, similar to influenza, that was epidemic in 2003.

sex-up, v., to make something more interesting or compelling than it actually is. In 2003 British PM Tony Blair and his government were accused of sexing up an intelligence dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Originally a slang term meaning to add sexual content to a manuscript, 1942, it evolved to mean a more generic form of interest.

shock and awe, n., a US military strategy of demonstrating the futility of further resistance through a sudden and massive bombing campaign. Coined in 1996 by Pentagon strategists, the term came to prominence during the air war over Iraq.

SITCOM, abbrev., jocular term meaning single income, two children, oppressive mortgage, referring to a couple where one parent stays home to care for children, cf. DINK, double income no kids. The term dates to 1996.

sixteen words, n., no compilation of words associated with 2003 would be complete with reference to the infamous sixteen words spoken by President Bush in the February 2003 State of the Union message. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The evidence alluded to in the statement was based on a patently obvious hoax which had already been discounted by the US intelligence community.

soft berets, n., British term for signaling non-hostile intent by doffing helmets in favor of berets. 

spam, n., while hardly unique to 2003, electronic spam reached epidemic proportions this past year.

spider-hole, n., a fighting position dug into the group, esp. one used by a sniper, from the metaphorical extension of the lair of a trapdoor spider. The term dates to 1941 in military jargon and came to prominence in 2003 when the term was applied to Saddam Hussein’s hiding place. This popular usage is somewhat different than the traditional military use. The traditional sense is a place where one lies in wait to spring an ambush. Only time will tell if this new sense of a hiding place catches on.

tadpole, n. & v., a young male lover of an older woman, to take on a young male lover, e.g., Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, from a 2002 movie of that title and theme.

taikonaut, n., a Chinese astronaut. In 2003 China launched its first manned spacecraft. The term, however, dates to 2000.

yuppie food stamp, n., jocular term for a $20 bill from an ATM that gained popularity in 2003, after food stamp, the term for the US government assistance coupons. From 1996.

zhuzh, v., to arrange hair or clothing, coined on the TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Annual Foot in Mouth Awards

1 January 2004

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been awarded the “Foot in Mouth” prize by Britain’s Plain English Campaign for the most baffling comment by a public figure in the past year. The Campaign is an independent group of some 3,500 members who advocate for clear, easily understood English in public statements and documents.

Each year the campaign gives awards to examples of clear and well-constructed prose, but they also give two awards, the Foot in Mouth and Golden Bull, for impenetrable prose.

Rumsfeld won the award for the following statement, made in a February 2002 news briefing:

Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

Plain English Campaign spokesman John Lister said, “We think we know what he means. But we don’t know if we really know...”

Rumsfeld narrowly beat newly inaugurated California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (“I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.”) and former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten (“Having committed political suicide, the Conservative Party is now living to regret it.”)

Last year’s winner was actor Richard Gere for the following statement: “I know who I am. No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe and somebody said I was a snake, I’d think ‘No, actually I am a giraffe.”

There were eight different winners of the 2003 Golden Bull Award for the “year’s worst gobbledygook.”

In response to a question asking whether or not they still sold blank CDs, Jungle.com replied, “We are currently in the process of consolidating our product range to ensure that the products that we stock are indicative of our brand aspirations. As part of our range consolidation we have also decided to revisit our supplier list and employ a more intelligent system for stock acquisition. As a result of the above certain product lines are now unavailable through jungle.com, whilst potentially remaining available from more mainstream suppliers.” (Interpretation: “No.”)

In an apology for dispensing a wrong prescription, Lloyd’s Pharmacy replied, “The cognitive process that staff will go through when interpreting prescriptions and selecting drugs is almost intuitive in that the prescription will be read, a decision is then made in the mind of the individual concerned, they will then make a selection based on what they have decided. When an error is made either mentally or in the physical selection process it is difficult for the individual concerned to detect their own error because in their own mind they have made the correct selection.” (Interpretation: “We made an error.”)

On a label for Roast Chicken Salad, department store Marks & Spencer wrote, “Now With Roast Chicken,” prompting patrons to wonder what had been in it before.

Dishwasher manufacturer SMEG included the following in one of their instruction books:

• “At this point you must press contemporary the P1+P2 buttons and then you will see that the first 3 pilot light programs will lid up.’

• “during this phase the writing ‘Time to end’ flashes up.’

