I am driven half mad by the overuse of the word "that". I would say, "the boy WHO ran away", but it's increasingly being replaced by, "the boy THAT ran away." Also, "the building WHICH burned down" is becoming "the building THAT burned down. Worst are sentences which read something like, "I noticed THAT THAT dog THAT bit THAT postman was not THAT brown one." Perhaps we can find a way to limit our vocabularies to ten words or less...or perhaps just grunts.
Hello, Mr. Fallows! Regarding the vaporization of the past participle: A certain example that's driven me nuts for years now is people saying and writing "I have ran." I delve into that in this article...
... which also, along the way, spotlights another (and even worse) grammatical trend I've noticed —people making "I" possessive, e.g. "My wife and I's friend."
I would eagerly read Deb's quarterly grammar update. The first topic I suggest: when did aircrafts become an acceptable plural form of aircraft?! I hear it all the time now and I think it's just wrong. Should we all say deers now?
Shtreet? Really? It sounds so...dumb. Sounds like someone's dentures need more Polygrip.
Another NPR peccadillo that is getting on my nerves is the use of "absolutely" in place of "yes" or "I agree." I have no idea where this trend came from. Or from whence it came. Whatever.
And what about "revert" when people actually mean to reply with revisions. Revert means to go back to what something was before, not to make changes. But I encounter lawyers saying I will revert tomorrow, when they mean they will send me changes to a document tomorrow. This one apparently comes from Indian English, used by the minions of the subcontinent to which Big Law has offshored their less complicated work. It seems that the associates in Big Law have picked up this usage from their Indian counterparts, and it has spread among us lesser lawyers looking to appear as sophisticated as the big boys. So annoying.
Yup, the "shtreet" sound rubs me the wrong way, as it does you. But ... it's happening. Just listen the next time you turn on a TV or radio show.
Agree about "absolutely," but I have put that in the "kids these days" category. (Much like "no problem" in place of "you're welcome" — though that could have a weird lineal connection to "no worries!" in Oz.)
I had not come across that use of "revert." I will resist it if I do!
I have another theory for the acceptance and use of shtreet. It first started showing up in black urban culture and hip hop, which is incredibly influential in American culture as has hip urban slang been for over a hundred years. You won’t find anyone over 40 talking like that, but the
“Yute“ figure if their culture heroes are talking like that, it must be the way to talk. Whaddya think, Deb?
I'd just finished commenting to a friend that my first introduction to that pronunciation was an African American sociology prof in the m-d-70s; on that robust data set of one, I agree.
Here is a robust data set of two, which in fact drew my attention more than a dozen years ago.
Here is a clip of Barack Obama giving a speech to young African leaders. At the end he says that "If you're a strong man, you should not feel threatened by a strong woman." It comes at the very end of this clip, around time 7:15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY0jH6dk-ew Notice how he says "strong."
Here is a clip of Michelle Obama talking about personal strength. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzrvKna8E70 Right around time 2:10 she says that she had the good fortune to be "raised by a loving mother, with strong focus..." Notice how she says "strong."
One Obama was raised in Hawaii; the other, in Chicago. I mention this both because I noticed it long ago, and because I think that with her prominence, influence, eminence, and so on Michelle Obama has been the highest-end exemplar of what may have originally been a regional / cultural / racial speech pattern that is becoming mainstream.
Again, Deb has a theory on why there's a kind of Darwinian language selection going on too. (To oversimplify: it's *easier,* just in terms of making the sounds and moving your tongue, to say "sht—" rather than "st—.)
Also, DIRECT FROM DEB SITTING HERE IN THE LIVING ROOM, after listening to the two Obama clips.
"These kinds of changes really speed up and take hold when there are strong models and influencers. It can be politicians, it can be media figures, it can be stars or entertainers. And really powerful language-spreaders are teenaged girls."
Re the Obamas, doesn't Barack have some sort of phonological disorder? The "s" sound creeps into a lot of his speech. As for Michele, I had always assumed it was an affectation on her part.
