In the annals of prescriptive poppycock this gem shines out brightly...

Never have I seen such a collection of personal idiosyncrasies paraded out as "rules of grammar".

My favourite is the bizarre notion that if you use "forensic" in any sense not pertaining to a court of law you are simply wrong.

Other beauties include his takes on "purport", "transpire", "address" and "celibate" but the whole thing had me howling with laughter at just how some people think their personal ideas about words should bind the language for the rest of us.

The author seems to think that words don't change over the course of time and that the original usages should remain untrammeled.

It's a perfect demonstration of the "99.99% of people say this but I am right" school of language.

I'd be truly amazed if anyone, anywhere uses "celibate" to mean "resolutely unmarried" nowadays.

The peevologist in me approved of half of it; the other half showed me why I can't be a peevologist after all.

BTW, why did I get a whole lot of voyeuristic pseudo-news articles alongside the main article? I really don't give a rat's rectum WHAT Kim Kardassassin does.

Simon Heffer? I might have guessed. I'm sure the man has never read a modern dictionary. As already mentioned above, words continually change their meanings and usage over time.

I notice he's published in the Mail Online. They deserve each other. Incidentally, the 'celebrity' articles in the rest of the site give some idea of the seriousness which we should ascribe to the article, Geoff.

Surprisingly, "Unmarried, single; bound not to marry" is the only definition of the adjective celibate in the OED online and the latest citation is 1882.

Some of Heffer's peeves can be found elsewhere, some I've never seen before.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Simon Heffer? I might have guessed. I'm sure the man has never read a modern dictionary.

I accept this only if your definition of "modern" is "less than 100 years old".

It wouldn't matter anyway, he's so set in his thinking and sure he's right and other people are all wrong. If we were to point out a dictionary definition showing a word used in a way that he's peeving about he'd just say the dictionary is wrong. If the usage weren't shown he'd take it as proof he's right.

Piffle! The celibate entry in the OED has not been edited since the late 19th century. Perhaps Heffer can try to travel back to that time.

He gives an example of using area correctly, and another of using it incorrectly. I bet he'd really disagree with area rug.

Of course we've talked about decimate before. I suppose I could understand his point that it's wrong to say "the workforce was decimated by 20%." However, I, anyway, have never heard it used like that. I've only seen it more generally used as "the troops were decimated." To me, that's fine.

I was surprised not to see moot.

I've not heard "falling pregnant" used before. Is that a Britishism?

One of my first posts here was about akimbo , so it was nostalgic reading about that word again. You don't see it used much, though you might find it in a book. I've not seen it used with legs.

quote:

I've not heard "falling pregnant" used before. Is that a Britishism?

Yes, it's used over here, but I'd certainly take issue about 'An expression much used these days is ‘falling pregnant’. I must travel in very different circles as I've only rarely seen it.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
Piffle! The celibate entry in the OED has not been edited since the late 19th century. Perhaps Heffer can try to travel back to that time.

Of course it's piffle... balderdash too. The whole thing is. It just amused me that as well as all the common ranting nonsense he seems to have a whole selection that are peculiar to him. In the case of "celibate" it really is an example of "literally everybody else in the world is wrong, I am the only person who uses the word correctly". Same goes for many of his other notions.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:

quote:

I've not heard "falling pregnant" used before. Is that a Britishism?

Yes, it's used over here, but I'd certainly take issue about 'An expression much used these days is ‘falling pregnant’. I must travel in very different circles as I've only rarely seen it.

I agree. I think I've heard it but it's extremely rare.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
The peevologist in me approved of half of it; the other half showed me why I can't be a peevologist after all.

I'm with Geoff on this. I like a great many of his items as examples of 'precision' in writing, particularly where the word root is signaling loudly (e.g., dilemma). However it is ridiculous to insist on antiquated meanings when the word has been co-opted into a newer technology (e.g., access as a verb).

