You might have to register to read this article because I couldn't find it online, but the Tribune registration is free.

Michael Erard of the Chicago Tribune reviewed William Safire's dictionary of political words, and the review was none too positive. However, I thought he had some interesting things to say about words and language.

One word he talks about is "fluff," saying that it has evolved far from its Latin roots. He says, "Now you've glimpsed what a word is: a grafting of the arbitary onto the utterly conventional."

He says that words are as "interesting as nails" in that he people's relationships to words are more important than words alone. For example, he prefers a phrase book to dictionaries because the former gives the reader a slice of life, rather than a simple definition of the word. In fact, he calls dictionaries "boxes of nails."

As for Safire's political dictionary, he says it's full of nouns, whereas politics is "verby." "It's full of actors and audiences, people doing, resisting, manipulating, leading, apologizing, dealing, sneaking around." Yet, in Safire's book he doesn't list a verb until page 40.

I hadn't read Safire's book before, so I looked at it in the book store today. The one word (albeit a noun) that I chose to look up when I picked up the book (published in 2008) was "Blue State." Believe it or not, it wasn't there. I was surprised and had to agree with Erard that it wasn't as comprehensive as it could be. In fact, Erard said it wasn't really a dictionary (not comprehensive) or a phrase book...instead it is a "postmodern political novel, arranged in a nonlinear fashion." That I thought a little unfair. Novel?

Has anyone read the book?

as with most (big?) newspapers, such as the NY Times and Washington Post, current articles are usually freely available, without registration, for a few(?) days; so read quickly.

The article is online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printe...ar29,0,2650332.story

I find words by themselves very interesting, but I see his point. It's a good article. The Latin source of "fluff" isn't as certain as he seems to think.

I love this description of Safire: "He's billed as a language maven. He should really be called a vocabulary shaman."

I've always really liked Safire, but now I'm hearing from people whom I respect that he's not so good. I suppose he can be a bit arrogant with his use of words. Still, I don't mind that, though I know others probably do.

I've enjoyed reading Safire for a couple of decades. It's just that more often than not, he's wrong about things, doesn't seem to have an assistant to check facts for him, and has a large readership who believes he knows what he's writing about.

[Fixed typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

I am holding in my hand right now (or was, anyway, before I started typing) Safire's Political Dictionary, one of about a dozen dictionaries I keep close at hand for when I'm working with The OEDILF. I've been a Safire fan for quite a while (word-wise, I mean, but definitely not politically) and realize that he has his detractors but, then again, don't we all.

I'm assuming that my copy of this book and the one recently reviewed are not the same, however, seeing as how mine is copyrighted 1968, 1972, and 1978. Might this "new" book be just a new edition? Or could it be a whole new book? In either case, I recommend it. The guy might have written speeches for Nixon, but he knows his way around a properly structured English sentence.

I have not seen Safire's dictionary. I have read other of his books and his column in the New York Times Magazine on occasion. I had left out Safire's politics, though they may be relevant to a complete review of his dictionary. (Just as I left out Kilpatrick's more political writings in the other thread.) He does have an elegant and engaging style, and he rarely makes grammatical mistakes.

[Added dropped conjunction.]

What he does do is not check his facts, more often relying on his personal hunches of what the historical and lexicographical facts ought to be. This seems to be Mr Kilpatrick's problem, too, as it seems to be a curious characteristic of most usage mavens when they wander away from usage and punctuation and storm the citadel of grammar and the history and sociology of language. This only seems to bother linguists, lexicographers, and some few others.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

Might this "new" book be just a new edition? Or could it be a whole new book?

"Safire's New Political Dictionary."

Apparently an update of the earlier 1960-70 dictionary, copyright 1993. Even though it is more current, the terms "Blue state" and "Red state" are not included. I can't recall this reference being used much before the Bush era when it was used then on TV to differentiate won/lost states graphically. However, it may pre-date that time since my memory gets a little hazy anywhere past yesterday.

While I agree Safire is error-prone, he at least acknowledges his lapses in his book collections, often citing reader comments clueing him in to his deficiencies. My wife does much the same to me.

Additional info: This was a completely revised version of the first dictionary and may now be out-of-print, although Amazon points to used versions for sale.

According to other sources, I was right on the date when "Blue-Red states" was first used. Tim Russert inaugurated the usage during the first Bush election coverage.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

quote:

This only seems to bother linguists, lexicographers, and some few others.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. I assume you don't mean that only linguists, lexicographers and some few others check their facts when they write.

Proofreader, I will really miss the objectivity and shrewdness of Tim Russert.

I assume you don't mean that only linguists, lexicographers and some few others check their facts when they write.

No. What I meant was that when grammar mavens make unsubstantiated or incorrect observations about grammar and usage, it doesn't seem to bother their like-minded readership.

Regarding blue states and red states, I don't believe the term really took hold until the wake of the 2000 election, when its usefulness became palpable. For one thing, the networks used to alternate the colors between the parties (remember David Brinkley's "it's beginning to look like a suburban swimming pool" on Election Night '80).

Here is a Final Jeopardy clue from a season or two ago: COLORS-- "Political battleground states are usually called this secondary color"

Am I crazy or were the terms "red" and "blue" states used a lot less frequently in this election?

Nice to see you here again, Granny!