• “This allows to make function the dishwasher at the time you want. By pressing one after the oter button DELAY PROGRAM (5), it will be seen on the display the vizualisation of delay hours numbers in which you want to make start the machine from 12 hours onward.’

• “The display will be turned on with a vizualisation that will depend on the state of the dishwasher.’

• “By pressing the relative button of desired program (see table) it will lid up the relative pilot light to confirm that the operation did occurred on the DISPLAY (9) will appear a program duration forecasting (’h.mm’).”

In the company’s defense, SMEG spokeswoman Pauline Dewhurst replied, “SMEG UK is aware that any instruction book, however well written, is often the last point of reference when getting used to a new machine. For this reason we have produced a set of ‘Quick Start Guides’ to assist customers who are moving into new properties with several new products to get used to.” (Interpretation: “Who cares what the instruction book says? No one reads them anyway.”)

The Social Fund’s regulations for maternity and funeral expenses contained the following impenetrable statements:

For the purposes of these Regulations, a person shall be treated as a member of a polygamous relationship where, but for the fact that the relationship includes more than two persons, he would be one of a married or unmarried couple. (Interpretation: For purposes of these Regulations, persons involved in a polygamous relationship shall be treated as if they were married.)

And,

In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to a numbered regulation is a reference to the regulation bearing that number in these regulations and any reference in a regulation to a numbered paragraph is a reference to the paragraph of that regulation bearing that number.” (Interpretation: “Numbered references are self explanatory.”)

Standard Life wrote a trust deed that included the following clause:

‘THE SETTLER HEREBY ASSIGNS unto the Original Trustees who, by their execution hereof accept the position of trustees, each of the policy or policies, particulars whereof are set out in the Schedule hereto, and the monies assured thereby and all other monies which may become payable in respect of the said policy or policies of assurance BUT ALWAYS EXCLUDING any policy or policies which may constitute a Protected Rights Fund of the Standard Life Appropriate Personal Pension Scheme or the Standard Life Stakeholder Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Policies’) to hold the same unto the Original Trustees upon the irrevocable trusts hereinafter declared concerning the same.

Warburtons Bakers included the following in an advertisement:

With a launch burst of 550 TVRs—and £34m in ‘premiumisation’ opportunities—we’re confident you’ll rise to the challenge. (Interpretation: ???)

Finally, Yousef El-Deiry wrote the following for an article in JMC airline’s Intercom magazine:

As we enter the last third of the summer season, we are faced with a period of operation, which is historically characterised by pre-maturity, both in terms of psychological wind-down and shedding of temporary staff.

‘Once bitten, twice shy,’ and history shows that our bridges can so easily be burnt and the strength of current position lost, if we allow this malice to gather momentum.

The irony is that, it is in the latter stages of a race or championship that fortunes are made or lost, and where heroes are born or die, and we should be in no doubt that; ‘it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.’

You’ll forgive the poetic license of my political incorrectness in using this old adage, but it’s a poignant reminder to be cautious, since there is a real danger that our lines of defence will weaken, as our supply chain fades away with a dilution of resources, vigour and will.

However, there is a positive spin to this dilemma, from which all of us can draw strength and inspiration.

The approach, which I wish to advocate to all our ground team, is to look at the last third of the season as a ‘light at the end of the tunnel,’ the long sought-after jewel in the crown, remaining resolute to sprint to victory.

We must never doubt the difference that we can make in controlling and shaping our own destiny, which for me boils down to one fundamental question, namely leadership’ I am a firm believer that the most effective and motivating form of leadership is that by example.

Hence why I now look to our management team throughout the UK Airports, as I know our ground team will be, to lead from the front and carry the operation through to the end.

The months of September and October are vital to us securing our ground handling and on-time targets, and we must see this through to the end with conviction and pride.

Through these final stages of the race, there will never be more of a need to unite the team and draw on each other’s strength, in order to control suppliers and facilities alike, and keep the programme running smoothly.

This is ground force in its purest form, so rally the troops and show that we are a force to be reckoned with.

At least El-Deiry was good natured about winning the award, commenting, “I was told the cliches in my article were as plain as the nose on my face, but it all looked like Queen’s English to me.

