Plain Words (8 page)

The habit of making adjectives out of other words by adding the suffix
able
continues apace. Those who once protested that
reliable
should be
reli-on-able
would presumably also argue that today's
relatable
should be
relate-to-able
. (According to the
Daily Mail
, the Duchess of Cambridge is ‘relatable' because she makes a habit of wearing the same garment twice.) Another adjective of this kind is
scalable
as it is now used in commercial English, where a ‘scalable' business is always ‘scale-up-able', or one that has the potential to be made larger.

Not all verbs created by means of
ise
are inexpedient, as Gowers conceded. Not all are necessary either. ‘Reliableise' and
‘deinsectize' may have died a quick death, but
initialise
has jumped the bounds of computer jargon and is now being used in the most general sense of to ‘begin'. Again, though to
decision
and to
suspicion
may not have lasted as examples of a form Gowers deplored, modern instances proliferate: to
solution
is creeping into the language in place of to
solve
(‘Prior to starting, you need to be able to solution these kinds of questions'); to
action
is used for to
put in action
or simply
do,
to
transition
is made to take the place of
move
,
shift
,
switch
,
adapt
,
change
—even, now, of to
transit
.

There are still writers who have what Gowers called ‘the lazy habit of using
non
to turn any word upside down'. A recent statistical report for the Department for Work and Pensions (Research Report No 416) found that men are ‘more disadvantaged by disability' than women, giving as one reason that ‘a much higher proportion of non-disabled women than non-disabled men are non-employed in any case'. This could perfectly well have been written, ‘Among those adults capable of work, women are much less likely than men to have jobs'.

Gowers ended this chapter on correctness with a list, given below, of words and phrases that he described as ‘often used in senses generally regarded as incorrect'. Also given below are his clarifications of some knotty points of idiom and of spelling. He drew a distinction between the uses ‘generally thought to be incorrect' marshalled in this chapter, and uses he considered merely ‘unsuitable', examples of which are given at the end of
Chapter VII
(‘Seductive Words') and
Chapter VIII
(‘Clichés and Overworked Metaphors'). He acknowledged that it was hard to draw a line between the two classes, the ‘incorrect' and the merely ‘unsuitable', adding that it was still harder to get others to agree about where this line should fall—if they even agreed that it warranted being drawn in the first place. He concluded, ‘Even if my choice is right now, it will almost certainly be out of date before long'.

It turns out, however, that by the lights of those who continue
to care about these things, many of the words and phrases that he placed in the ‘incorrect' category in 1954 remain there. It is true that a few of his bugbears have become so obscure that there is no longer a pressing need to warn against them. Who these days mistakes a
prescriptive
right for an
indefeasible
one, or wrongly uses
desiderate
to mean ‘desire'? It is not the fashion now to use ‘desiderate' at all, though this verb enshrines what must be a widespread experience, that of longing with painful regret for something we miss or lack. But these obsolete examples are the minority. The rest of his list is given below, followed by a few examples of comparable incorrect uses too recently popular for him to have warned against them. These may themselves in future come to be universally accepted as correct, and in some cases were correct in the past. But for the time being they can be expected to irritate those whom Gowers called ‘vigilant guardians of the purity of English prose'. ~

Alibi

Alibi
is often now used in the sense of ‘excuse', or of an admission of guilt with a plea of extenuating circumstances, or of throwing the blame on someone else. So we find that ‘Members of the timber trade, like members of any other trade, are glad of any alibi to explain any particular increases in price'. But
alibi
is the Latin for ‘elsewhere'. To plead an alibi is to rebut a charge by adducing evidence that the person charged was elsewhere at the time the criminal act was committed. The mischief is that if the novel, diluted use establishes itself, the language will lose precision, and we shall be left without a word to signify the true meaning of
alibi
.

Alternately and Alternatively

These are sometimes confused.
Alternately
means ‘by turns'.
Alternatively
means ‘in a way that offers choice'. ‘The journey may
be made by rail or alternately by road' means, if it means anything, that every other journey is made by road. It does not mean, as the writer intended, that for every journey, the traveller has a choice between the two means of transport. Conversely, ‘alternatively they sat and walked by moonlight, talking of this and that' cannot have been intended to mean that they sat and walked in the moonlight as an alternative to doing something else. What must have been intended is that they sat and walked alternately.

Anticipate

The use of this word as a synonym for
expect
is now so common that it may be a waste of time to fight it any longer. But I should like even now to put in a plea that the official will set a good example by never using
anticipate
except in its correct sense, that is to say, to convey the idea of forestalling or acting in advance of an expected event, as in the time-honoured reply of Chancellors of the Exchequer, ‘I cannot anticipate my budget statement'.
*

Approximate

This means ‘very close'. An
approximate
estimate is one that need not be exact, but should be as near as you can conveniently make it. There is no need to use
approximately
when
about
or
roughly
would do as well or even better. Moreover, the habit of using
approximately
leads to the absurdity of saying ‘very approximately' when what is meant is
very roughly
, or in other words,
not
very approximately.

Note
. Gowers caved in on this point when he revised Fowler in 1965, allowing that
very approximately
was universally understood
to mean ‘very roughly'. It is worth remembering, even so, that because
proximate
means ‘close' the phrase
close proximity
is tautological. ~

A Priori

Do not say
a priori
when you mean
prima facie
. In fact you can probably get by without either. It is wrong to say that if many medically advanced countries have done without a certain drug for twenty years, this ‘is sufficient to show that there is an
a priori
case for its total abolition'. To argue
a priori
is to argue from assumed axioms and not from experience. (The fact that the argument here rests on the twenty-year experience of several countries makes it an argument
a posteriori
.)

