Words we hate

[rich]

Let us know if you learn something interesting. The information I have is mostly from memory. And memory, as everyone old enough to have one knows, is like "feelings" in that it ought to be checked for accuracy.

The ads may not have said they offered paint-by-numbers kits, even though that is what they were selling. But I think at least some of the ads did described the paint-by-numbers method explicitly.

[Chris Wienandt]

I didn't find anything in the OED, but the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang had this:

by the numbers Mil. as though according to standard procedures, esp. when such a procedure would be unnecessary or ludicrous; (hence) in a thoroughly blundering way.-- now often constr. with screw up and vars.

The first citation given is from 1918, in a book of World War I songs called Legion Airs: "Give me a kiss by the numbers, I want to do things in a military way."

Gotta love it.

[Tim Sager]

From the New Dictionary of American Slang.

By the numbers: adv phrase from WW I armed forces in a prescribed way; mechanically: He even makes love by the numbers. [from the military training device of analyzing a complex action by breaking it into a numbered series of simpler actions, performed as the numbers are called out.]

A good example would be disassembling and reassembling a weapon.

This conforms to the meaning as I've always seen and heard the phrase used.

As usual, context is everything. Making love by the numbers would be ludicrous. But a by-the-numbers boss is just someone who is exceptionally rigorous about following company policies.

[Grant Barrett]

Chris, were you looking only in the printed OED? There's a December 2007 draft revision in the online OED that includes "by the numbers" in the entry "number, n.," sense P9a. The "P" stands for "phrase."

P9. a. N. Amer. (orig. and chiefly Mil.). by the numbers [in humorous reference to the practice of military training (see quot. 1946)]: with military precision, mechanically, in a routine manner.

OED has the same first citation as HDAS though it cites it slightly differently.

[Chris Wienandt]

Yes, the printed version. I should have asked if we have a subscription to the online version.

I sure would have preferred doing a text search to reading all that tiny print.

[rich]

Well, thanks. I guess "painting by the numbers" would have had the same negative implication, then, even if there had been no kits. (Not that the artist-supply company that created the ad campaign would have noticed.)

[editer]

An ex-Army photog at a paper where I once worked said that the military had numbered procedures for everything, including going to the latrine:

1. Lower zipper
2. Extract member
3. Retract foreskin
4. Urinate
5. Replace foreskin
6. Replace member
7. Raise zipper

If you caught him in an idle moment and asked what he was doing, he'd say, "Just the 3 and the 5."

[rich]

I have six dictionaries and style books on my desk and others on nearby shelves, but I failed to find the phrase "by the numbers" in any them. It was not only because I failed to look for it.

The problem is the result of an ancient personal bias — although, my reference books continue to be strangely mute on the subject.

You see, my mother was a fine artist who taught me the most basic elements of the craft during my earliest years. She taught me to read and write, too, or course, but when I started assimilating what she showed me in drawing and coloring, I may have become excessively proud of meager accomplishment. When I learned that the parallel lines of a road or pathway always seemed to merge in the distance if projected into the center of a canvas, I was ecstatic. Such knowledge felt important and, later, I became arrogant enough to agree with those who mocked the learning process to which others, who lacked such mothers as mine, had to resort.

I mean, those people had to get their folks to buy them a kit and even to struggle with simple tasks that the mothers of the rest of us made seem intuitive. I enjoyed all the raillery directed at those who painted by the numbers. I laughed at every joke, whether I understood it or not.

As a result, the ads for paint-by-numbers kits seemed seminal. I felt that the person who had launched the art supply company’s campaign had to be the source of it all. And “it all” was something. It was real. It involved a notion that affected everybody. It was a concept that through application was capable of boring the most tenacious to tears. It was one of the less-secret weapons with which the military and other groups dedicated to uniformity (in an effort to achieve cohesion) bludgeoned recruits and veterans, and I felt good about knowing the secret of how it all had happened.

It was the art kit.

Alas, I now must face another reality.

I have learned that an insight I thought magnificent actually was a fraud.