More information on the Plain English Campaign and awards from past years can be found at http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

Word of the Month: Marriage

1 January 2004

The issue of gay marriage has been much in the news of late and the topic promises to be a hot-button political issue in the 2004 US presidential election. At issue are the questions of whether and how the state should recognize homosexual unions.Therefore, our word of the month is:

marriage, n., the condition of being husband and wife, since 1975 sometimes applied to same-sex couples. Also applied to the ceremony and celebrations associated with the beginning of such a union. Also applied to other forms of relationship, often with a modifer, e.g., plural marriage. Since c.1400, the word has been applied figuratively to any close union or blending of any two things. The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman mariage. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.

Currently, only Vermont allows gay couples to form “civil unions.” This statute was signed into law by Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean when he was governor of that state. In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the state constitution and gave the legislature six months to rectify the inequity. In the United States, the regulation of marriage is traditionally a state function and there is little federal law on the subject. There is a 1996 law, however, that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples for purposes of federal benefits such as Social Security and pensions and gives states the ability to refuse to recognize gay marriages solemnized in other states.

Courts in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec have ruled that heterosexual-only marriage laws are discriminatory and it appears as if Canada will rewrite its marriage laws to permit gay marriages in the coming year. At present, the Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries that grant identical marriage rights to both gays and heterosexuals.

The heart of the issue is one of semantics. What exactly do we mean by the word marriage? Regular readers of Wordorigins.org are no doubt aware that a word’s meaning is determined by usage, not etymology. If we extend the meaning of marriage to include gay unions, then that is what the word means. But it is interesting to look at where the word comes from and how it has been traditionally used.

In the following pages, we examine words that are associated with the institution of marriage.

annul, v., to reduce to nothing, to eliminate. From the Old French annulle and Latin annullare, to make into nothing. In English use since c.1400. The term is used in reference to marriage meaning to declare that a legal marriage never actually existed.

bride, n., a woman about to be or recently married. From the Old English brýd, c.1000.

civil union, n., a legal joining of two individuals that confers all the legal rights of marriage, but lacking a spiritual or religious dimension. In use since at least 1992:  “Well, marriage is not the correct word or concept; but there is indeed a project of a proposition of law [in France] for a so-called ‘civil union’ contract that would include same-sex couples.” 12 March 1992, soc.motss.

cohabit, v., to live together in sexual relationship, but without the legal sanction of marriage. Since c.1530.

common-law marriage, n., a cohabiting relationship that gains legal sanction through longevity. Common Law is the non-statutory law of England (also used as a basis for law in the United States, sans Louisiana), embodied in old commentaries and judicial precedence. Common law marriage is no longer a recognized legal concept in the United Kingdom and most of the United States. From 1909.

de facto union, n., legal term used in Quebec to denote a cohabiting relationship and the limited rights such a union has under Quebec law.

Defense of Marriage Act, prop.n., also DOMA, 1996 US federal law that exempts states from the requirement to recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states. The US Constitution requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the acts and pronouncements of other states, but also gives Congress some ability to define the parameters of such recognition. The constitutionality of DOMA is an open question.

divorce, n. & v., the legal dissolution of a marriage, the separation of any two things united things, to dissolve a marriage or other union. In English use since 1377. From the French, ultimately from the Latin divortium, which in turn is from divertere, to turn aside. This latter was specifically used in Latin to denote a woman leaving her husband.

domestic partnership, n., a legal union of two people who live together but are not necessarily in a sexual relationship. Generally, a domestic partnership laws do not confer all the rights of a marriage or civil union. In use since 1985 to denote informal arrangements and 1990 as a legal term.

engage, v., to pledge, to bind by contract (1525), specifically to bind in a promise of marriage (1727). From the French engage (en- + gage, pledge).

family, n., a group of people closely related by blood or by close emotional ties. From the Latin familia, household, famulus, servant. The current sense is relatively recent. The word has been in English use since c.1400, the original sense being the servants in a household. By 1545, the term had expanded to include the spouse and children as well as servants. By 1667 the word was being used to include only those related by blood. Related senses include those descended from a common ancestor, a house or lineage, c.1425, and a group of similar or related things, 1611.

nuclear family, n., a social unit consisting of husband and wife and their children, 1949. From the sense of nuclear meaning central, not relating to atomic theory.

gay marriage, n., a legally sanctioned homosexual union, from at least 1984.

groom, n., a man about to be or recently married, a clipping of bridegroom, from the Old English brýdguma. Guma is an Old English poetic word for man. The word was later folk-etymologized into the modern groom through association with that word meaning a type of servant.

