Learning language is often like a huge game of telephone. We hear someone else put something in a certain way, and we say it that way too, passing on the usage to others and reinforcing it. When it works right this process teaches us about usage and builds living language. But sometimes it goes off the rails. We don't generally stop and check an authoritative source to see whether the usage is correct. In print, that's what editors are for.
A misusage becoming increasingly common in street speech and creeping into print is the substitution of "reticent" for "reluctant," seen in the Courier here and here in the last week.
"Reticent" means "inclined to silence" or "uncommunicative in speech." Try plugging that meaning into this phrase: "Solop is reticent to narrow the potential field of winners." This construction is common, but it's nonsense. (Red flag: "Reticent to" is always wrong.)
Watch out for situations where two words sound similar and have related meanings. In this case "reticent" can be taken to mean "reluctant to speak," and away you go.
For readers of the Daily Courier in Prescott, Arizona. Comment and discuss. Be nice, now.
Muggs archive
▼
Sunday, August 29, 2010
2 comments:
I encourage you to share your own views and experience with me and other readers. How you do that matters, and I'm committed to maintaining a place where readers and commenters can feel safe from adolescent BS. So here's the deal:
There are two kinds of anonymous comments: those by people who have a genuine fear of revenge from the dark side, and those from darksiders just hiding to avoid accountability. You may post comments anonymously, but I reserve the right to treat anonymous comments as found items that belong to me and do with them as I see fit.
If, on the other hand, you're willing to stand by your convictions and post under your own name or a regular handle, your comments belong to you, and I'll edit them only on egregious violations of respect for others.
If this doesn't work for you, I'm sure you'll be happier somewhere else.
Alas for code shifts... M-W 10th gives "reluctant" as a synonym for reticent, in the third-place definition.
ReplyDeleteM-W, we also know, prides itself on reflecting the spoken language, rather than trying to bind it to hoary standards. Sometimes this blows up in their corporate face. M-W online gave three pronunciations (with audio!) for "nuclear":
Nu-cle-ar
Nyu-cle-ar
and (you KNEW it!)
Nu-kyu-lar.
This state of affairs obtained (now, there's a word that's lurched off its foundation) for a month or two after I first noticed it. Then I went to show it to a friend, and they'd taken down the georgebushian pronounciamentation.
Probably because of the outraged howls of the phonics crowd, no?
It's also the editor's job to understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries.
ReplyDeleteAs for that particular Bushism, I blame Jimmy Carter. He's never been able to get "nuclear" right, and even commanded a nuclear-powered submarine. It's an example of how a mistake by an authoritative figure (or publication) can become authoritative usage. Everything we put into print matters because someone is learning the language from it.