Along with the vaporization of the past participle, we also have the vaporization of the irregular past tense. We used to say that “the moon shone brightly” and “the defendant pled guilty.” Now the press almost universally says “the moon shined brightly” and the defendant pleaded guilty.” It’s like spelling “freight” as “frate”. This is actually the opposite of germanification — the Germans love their irregular verbs. They call them “strong” verbs, and list them in a special appendix at the back of German dictionaries (so you won’t mistakenly use a regular form for the past tense of an irregular verb).
Didn't know the "strong" verb appellation. (All I know about the German language is ... .not very much.) Very useful.
And agree about the planing-away of many of the irregularities. Deb points out that it's no coincidence that most of today's remaining irregular verbs (in English) are very commonly used words. Is/Was/Been, See/Saw/Seen, Eat/Ate/Eaten etc. The frequency of their use allows them to persist with their (inconveniently) irregular forms. Or so I am told.
Jack Regarding grammar there is a phrase attributed falsely to Churchill “Up with this I shall not put.” That was in the days that splitting an infinitive was a cardinal sin.
I don’t know what split infinitives have to do with irregular verbs, except that each is really a matter of taste. On split infinitives, I support H. W. Fowler’s view, which is that, while one should ordinarily avoid split infinitives, one should accept them when appropriate to avoid ambiguity or to avoid “patent artificiality” (see “Churchill”).
Jack, agree. Usually when I'm heading toward a split infinitive, I'll think about whether there is some way to write-around the problem. But sometimes it's just the right way to go.
Languages always change over time although the immediate driving forces of change are not always obvious (historical linguistics is a fascinating subject in general). In any event, language change is going to happen and no academy of language will stop it. Even if I don’t like particular changes in pronunciation and usage I think the very fact that there is constant change reflects larger societal dynamics and that’s a general indicator of social change.
In response to both of these: Deb and I have had a long-running in-house discourse on just this front.
—One of my roles, as writer and editor, has been to understand and enforce the way language "should be" at any given time. For instance, the given time in which the writing is published.
—One of her roles, as linguist with training in historical linguistics, has be to remind me that language is always changing. Things that sound "wrong" or "ignorant" at Time X, are "standard usage" 50 years later. Or sooner.
Interestingly, these days Deb is more likely to say "That drives me crazy!" when hearing something like "SHTREET," and I'm more likely to say, "Kids these days ...."
But I am still a stickler when writing "in public." Sort of.
When I lived in France, at age 12, in 1965-'66, as I learned French, it dawned on me that "different than" in English, was incorrect, because the French equivalent was incorrect, and that "different from" was correct, because that's the literal translation of the French version.
In the '90s, I wrote up this guide to the proper English usage, which unfortunately didn't catch on, but I had a lot of fun with it:
The grammatically incorrect "different than" is invading
American usage.
In correct usage, "than" is used to distinguish quantitative
differences as in "more than" or "less than," while "from"
is used to distinguish qualitative differences, as in
"different from." Here, then, is a primer.
Examples of qualitative differences
The game, checkers, is different from the dog, Checkers.
Checkers the dog is different from Chubby Checker.
Chubby and Checkers are both different from Checker cabs
Dan Quayle is different from Chubby, Checkers, and Checker cabs.
(Sorry! Danfans.)
Examples of Quantitative differences
Dan Quayle is lesser than JFK. (Thanks! Alert Observer Lloyd
Bentsen of Texas.)
The Washington Post is more interesting than the New Jersey
Turnpike. "Wrong! The Washington Post is less interesting
than The New Jersey Turnpike." ‑‑ John McLaughlin
Chubby Checker can go lower than Al Gore.
Things get tricky when qualitative differences pertain to
the verb or direct object, instead of the subject.
Not: Saddam Hussein governs differently than Bill Clinton,
but, Saddam Hussein governs differently from the way Bill
Clinton does.