homophobia, n., fear toward or hatred of homosexuals. From homo[sexual] + phobia, 1969.

homosexual, adj. & n., pertaining to sexual desires toward or activities with others of the same sex, those who have such desires or engage in such activities, esp. to the exclusion of heterosexual relationships. 1892, from homo- (same) + sexual.

homosexual marriage, n., a long-term cohabiting relationship between members of the same sex, also used recently to refer to a legally sanctioned union. Cited in the OED3 as early as 1955, that early citation has the word “marriage” in quotation remarks.

husband, n., a married man. From the Old English húsbonda, hús (house) + bunda, peasant. Originally (c.1000), the word meant the male head of a household, a freeholder. The current sense dates to c.1290.

lesbian, adj. & n., pertaining to female homosexuality, a female homosexual. Adjectival use is from 1890, the noun is from 1925. The term is a reference to the ancient poet Sappho, a resident of the island of Lesbos in Greece, who allegedly had female lovers (“allegedly” because very little is actually known about her other than fragments of her poetry).

life partner, n., a participant in a long-term cohabiting relationship, esp. a homosexual one. Since at least 1983.

long-time companion, a participant in a long-term cohabiting relationship, esp. a homosexual one. Since at least 1989.

matrimony, n., marriage, 1357. From the Anglo-Norman and ultimately from the Latin matri- (mother) + monium (state or condition).

nuptial, adj. & n., pertaining to marriage or the marriage ceremony, the marriage ceremony itself, 1490. From French, ultimately from the Latin nuptialis, wedding.

significant other, n., a participant in an established romantic or sexual relationship. Originally a sociological term (1940) for a person with great influence over another, the term acquired the current meaning c.1977. Often used in social situations where one wishes to be inclusive or ambiguous over the exact nature of the relationship.

inamorata, n., mistress, girlfriend. From the Italian, 1651.

mistress, n., a governess, obs. (1330); a female head of household, including women who share this authority with a man (c.1375), this sense survives mainly in the abbreviation Mrs.; a woman involved in a romantic relationship with a man, esp. one married to another (c.1425), now the primary sense; a female dominant partner in a sadomasochistic relationship, 1921. From the Anglo-Norman maistresse, the feminine counterpart to master.

fiancé/fiancée, n., a person (man/woman respectively) engaged to marry. From the French, 1853.

wed, v., to marry. From the Old English weddian, c.1000. The original English sense was to make a pledge, esp. one of marriage. Early use applied to the man only, making a pledge to support a woman. By c.1400 applied to both sexes and the mutual act.

wife, n., a married woman. From the Old English wif, c.725. Originally, the word simply meant a woman. By c.888 it had developed the modern sense of a married woman.

Shame on Martha

1 January 2004

Standing on the steps of the federal courthouse in New York City this past month, businesswoman and former director of the New York Stock Exchange Martha Stewart, convicted of lying to federal investigators, asserted her innocence and decried the actions of the prosecutors. In so doing, however, she made what may be a Freudian slip in her use of the word shameful:

Today is a shameful day. It’s shameful for me and my family and for my beloved company and for all its employees and partners. What was a small personal matter came over the...became over the last two years an almost fatal circus event of unprecedented proportions.
—Martha Stewart, 16 July 2004

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: shame·ful
Pronunciation: ‘shAm-f&l
Function: adjective
1 a: bringing shame : DISGRACEFUL b: arousing the feeling of shame
2 archaic: full of the feeling of shame: ASHAMED

Decline of the Dictionary

1 December 2003

Robert Harwell Fiske’s review of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (MW11), is a clear illustration of one of the two views that people have about dictionaries. In Mr. Fiske’s view, Noah Webster came down from the mount with his dictionary inscribed by God on stone tablets. The dictionary is sacred scripture and changing it is heresy. It should not even contain mention of usages deemed improper by an anointed priesthood of prescriptivist grammarians.

The other view holds that a dictionary should be a useful reference, not an icon to be worshipped. It should describe how the language is actually used and provide advice, where appropriate, on matters of grammar and usage.

The first view, if adopted by lexicographers, would rapidly render dictionaries useless. The basic task of a dictionary is to facilitate communication by documenting what words mean. If we only admit into the dictionary words and usages deemed to be proper, we will quickly render significant aspects of our culture unintelligible to others. Dictionaries will rapidly become empty shells of formal prescriptions that bear no relevance to the way we actually speak and write.