Yet, indeed, as I now am coping with the years of life’s final resolutions, I am grateful to have this clarified. It makes me feel good that at least on this point, with your help and guidance, I finally outsmarted (at least once) my own passion for stupidity.

It is a great feeling.

Thank you.

[Jim Thomsen]

I feel like I'm at a bar with Cliff Clavin and his cousins.

[rich]

Skål, Jim. We're having fun. I think.

[rich]

The fun to which I refer, Jim, may not always derive directly from alcoholic content, although it may.

Perhaps, we owe the scholars of the King James era a debt for every guffaw. Perhaps, this whole By-the-numbers thing is their invention.

But maybe the practice preceded them, and we can hold them blameless.

I don’t pretend to know what I am talking about, but maybe we should review Deuteronomy 31:22 and leaven both its promise and the implied stricture with a tincture from Deuteronomy 32:33 or something.

But above all: Please don't take me seriously.

[Chris Wienandt]

Pardon me while I step out to the garage and get my wading boots. This is getting way too deep for me. (And here I'm tempted to use an emoticon for practically the first time ever. But no.)

[rich]

Pardon me while I step out to the garage and get my wading boots. This is getting way too deep for me. (And here I'm tempted to use an emoticon for practically the first time ever. But no.)

Golly Gee, Chris, you're the one who diverted the flow of the Alpheus and the Peneius rivers through these stables, aren't you? I'm surprised you aren't already wearing boots :)

[Chris Wienandt]

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. :wink:

[Jim Thomsen]

A longstanding irritant at my paper is the perpetual misuse of "sustained."

The 20-year-old sustained four 2-centimeters-deep stab wounds to his thigh, back, shoulder and arm, and was treated for his injuries at Harrison Medical Center, Bremerton Police detectives said.

There are many crimes in that "sentence." But let's prosecute one at a time.

[Peter Fisk]

Frankly, a longstanding irritant of mine is the myth that in standard American English sustain can't serve as a transitive verb meaning to experience or suffer. This widespread style "rule" is just another example of how copy editors as a group are unwittingly editing their own jobs out of existence by asserting blatantly false justifications for their continued retention on the payroll. The irony is that a mountain of genuinely essential copy-editing work goes undone while phony, counterproductive style rules are being enforced.

If that sounds harsh, I apologize, but I think it needs to be said.

[Jim Thomsen]

You're technically right, Peter. But it sounds ridiculous to me ... stiff, not conversational, even jargony (like "transported" instead of "taken" or "airlifted" instead of "flown").

This thread is about preferences, not rights or wrongs. That's how we got off the rails before. This is a harmless place to air the irrational prejudices we all have, with a wink and a nod and a tongue in a cheek.

[dfisher]

Peter, I think your response and Jim's reply show how these things get twisted.

Words and phrases get on the "hit list" for good reasons like Jim's (OK, sometimes for bad reasons, too) and then get twisted into bad reasons. But it's human nature. We like certainty, not ambiguity, and so we tend to create "rules." In the process, we tend to wring out all the nuances that got something on the list to begin with.

It's not the best thing, but we do it all the time just to get by. In the extreme it bring things like stereotyping. It's reinforced, I fear, by the "scientific" nature of the world we live in -- one in which we tend to teach children that there is one right or wrong answer (2+2 always equals 4 -- and you'd better know that for the standardized test) rather than about life's ambiguities.

(And the higher-ed system too often reinforces that, not just with students but with the advancement system for faculty. But that's one to discuss over a round in Denver ...)

So your words of caution are good, but I hope we can at least be understanding as to why these things happen.

I have my own list:
-- "declined to," which I've expounded on elsewhere on this board. We don't talk that way. Why do we write it?
-- Underway/under way: Why do we insist on the two-word construction when the dictionary AP uses has pretty well settled on one. (And why do we restrict the one word to only nautical uses; why can't it be used in any case where the adjective precedes the noun?)
--Stanch vs staunch: Look up "stanch" in Webster's NWC4,and it simply refers you to "staunch," where the first-listed definition is "to stop or check the flow ..." So why do we insist on maintaining this distinction?

and others ...