I'd be interested in your "precision" examples, Bethree and Geoff. If decimate is one of them, I don't buy it. However, literally, I agree, can be a pointless filler (even though I use it sometimes). Many, though, are merely evolving uses of the words, and I don't consider that "precision." For example, onto is a part of many (25 in all) reputable dictionaries in Onelook. Does that many they are imprecise - or wrong?

Does anyone actually think that clarity would ensue if I said (to anybody), "I am celibate", intending its older meaning?


I'll be willing to bet that if said it to a thousand people none of them would take to mean anything other than that I abstain from sex. To insist that it should be used to mean that I am determined not to marry is ridiculous. No one is going to take that meaning from the word so all I would do by intending that meaning is guarantee that I wasn't understood.

There are many other similar examples in the list.

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

Indeed. People say that a (Catholic) priest has 'broken his vows of celibacy' if he has had sex, not if he has got married. In fact if he were married, he'd have already left the priesthood.

To add to that, IIRC, the catholic church forbade priests from marrying to prevent their giving legitimate heirs legal claim to what would otherwise become church property. Like stock exchanges today, greed based. I don't think that particular edict said they couldn't fornicate.

While Arnie's opinion about the reason for celibacy seems a skeptic's version, here is the official version.

This article does mention that the ordination of married men in some of the Eastern Catholic rites is canonical, and also some ex-Anglican clergy have become Catholic clergy even thought they are married.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I'd be interested in your "precision" examples, Bethree and Geoff. If decimate is one of them, I don't buy it...

I agree on decimate, an antique military expression which has been adapted to other contexts. And I can find little 'wrong' with usages the author eschews. But I do think a text that uses, for example-- 'you have a choice'/ 'you have three options'-- strikes my ear as very precise. It's a difference in mode of expression.

quote:

This article does mention that the ordination of married men in some of the Eastern Catholic rites is canonical, and also some ex-Anglican clergy have become Catholic clergy even thought they are married.

There has been controversy as to whether celibacy is the reason for the increase in pedophilia among priests. However, there are priests who do not engage in the practice and these reports are highly upsetting to both of them.

quote:

But I do think a text that uses, for example-- 'you have a choice'/ 'you have three options'-- strikes my ear as very precise. It's a difference in mode of expression.

As long as we've been here (12 years this summer?), I don't think I've heard the distinction between choice and options before. When I look choice up in the online Oxford Dictionary, it gives this as the second definition: "A range of possibilities from which one or more may be selected." [Emphasis mine] Doesn't that support having more than one choice?

The idea that choice has only one meaning, and that meaning is "a range of options", is completely made up. I don't see how we lose precision by giving a word the meanings that it is generally understood to have.

So, basically his list breaks down into categories.

1. The usual inaccurate pedantries about words such as "decimate" which have been debunked so often that you'd think they'd get tired of repeating them.

2. A set of novel pedantries which appear to be wholly his own ideas such as the idea that there is something wrong with "the price halved" because (he believes) "halve" must be transitive. (He doesn't express it in those words.)

3. Objections to completely common usages (in some cases universal* usages) on the grounds that the words once meant something different. "Celibate" is a fine example.

4. Most bizarrely of all, objections to extremely uncommon usages on the grounds that, for some reason, he believes them to be much more common than they are AND then objects to this perceived common usage as "wrong".

(*I suppose he would object to "universal" on the grounds that it would have to apply to the whole universe, and suggest that I use "global" instead.)

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
The idea that choice has only one meaning, and that meaning is "a range of options", is completely made up. I don't see how we lose precision by giving a word the meanings that it is generally understood to have.

Reading his objection carefully it seems that his idea of the meaning of "choice" is the selected item from a group. So, if you have six things to choose from they are "options" and the one that you pick is your "choice".

Yes, Bob, that's how I read it too. That appears to place it in category 2. of your list above: 'novel pedantries'; I haven't heard of anyone else suggest this distinction.