The article makes a two-part argument: the English language is in decline and lexicographers, especially those at Merriam Webster, are contributing to this decline.

Regarding the first point, the article provides no evidence. Is the language in decline? No evidence is provided indicating that this is indeed the case. The article does not even provide an objective standard to measure this supposed decline. Is the number of solecisms on the rise? You would not know from this article. It does list a few high profile anecdotes of questionable usage, but, as any freshman college student learns, anecdotal evidence is a weak form of argument. One can find similar solecisms from any century one cares to mention. The fact that a president or a basketball player makes a verbal gaffe does not mean the language is in decline (whatever that means). All it means is that an individual made an error.

When it comes to the second point, the article does present evidence of a sort. “Of a sort” is key. The arguments here are based on half-truths and vagaries. Mr. Fiske misstates and makes selective use of facts and he inaccurately characterizes the content of the dictionaries he abhors. It is difficult to present a concise rebuttal to his complaints because they are little more than a list of things Mr. Fiske does not like about the current crop of dictionaries. What follows, therefore, is simply a point-by-point rebuttal to those complaints.

Mr. Fiske bemoans the fact that the American Heritage Dictionary started to include four-letter words in 1969. He feels that we would all be better off keeping these words hidden. But what of the translator who is trying to find the English equivalent of a foreign epithet? Doesn’t the translator need a resource to find those English equivalents? Four-letter words may not be appropriate in most situations, but (for good or ill) they are very common in our speech and writing and pretending they do not exist will not make them disappear. People will use four-letter words whether or not they are listed in the dictionary. The notorious “F-word,” for example, did not appear in any general dictionary for over 170 years (1795-1965), yet this omission did nothing to discourage its use.

A similar objection is raised to the inclusion of the slang word def in MW11. But what of the white kid in Iowa who runs across it and wants to know what the word means? Not including the word would be to say that contemporary African-American culture is not worth recording. Nor is the word a passing fad. Def has been a staple of the Hip-Hop scene since at least 1979 and the Historical Dictionary of American Slang records West Indian use of the word as far back as 1907. The two-line entry in MW11 is appropriate and utilitarian. The problem here is not with the dictionary; it is with Mr. Fiske. His view of what is important and relevant is exceedingly narrow.

The article notes that most slang is ephemeral. While it is true that most slang is coined and used over a very short period by a small group of people, the slang words objected to here are decidedly not ephemeral or used by a very small group. They have had staying power and wide popularity. To be sure, they may eventually pass from our vocabulary, but they are in the midst of runs that have lasted decades and are showing no signs of abating:

• Funplex is old enough to vote at 18 years.

• McJob first appeared back in 1986 and (in the first of many omissions of fact) the article fails to note that the Mc- prefix is a prolific combining form, forming words like McDoctor, McPaper, and McSex.

• Dis is into its 21st year.

• Headbanger appears in 1979.

• JFK was in the White House when phat made its appearance forty years ago.

• Dead president is a slang term of our grandfather’s generation, dating to 1944, and still going strong.

• And def, as noted above, is close to the century mark.

• Ironically, the only one of these that Mr. Fiske actually likes is the newest coinage, Frankenfood, clocking in at only 11 years old.

One may certainly question the wisdom of particular editorial choices made by Merriam Webster. I have my doubts about how many people will actually ever need to look up funplex, for example. But nitpicking over individual editorial choices does not constitute a philosophical disagreement.

The denunciation of the inclusion in MW11 of the uninterested sense of disinterested makes one wonder if Mr. Fiske actually read the dictionaries he criticizes. MW11 includes a lengthy usage note on the word—almost three times as long as the main entry. MW11’s review of the history of the word mirrors that contained in the OED2, a dictionary that Mr. Fiske says “we can still respect.” The OED2 also includes a usage note on the uninterested sense, saying that it is “often regarded as a loose use.” The Shorter OED also includes a usage note on the word, as does American Heritage. One wonders where these “boneless” lexicographers are who include the sense without comment. The only dictionary I have found that fails to include a usage note on this word is Merriam Webster’s 1961 Third, which has no usage citations whatsoever. It is disingenuous to revive a forty-year-old argument about one particular dictionary and applying to lexicographers in general. This is like criticizing George W. Bush for the Bay of Pigs invasion.