Not: "George Bush thinks differently than Millie,"
But "George Bush thinks differently from the way Millie
thinks. (Actually, Bush and Millie have very similar
thinking styles.)
Not: Pablo Escobar had a different occupation than Pablo
Picasso.
Instead: Pablo Escobar had a different occupation from that
of Pablo Picasso; or: ...had an occupation that was
different from Pablo Picasso's.
PS James: In France, at the Lycee de Sevres, I had a classmate named David Mayberry from a family of five kids, I think, who came from Redlands. David was charming and funny--one of these people where everything was more fun when he was around. Did you happen to know that family, or was Redlands a big place even back then?
By and large, I believe language evolves by example. As a writer, it's your job to set a good example. But often, charismatic writers (or speakers) impress with innovative language.
Manchin should be ‘framed,’ boxed, and sent back to West Virginia to his coal-financed mansion.
It’s difficult to remember that once a Rockefeller was governor of WA. Manchin was a successful Democratic governor in a red state and then was a bicolor senator.
I once admired his political savvy and his personal character, but not recently. At 76 he should return to WV and not pursue an ego-inspired initiative to be a presidential wannabe. Better to retire as a fair weather friend than as a foolish old man.
Respect and esteem for Jay Rockefeller (now age 86) should only increase with the ongoing years. As you know, he was rebuffed in his first run for office in West Virginia. I mean: A ROCKFELLER, in West Virginia. But of course he came back to be a popular two-term Democratic governor and then a FIVE-TERM Democratic senator.
Manchin's reputation will head in the opposite direction, I believe, from a much lower starting point.
Jim Your flying exploits are fascinating. Sorry you lost your flight jacket in China. I recall George H. W. Bush, when he was ex-president and chairman of Eisenhower Fellows. For the first two years he showed up in a naval flight jacket to meet the Fellows. (He was the youngest naval pilot at 19, in WW II and had a distinguished combat record.) Eventually, he switched to a suit.
I recall, in WW II, meeting the AF officer responsible for air surveillance in the Philadelphia area. It was inspiring to watch all those volunteers climb up watch towers and other large buildings to watch for German air craft. There were a number of emergency alerts, but nary a German bomber was actually sighted.
I understand that, shortly before the end of WW II, the Germans actually sent a stripped down plane towards the US. It came within sight of the US coast, turned around, and managed to make it back to Germany.
Hail the volunteer plane watchers. One might say they were successful, because not a single Nazi plane got to the US coast. (I recall in Marthas Vineyard, that a plane watcher was blown off a water tower watch station by a strong leak. I don’t know if this qualified him for a Purple Heart.)
Keith, thank you. I really appreciate it — and am always grateful for your complementary recollections.
I had *not* known about those volunteer plane watchers. My parents were both from the Philly suburbs, but inland — Jenkintown, Glenside, etc — and thus further away from coastal spotting duties. My mother was a young teenager during the war, and after finishing high school in 1943 my dad was off, further away from the coast, to begin Navy V-12 medical training.
Just a way of saying there were lots of stories I heard about that era, but not the flight-spotting ones. Good to know!
I am driven half mad by the overuse of the word "that". I would say, "the boy WHO ran away", but it's increasingly being replaced by, "the boy THAT ran away." Also, "the building WHICH burned down" is becoming "the building THAT burned down. Worst are sentences which read something like, "I noticed THAT THAT dog THAT bit THAT postman was not THAT brown one." Perhaps we can find a way to limit our vocabularies to ten words or less...or perhaps just grunts.
To call the sht pronounciation German is not quite right. It's South German. Someone from Hannover will pronounce st, someone from Hamburg ssst.
But we all agree that Schule (school) is pronounced shule. Did English borrow the sk pronounciation of sch from Dutch?
Hello, Mr. Fallows! Regarding the vaporization of the past participle: A certain example that's driven me nuts for years now is people saying and writing "I have ran." I delve into that in this article...
https://dumbrunner.com/news-blog/2023/9/25/ask-dr-dumb-why-do-some-people-say-i-have-ran
... which also, along the way, spotlights another (and even worse) grammatical trend I've noticed —people making "I" possessive, e.g. "My wife and I's friend."