I'm sure everyone on here has his or her own. So let's keep this thread as light as we can?

[Jim Thomsen]

Sure, with the understanding that we're airing and sharing irritants rather than exiles ... and we're smiling and rolling our eyes as we do so. I apologize for starting this thread in a tone that was less than clear.

[rich]

I have my own list:
-- "declined to," which I've expounded on elsewhere on this board. We don't talk that way. Why do we write it?
-- Underway/under way: Why do we insist on the two-word construction when the dictionary AP uses has pretty well settled on one. (And why do we restrict the one word to only nautical uses; why can't it be used in any case where the adjective precedes the noun?)
--Stanch vs staunch: Look up "stanch" in Webster's NWC4,and it simply refers you to "staunch," where the first-listed definition is "to stop or check the flow ..." So why do we insist on maintaining this distinction?

But I decline to do things all the time, Doug, and I'm not even a politician. On another issue, do you suppose that those we call presumptive candidates after today will be graced with a less pretentious form of bloated personal confidence than they currently display? Right now, of course, most, if not all of those seeking great power seem merely presumptuous. And I guess, while that is something veteran reporters will ignore, well, in those rare cases in which it slides through, any half-decent editor can handle it. Staunch believer in the system that I am, I do not quake at the thought of a reporter calling any of the primary winners pretentious.

Gee, did the preceding paragraph contain more than one of those words we all hate?

[Jim Thomsen]

Surely, every newsroom has had the "nuance of attribution" conversation.

It's because too many reporters say "refused to comment" when they don't like the source or the source got angry. They say "declined to comment" when they like the source or the source was nice about saying no.

Saying "decline" introduces a subtle but still-clear reporter's bias.

If we're going to be biased, let's at least be honest and obvious about it: "When I asked again about Chappaquiddick, Sen. Kennedy told me to fuck off."

Barring that, just say "did" or "didn't."

[Powderhorn]

On the stanch/staunch tip: Why not then also accept "hearkens back"?

[rich]

Jim, Doug, all you fine people,

I think my complaint is with the notion that we can solve the problems that bedevil editors by making perfectly useful words, if not taboo, at least undesirable. And sometimes we do this by using personal taste as criteria for evaluating those words.

Sometimes this may seem to serve our immediate purposes, but it is possible that such taboos can confuse reporters and even some editors. Sometimes they even can confuse us old guys. I’m not 98, but I speak from experience.

In my opinion, reporters should be given free rein to use any word in the dictionary if they use it well. The criterion is that they use it well.

I have read what you write and believe you both are extremely prudent and that you always are careful in how you infer and establish the touchstones by which you judge reader capacity.

There are philosophical points on which we disagree, perhaps, for I do not believe our readers are the arbiters or final regulators of our usages or our style. I think that in America our responsibility is akin to do what is done for England by the UK press, which seems to regard itself as responsible for maintaining the standards of British English.

I, for one, would rather be part of the process that helps a written language to improve the acuity of the spoken one than to collaborate with the language of the street in a way that empowers vocal expression to dull the edge of the written one.

I am convinced that learning to write clearly and well involves a long and arduous process. I believe it is the result of an effort that is not easy. All the reporters and most of us, too, continue to be involved in that ordeal.

Here on this discussion board, we are like elephants between circus performances. We talk. We’d like to tear down trees. We trumpet and snort, often disputing minor issues as though they are important. We play with what gives us life and mock even the happiness our calling yields. We laugh. We crawl over each other, attempting neither to crush nor to be crushed. We know that when we return to our jobs of polishing work for publication, the performance will begin anew. You and I know that the audience will be unaware of how many times we slipped and slid. Viewers will not guess what we did to make the show work for them. And, back in the tent, we also know that reporters, whose expressions we carry into the ring, will be stars.

But that is my belief, my bias.

Another point: I must have fallen asleep when I wrote the last sentence of my last message, which said:

Staunch believer in the system that I am, I do not quake at the thought of a reporter calling any of the primary winners pretentious.

The final word should have been "presumptuous." I am sorry.