In a footnote, the article takes on the very basis of descriptivism, claiming that just because a writer, no matter how esteemed, makes an error, does not change the fact that it is an error. On its face, this seems reasonable. Any human being is capable of error. The question to the prescriptivists is who is the authority? Nobel laureate John Steinbeck, according to Fiske, committed a solecism in his use of enormity to mean large. Arguments from authority are always dicey and if it were just Fiske v. Steinbeck, Fiske might have a point. But when one adds Paul Theroux, J.B. Conant, and E.L. Doctorow (all quoted in MW11’s usage note on the term) to Steinbeck’s camp, then one has to wonder exactly when would Mr. Fiske accept a particular usage?

The article objects to the one-line entry in MW11 for alright. That one line entry is followed by a seven-line usage note, a fact that is omitted from the article, which also fails to note that the word is also included in the OED2 and that H.W. Fowler himself said that although it is “seldom allowed by the compositors to appear in print, is often seen in [manuscripts].” The idea that it be removed from the dictionary in favor of Boeotian is so laughable that one begins to wonder if this article is not a parody of the prescriptivist position. If one has to dig this deep into the vocabulary barrel to find a word that MW11 omits, then the editors have done a fine job at being comprehensive.1 There can be no doubt that far more people will crack open the dictionary to look up alright than will to look up Boeotian. Is it not better for someone to look up the word and find a usage note stating that it is often considered an erroneous spelling than to find nothing at all?

The article then launches into a string of words it regards as errors:

• Supercede. The article objects to this spelling variant, but MW11 includes a usage note (that once again the article fails to mention) that explains this spelling has been common in published writing since the 17th century, even though many consider it to be an error.

• Infer to mean imply and peruse to mean to read in a casual manner. These are classic examples of hypercorrection. Infer and imply have been synonyms for centuries and peruse has never meant anything other than simply to read. And again, the article does not mention the usage note in MW11 regarding infer and imply.

• Hone in to mean home in. Again the article neglects to mention that MW11 includes a usage note recommending against this usage.

• Flaunt for flout. Again, the article neglects the usage note, which says, “if you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake.”

• Incent and impactful. The article fails to make a case why these are errors. They are ungainly and inelegant to be sure, but hardly “wrong.”

• The pronunciation of nuclear as /NU-kya-ler/. Three recent presidents, one a nuclear engineer by training (Carter), have made this pronunciation famous. One ought to be careful in declaring this one wrong lest one incur the wrath of millions of Southerners who are proud of their dialect.

• Reticent meaning reluctant, accidently, and predominate as an adjective. Finally the article makes a few correct points, albeit minor ones. MW11 should have included usage notes for these.

The essay concludes by introducing a meaningless survey. First, it is a survey of readers of The Vocabula Review—hardly a representative sample of public opinion or even experts on usage. Second, the questions are poorly constructed. Any survey choice that begins with “Yes!” is going to skew the results. Also, the final choice is not on the same continuum than the other four. It answers a different question. Finally, no information on survey size or margin of error is included.

One might counter that this is just fun and “unscientific,” but if so, why include it? The data are meaningless and do nothing but show that Mr. Fiske is so desperate to find support for his untenable position that he is clutching at whatever straws he can grab.

Ultimately, the question is who is the authority on language. Should we rely on those who actually use the language, the writers and editors, or should we rely on a handful of self-proclaimed experts who ignore actual examples of usage in favor of their own personal preferences?

There is a place for well-crafted language and a place for reasoned advice on usage, but this goal is not served by shrill complaints about the licentious lexicographers, half-truths, and poorly constructed arguments. Those concerned with clear and elegant use of language would be better served by reason than by simply declaring things to be wrong because they do not like them. This unreasoned prescriptivism does little except place a strait jacket on the English language, turning it from a flexible and expanding language into a rigid and increasingly less useful one.

Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil’s Dictionary, defined a dictionary as “a malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic.” One has to ask who is more likely to bring Bierce’s nightmare to fruition, the descriptivist lexicographers who chronicle how people actually use the language while providing sensible usage advice or rigid prescriptivists who want to deny that other usages even exist.

1 Subsequent to this article being written and published in TVR, another commentator pointed out that Beotian is indeed in M-W’s 11th. The word does not appear in the main dictionary but does appear in the lexicon of geographical terms at the back of the volume.