Oy!
Mark! Great to hear from you. Yes, I have encountered "I have ran" as well.
To other readers, I recommend the piece by the eminent Mark Remy that he cites above: https://dumbrunner.com/news-blog/2023/9/25/ask-dr-dumb-why-do-some-people-say-i-have-ran — and this predecessor: https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a20783810/stop-saying-i-have-ran/
You will see that he is in the "prescriptive" camp when it comes to language change, aka the US branch of the Academie Francaise.
You are too kind, sir.
And I would describe myself less as "prescriptive" and more as, "Yes, language evolves, but COME ON, MAN."
I would eagerly read Deb's quarterly grammar update. The first topic I suggest: when did aircrafts become an acceptable plural form of aircraft?! I hear it all the time now and I think it's just wrong. Should we all say deers now?
Please, get out of my hairs.
John, great idea. I will see if I can enlist her for "Deb's Grammar Corner."
My theory is that, like unto "Oprah," "Deb" is on her way to becoming a brand recognized by first name.
Shtreet? Really? It sounds so...dumb. Sounds like someone's dentures need more Polygrip.
Another NPR peccadillo that is getting on my nerves is the use of "absolutely" in place of "yes" or "I agree." I have no idea where this trend came from. Or from whence it came. Whatever.
And what about "revert" when people actually mean to reply with revisions. Revert means to go back to what something was before, not to make changes. But I encounter lawyers saying I will revert tomorrow, when they mean they will send me changes to a document tomorrow. This one apparently comes from Indian English, used by the minions of the subcontinent to which Big Law has offshored their less complicated work. It seems that the associates in Big Law have picked up this usage from their Indian counterparts, and it has spread among us lesser lawyers looking to appear as sophisticated as the big boys. So annoying.
Yup, the "shtreet" sound rubs me the wrong way, as it does you. But ... it's happening. Just listen the next time you turn on a TV or radio show.
Agree about "absolutely," but I have put that in the "kids these days" category. (Much like "no problem" in place of "you're welcome" — though that could have a weird lineal connection to "no worries!" in Oz.)
I had not come across that use of "revert." I will resist it if I do!
As always, thanks for the sanity.
I have another theory for the acceptance and use of shtreet. It first started showing up in black urban culture and hip hop, which is incredibly influential in American culture as has hip urban slang been for over a hundred years. You won’t find anyone over 40 talking like that, but the
“Yute“ figure if their culture heroes are talking like that, it must be the way to talk. Whaddya think, Deb?
I'd just finished commenting to a friend that my first introduction to that pronunciation was an African American sociology prof in the m-d-70s; on that robust data set of one, I agree.
Here is a robust data set of two, which in fact drew my attention more than a dozen years ago.
Here is a clip of Barack Obama giving a speech to young African leaders. At the end he says that "If you're a strong man, you should not feel threatened by a strong woman." It comes at the very end of this clip, around time 7:15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY0jH6dk-ew Notice how he says "strong."
Here is a clip of Michelle Obama talking about personal strength. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzrvKna8E70 Right around time 2:10 she says that she had the good fortune to be "raised by a loving mother, with strong focus..." Notice how she says "strong."
One Obama was raised in Hawaii; the other, in Chicago. I mention this both because I noticed it long ago, and because I think that with her prominence, influence, eminence, and so on Michelle Obama has been the highest-end exemplar of what may have originally been a regional / cultural / racial speech pattern that is becoming mainstream.
Again, Deb has a theory on why there's a kind of Darwinian language selection going on too. (To oversimplify: it's *easier,* just in terms of making the sounds and moving your tongue, to say "sht—" rather than "st—.)
Also, DIRECT FROM DEB SITTING HERE IN THE LIVING ROOM, after listening to the two Obama clips.