[Tim Sager]

Frankly, a longstanding irritant of mine is the myth that in standard American English sustain can't serve as a transitive verb meaning to experience or suffer. This widespread style "rule" is just another example of how copy editors as a group are unwittingly editing their own jobs out of existence by asserting blatantly false justifications for their continued retention on the payroll. The irony is that a mountain of genuinely essential copy-editing work goes undone while phony, counterproductive style rules are being enforced.

If that sounds harsh, I apologize, but I think it needs to be said.

As always, your post seems a bit understated to me, Mr. Fisk.

[Peter Fisk]

Thanks, Mr. Sager. A little heresy now and then is a good thing.

[dfisher]

Rich wrote: But I decline to do things all the time, Doug, and I'm not even a politician.

And, Rich, if you actually use that term in conversation, go for it. I find it unnecessarily affective and obsequious, but, as the ads say, your mileage may differ.

Most of language -- heck, most of editing -- involves personal taste that should be backed by solid reasoning. My point was simply that there are valid arguments for and against many of these things and that the discussion is elevated when we seek the reasoning behind the irritant and do not go off. (And elevated when we put forth the reasoning in the first instance and do not just make assertions.)

I believe, for instance, I backed up my "presumptive" with empirical info, such as it is. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you, but I think it advances the conversation.

Most of these things are matters of style -- the refuge of scoundrels :) -- and not absolutes. Style is, in essence, the personal taste of that organization, hopefully reached by discussion, consensus and research (but, unfortunately, not always).

In my opinion, reporters should be given free rein to use any word in the dictionary if they use it well. The criterion is that they use it well.

Couldn't agree with you more (having been a reporter for almost half of my career). Now, let's define "well." :twisted:

[dfisher]

On the stanch/staunch tip: Why not then also accept "hearkens back"?

I think that falls under what Kilpatrick calls harmless repetition. He uses "nape of the neck" as an example. If you said "He kissed her on the nape," would half of your readers look at you funny?

So it's a judgment call. Do we write "lags behind" or just "lags"? I think the verb is well-enough understood that "behind" is not needed (unless you have an adverb as part of the phrase -- lags well behind), but others think "behind" is useful. That's fine.

The staunch/stanch thing is a little different. That goes to the question of when usage has become such that the distinction becomes one without difference and therefore whether it should continue to be observed and carried in our style books (think of "host" as a verb as an example).

Doug

[Powderhorn]

On the stanch/staunch tip: Why not then also accept "hearkens back"?

I think that falls under what Kilpatrick calls harmless repetition. He uses "nape of the neck" as an example. If you said "He kissed her on the nape," would half of your readers look at you funny?

So it's a judgment call. Do we write "lags behind" or just "lags"? I think the verb is well-enough understood that "behind" is not needed (unless you have an adverb as part of the phrase -- lags well behind), but others think "behind" is useful. That's fine.

The staunch/stanch thing is a little different. That goes to the question of when usage has become such that the distinction becomes one without difference and therefore whether it should continue to be observed and carried in our style books (think of "host" as a verb as an example).

Doug

I was referring more directly to the fact that I have spent the past few years changing it to "harks back," the correct phrase. Sure, nobody (but some gritty English teachers) says that in conversation, but it's still the correct phrase. I don't know the last time I heard "stanch" with a short "a," so that's the similarity I was pointing to.

[dfisher]

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies.

The dictionary lists "hearken back" but as "usage objected to by some," so it's in play. It falls in that same area as stanch/staunch then -- when do we decide it's pointless to keep enforcing the difference?

If you can ever come up with a firm answer for that, patent it and retire :)

Garner says "hark back is now the preferred form," which is about as firm as you can get in this biz. (But that also indicates that "hearken" is not wrong -- just no longer preferred, which is interesting since your question seems to indicate a move the other way, from hark to hearken. "Correct" is a squishy term to use in these cases.)

Doug

[VanderViking]

I have been following the ongoing discussion with keen interest, but suddenly realize I have also gotten a severe headache from trying to trace the "Who said what" and "Who meant what" themes.
I am going to lie down for a few hours. If that doesn't help, I may take up drinking.