Connections: The Copy Curmudgeon

Although we all know that language is constantly changing, that the English we use today is quite different from what it was in Shakespeare’s time, I can’t help wondering where certain words and phrases come from and how they become ubiquitous. Like others who write or edit, I keep my eyes and ears open, and I am not always happy about what I read or hear.

I blamed President Bill Clinton for starting a stampede in the use of the word “grow” in connection with the economy. Metaphors can be swell, even enlightening, but where I came from you could only grow a living thing. Grow soon became common with regard to inanimate objects or processes; the English-speaking world at large didn’t mind, even if I did.  

More recently I have to admit to being bothered by the thousands of times I hear that something is “gaining traction” or has “transparency.” Traditionally, both words refer to things that are physical, even scientific. “The car’s tires failed to gain traction,” for example. The first people to use that phrase in connection with an idea or activity were imaginative, using language well, but  “traction” has become repetitive and thoughtless, almost a verbal tic.    

As for “transparency,” the word has moved decisively into the metaphorical sphere. Defined as the transmission of light through physical matter, the word now is used all the time in referring to whether information or policies, particularly those of government agencies, are available to the public and to what degree. 

I am not an expert, but I pay attention. I have come across what seems to be an increasingly topsy-turvy use of the words “a” and “the.” As far as I know, referring to something that is not known to the listener or reader it is correct to use the word “a.” When the audience has prior knowledge of what is being referred to, the word “the” is in order. Simple enough, one would think.

But whether something is known and familiar is often a matter of judgment. If you believe the readers of The Star, for example, are aware of the plan to build a seawall in Montauk, you might write or say, “The Army Corps of Engineers plan to build a seawall was challenged in court.” If, however, you do not think our readers can be counted upon to know about the plan, the sentence would be, “An Army Corps of Engineers plan to build . . .

That decisions about grammar and punctuation are often subjective was explored in an article in the Feb. 23 and March 2 edition of The New Yorker by Mary Norris, a copy editor there. She takes on the correct use of “that” and “which” and stands up for The New Yorker’s using the serial comma. (The Star uses the serial comma, too, veering away from New York Times style, which we otherwise follow.) The serial comma is the one before the word “and” unless the last items in the series go together, like bread and butter.

Falling into a trap I have set for myself, I have to say Ms. Norris is “spot on” (cliché alert!) as well as funny. The heart of the piece is an explication of The New Yorker’s use of commas. If you can’t imagine how discussing the use of commas can be funny, you won’t want to bother with what she has to say. If you can, however, I recommend the article and hope Ms. Norris offers an encore soon. I want to know what she thinks about “a” and “the.”