"These kinds of changes really speed up and take hold when there are strong models and influencers. It can be politicians, it can be media figures, it can be stars or entertainers. And really powerful language-spreaders are teenaged girls."
Re the Obamas, doesn't Barack have some sort of phonological disorder? The "s" sound creeps into a lot of his speech. As for Michele, I had always assumed it was an affectation on her part.
Phil — Thanks. Makes sense to be, but I will take it up with Higher Authority here in the household.
Along with the vaporization of the past participle, we also have the vaporization of the irregular past tense. We used to say that “the moon shone brightly” and “the defendant pled guilty.” Now the press almost universally says “the moon shined brightly” and the defendant pleaded guilty.” It’s like spelling “freight” as “frate”. This is actually the opposite of germanification — the Germans love their irregular verbs. They call them “strong” verbs, and list them in a special appendix at the back of German dictionaries (so you won’t mistakenly use a regular form for the past tense of an irregular verb).
Didn't know the "strong" verb appellation. (All I know about the German language is ... .not very much.) Very useful.
And agree about the planing-away of many of the irregularities. Deb points out that it's no coincidence that most of today's remaining irregular verbs (in English) are very commonly used words. Is/Was/Been, See/Saw/Seen, Eat/Ate/Eaten etc. The frequency of their use allows them to persist with their (inconveniently) irregular forms. Or so I am told.
Jack Regarding grammar there is a phrase attributed falsely to Churchill “Up with this I shall not put.” That was in the days that splitting an infinitive was a cardinal sin.
I don’t know what split infinitives have to do with irregular verbs, except that each is really a matter of taste. On split infinitives, I support H. W. Fowler’s view, which is that, while one should ordinarily avoid split infinitives, one should accept them when appropriate to avoid ambiguity or to avoid “patent artificiality” (see “Churchill”).
Jack, agree. Usually when I'm heading toward a split infinitive, I'll think about whether there is some way to write-around the problem. But sometimes it's just the right way to go.
Jack It’s a please to greatly appreciate your grammatical lessons.
Hey Jim --
And I'm old enough to remember Dizzy Dean using "slud" as the past particple of slide! Some of it's annoying ... other just amusing.
I love it! I will confess that I hadn't heard "slud." But it works. Maybe an extension of "thunk," as in think/thought/thunk.
That IS amusing! The snail slud down the sidewalk.
Sheesh! We need an American Academy, like l'academie francaise, to put a stop to all this nonsense.
Languages always change over time although the immediate driving forces of change are not always obvious (historical linguistics is a fascinating subject in general). In any event, language change is going to happen and no academy of language will stop it. Even if I don’t like particular changes in pronunciation and usage I think the very fact that there is constant change reflects larger societal dynamics and that’s a general indicator of social change.
In response to both of these: Deb and I have had a long-running in-house discourse on just this front.
—One of my roles, as writer and editor, has been to understand and enforce the way language "should be" at any given time. For instance, the given time in which the writing is published.
—One of her roles, as linguist with training in historical linguistics, has be to remind me that language is always changing. Things that sound "wrong" or "ignorant" at Time X, are "standard usage" 50 years later. Or sooner.
Interestingly, these days Deb is more likely to say "That drives me crazy!" when hearing something like "SHTREET," and I'm more likely to say, "Kids these days ...."
But I am still a stickler when writing "in public." Sort of.
That's wonderful, Jim!
When I lived in France, at age 12, in 1965-'66, as I learned French, it dawned on me that "different than" in English, was incorrect, because the French equivalent was incorrect, and that "different from" was correct, because that's the literal translation of the French version.
In the '90s, I wrote up this guide to the proper English usage, which unfortunately didn't catch on, but I had a lot of fun with it:
The grammatically incorrect "different than" is invading
American usage.
In correct usage, "than" is used to distinguish quantitative
differences as in "more than" or "less than," while "from"
is used to distinguish qualitative differences, as in
"different from." Here, then, is a primer.