Prima facie
, which is probably what the writer had in mind, means ‘on a first impression', before hearing fully the evidence for and against.

Beg the Question

To
beg the question
is to form a conclusion by making an assumption that is as much in need of proof as the conclusion itself. Logicians call this
petitio principii
. Brewer gives the following example: ‘to say that parallel lines will never meet because they are parallel is simply to assume as a fact the very thing you profess to prove'.

Note
. Gowers felt it necessary to add to this explanation that to
beg the question
did not mean (as was then commonly supposed) to ‘evade a straight answer to a question'. It does not mean that today either, in common or any other use: the error he was resisting has been overwhelmed by another. The phrase to ‘
beg
the question' is now so far removed from its original meaning that it is freely used where to ‘raise' a question would do, though the choice of
beg
can sometimes imply special urgency. If there is any lingering sense of difficulty attached to ‘begging' a question, it is
perhaps reflected in the peculiar new usage, to ‘beggar the question'. Presumably this mutation has sprung into being as an echo of ‘beggaring' belief or description (a figurative use introduced into the language by Shakespeare). But though to
beggar
means to ‘exhaust' or ‘outdo', a question supposedly ‘beggared' is not introduced in this way because it is thought unanswerable. Rather, it has yet to be answered.

There is no hope that ‘begging the question' will ever again be reserved for the censure of
petitio principii
(reserved, that is, for condemning the logic of a remark such as ‘mercy killing cannot be condoned because it involves the taking of a life'). Yet even a liberal ear, happy to accept
beg
as meaning ‘raise', might baulk at how
beg the question
is itself now regularly mangled. In the
Daily Mail
we find, ‘the question begs: when should you give in … ?'; a correspondent for
The Times
writes, ‘But as your question begs: where and how?'; and in a sociology journal, an academic throws out rhetorically, ‘The question begs of why?' It is tempting to respond, in the words of a writer for the
Guardian
, ‘The whole thing beggars several questions'. ~

Comprise

A body
comprises
, or consists of, the elements of which it is
composed
, or constituted. It is wrong to speak of the ‘smaller Regional Hospitals which comprise a large proportion of those available to Regional Boards'. Here, the Regional Hospitals
form
or
constitute
a large proportion of those available.

The
OED
recognises
comprise
in the sense of ‘
compose'
, but calls it ‘rare'. Once again, in the interests of precision, it should remain so. The difference between
comprise
and
include
is that
comprise
is better when all the components are enumerated and
include
when only some of them are.

Note
. Perhaps it was a general anxiety about the distinction Gowers outlines above that gave rise to the garbled form
‘comprises of'. This phrase is a particular favourite of estate agents in their descriptions of houses for sale, though it is made to vie for place with ‘boasts of': ‘the accommodation comprises of three bedrooms, generous lounge, separate dining room …'. Though
comprises
alone (or even
boasts
alone) would be correct here,
has
is all that is really needed. ~

Definitive

This word differs from
definite
by imparting the idea of finality. A
definite
offer is an offer exact in its terms. A
definitive
offer is the last word of the person who makes it.

Dilemma

Dilemma
originally had a precise meaning that it would be a pity not to preserve. It should not therefore be treated as the equivalent of a ‘difficulty', or, colloquially, a ‘fix' or a ‘jam'. To be in a
dilemma
(or, if you want to show your learning, to be ‘on the horns of a dilemma') is to be faced with two (and only two) courses of action, each of which is likely to have awkward results.

Disinterested

Disinterested
, according to the
OED
, means ‘unbiased by personal interest'. It is sometimes wrongly used for
uninterested
, i.e. ‘not interested'. A minister recently said that he hoped an earlier speech he had given in Parliament would excuse him ‘from the charge of being disinterested in this matter'. But people in such positions, dealing with public business, can never be ‘charged' with being disinterested, as if it were a crime. It is their elementary duty always to be so.

i.e. and e.g.

These are sometimes confused, especially by the wrong use of i.e. to introduce an example; i.e. (
id est
) means ‘that is' and introduces
a definition, as one might say ‘we are meeting on the second Tuesday of this month, i.e. the tenth'; e.g. (
exempli gratia
) means ‘for the sake of example' and introduces an illustration, as one might say ‘let us meet on a fixed day every month, e.g. the second Tuesday'.

Infer

It is a common error to use
infer
for
imply
: ‘I felt most bitter about this attitude … it inferred great ignorance and stupidity on the part of the enemy'. A writer or speaker
implies
what a reader or hearer
infers.
‘If you see a man staggering along the road you may infer that he is drunk, without saying a word;' explains Sir Alan Herbert, ‘but if you say “Had one too many?” you do not infer but imply that he is drunk.' There is authority for
infer
in the sense of
imply
, as there is for
comprise
in the sense of
compose
. But here again the distinction is worth preserving in the interests of the language.

Leading Question

This does not mean, as is widely supposed, a question designed to embarrass the person questioned. On the contrary, because it is asked in such a way as to suggest its own answer, it may be one that helps the person. ‘You never meant to damage the Department's reputation, did you?' is a leading question. ‘What did you do?' is not. In court, lawyers are barred from putting leading questions to those witnesses whom they themselves have called.