Examples of qualitative differences
The game, checkers, is different from the dog, Checkers.
Checkers the dog is different from Chubby Checker.
Chubby and Checkers are both different from Checker cabs
Dan Quayle is different from Chubby, Checkers, and Checker cabs.
(Sorry! Danfans.)
Examples of Quantitative differences
Dan Quayle is lesser than JFK. (Thanks! Alert Observer Lloyd
Bentsen of Texas.)
The Washington Post is more interesting than the New Jersey
Turnpike. "Wrong! The Washington Post is less interesting
than The New Jersey Turnpike." ‑‑ John McLaughlin
Chubby Checker can go lower than Al Gore.
Things get tricky when qualitative differences pertain to
the verb or direct object, instead of the subject.
Not: Saddam Hussein governs differently than Bill Clinton,
but, Saddam Hussein governs differently from the way Bill
Clinton does.
Not: "George Bush thinks differently than Millie,"
But "George Bush thinks differently from the way Millie
thinks. (Actually, Bush and Millie have very similar
thinking styles.)
Not: Pablo Escobar had a different occupation than Pablo
Picasso.
Instead: Pablo Escobar had a different occupation from that
of Pablo Picasso; or: ...had an occupation that was
different from Pablo Picasso's.
PS James: In France, at the Lycee de Sevres, I had a classmate named David Mayberry from a family of five kids, I think, who came from Redlands. David was charming and funny--one of these people where everything was more fun when he was around. Did you happen to know that family, or was Redlands a big place even back then?
By and large, I believe language evolves by example. As a writer, it's your job to set a good example. But often, charismatic writers (or speakers) impress with innovative language.
And so it goes.
Manchin should be ‘framed,’ boxed, and sent back to West Virginia to his coal-financed mansion.
It’s difficult to remember that once a Rockefeller was governor of WA. Manchin was a successful Democratic governor in a red state and then was a bicolor senator.
I once admired his political savvy and his personal character, but not recently. At 76 he should return to WV and not pursue an ego-inspired initiative to be a presidential wannabe. Better to retire as a fair weather friend than as a foolish old man.
Respect and esteem for Jay Rockefeller (now age 86) should only increase with the ongoing years. As you know, he was rebuffed in his first run for office in West Virginia. I mean: A ROCKFELLER, in West Virginia. But of course he came back to be a popular two-term Democratic governor and then a FIVE-TERM Democratic senator.
Manchin's reputation will head in the opposite direction, I believe, from a much lower starting point.
Jim Your flying exploits are fascinating. Sorry you lost your flight jacket in China. I recall George H. W. Bush, when he was ex-president and chairman of Eisenhower Fellows. For the first two years he showed up in a naval flight jacket to meet the Fellows. (He was the youngest naval pilot at 19, in WW II and had a distinguished combat record.) Eventually, he switched to a suit.
I recall, in WW II, meeting the AF officer responsible for air surveillance in the Philadelphia area. It was inspiring to watch all those volunteers climb up watch towers and other large buildings to watch for German air craft. There were a number of emergency alerts, but nary a German bomber was actually sighted.
I understand that, shortly before the end of WW II, the Germans actually sent a stripped down plane towards the US. It came within sight of the US coast, turned around, and managed to make it back to Germany.
Hail the volunteer plane watchers. One might say they were successful, because not a single Nazi plane got to the US coast. (I recall in Marthas Vineyard, that a plane watcher was blown off a water tower watch station by a strong leak. I don’t know if this qualified him for a Purple Heart.)
Keith, thank you. I really appreciate it — and am always grateful for your complementary recollections.
I had *not* known about those volunteer plane watchers. My parents were both from the Philly suburbs, but inland — Jenkintown, Glenside, etc — and thus further away from coastal spotting duties. My mother was a young teenager during the war, and after finishing high school in 1943 my dad was off, further away from the coast, to begin Navy V-12 medical training.
Just a way of saying there were lots of stories I heard about that era, but not the flight-spotting ones. Good to know!