Richard Charkin
By Andrew Richard Albanese, Editor-in-Chief
Lurking on my bookshelves was this copy of Modern English Usage by H.W.Fowler (always known simply as Fowler) first published in 1926 and still going strong after 24 reprints. My mother bought me this copy for my 15th birthday, in June 1964).Presumably, she gave it to me in the hope that it would improve my written (and even spoken) English. I am not sure how much of a success it has been, but it has certainly given me much pleasure and some insights over the years. I confess that I prefer this edition to the current one—which I commissioned, cravenly in an attempt to placate the then Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, Bob Burchfield, with whom I had had a row.
If you can lay your hands on one of the original editions you will discover any number of joyous entries written with perspicacity, wit, and intelligence (note the Oxford comma whose life expectancy has been reduced by misuse). Check out ‘split infinitive’ for instance, discussing its avoidance or not. The English-speaking world may be divided into 1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; 2) those who do not know but care very much; 3) those who know and condemn; 4) those who know and approve; and 5) those who know and distinguish.
Just to give you another flavor of English in the early years of the 20th Century here is a sentence from the first paragraph of the dedication to Fowler’s younger brother, who died from tuberculosis contracted while serving with the British Army in World War I and would have been the co-author had he lived:
I think of the book as it should have been, with its prolixities docked, its dullnesses enlivened, its fads eliminated, its truths multiplied.
Interestingly, in typing this I found Microsoft Word thinks that ‘prolixities’ and ‘dullnesses’ are either not words or are misspelt. So much for the modern spell checker.
New Century, New Language?
I try to bear Fowler’s words in mind when I write but I frequently fail. Nonetheless, I find myself railing, pedantically perhaps, at elements of 21st Century English usage in the book trade. Here are some of my non-favorites:
Publishes: as in “this book publishes on September 24.” Books cannot publish themselves (active sense). They are published (passive sense).
Across: as in “working across commercial fiction, both big brands and debuts.” What does ‘across’ add?
Learnings: as in “we took many learnings from this acquisition.” The word used to be “lessons.” I learned about gerundives in a painful lesson from the Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary who was the referee for the finals of the National Scrabble Championship where I was a competitor. I thought I had hit paydirt with the word f***ings spread over two triple word scores. My opponent referred it for adjudication, and it was duly eliminated on the grounds that plural gerundives are impermissible in the English language. There was never any question about the admissibility of “f***ing” itself.
Towards: as in “working towards an acceptable deal.” In other words, no progress whatsoever.
Extraordinary: as in “this extraordinary debut novel.” Used only when the copywriter can think of no better adjective. Perhaps ‘indescribable’ would be more accurate.
Actors: as in “we have recently been made aware of bad actors fraudulently posing…” I think it is not fair on the thousands of excellent actors who read audio superbly.
And there are some of these abuses of the English language more frequently found in speech rather than the pages of the trade press, for example—like (as in “it’s, like, romantasy,” or “like, a book”); or sat as “I was sat in the editorial meeting” rather than “I sat” or “was sitting.”
I realize I am beginning to sound like I’d like to return to the early 20th century, (perhaps like I always do). I don’t. In terms of publishing, I certainly don’t want to return to movable type; retail price maintenance; elitist hiring principles; holding stock for years (or decades) on end in hope rather than expectation; imperial attitudes to overseas markets; trade unions; paternalist management; sexism, racism, and other phobias.
I do think, however, that we have some responsibility to language, which we should allow to develop, but not be corrupted. And I’ll end by encouraging you to find a copy of the early editions of Fowler—not necessarily to follow his rules, but to enjoy his language.
Comments
My old friend and colleague, Michael Rodgers, was barred by a digital robot from posting a comment – here it is anyway.
Alongside one another on my shelves: Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 2/e, revised by Sir Ernest Gowers, 1965 r/p with corrections; The King’s English, H W & F G Fowler, 3/e, 1962 r/p; The Complete Plain Words, Sir Ernest Gowers, HM Stationery Office, 1954. On a nearby shelf: Fowler’s Modern English Usage, R W Burchfield, reissue with title change, 2004. It’s this last I’m grateful to for 2 unrelated, discovered by chance (eye wandering whilst looking for something else) entries. 1 ‘hypocoristic’; 2 under the entry Latin quotations, the wonderful story told in The Spectator about The Independent changing Garland’s cartoon caption from Latin to English when 40% of the news conference didn’t understand the Latin.
The late and great Publishing Perspectives editor, Porter Anderson, was a columnist’s dream – he didn’t mess unnecessarily with the text but he gently, sometimes less gently, steered me away from serious errors of judgement (of which I own up to many). Our new editor, Andrew Albanese, is equally perceptive and has already saved me from several indiscretions.
In this article we have used ‘***’ to represent the letters ‘uck’. Neither of us is sure whether we are being polite and cautious or simply prissy. We erred on the side of caution.
Andrew was less cautious in describing me as ‘venerable’, a word which always reminds of the venerable Bede, whoever he was. In any event, I am certainly not to be venerated and never have been. And if the current usage implies ‘old’, then I suppose it is accurate chronologically but I’d rather not be reminded of that fact!
As if you don’t know who the Venerable Bede was! Though I agree with deep respect to you that you probably don’t rate being anointed by angels. I always associate Bede of course with Jarrow. Back in ancient times, the late 70s, the NorthEast was part of my rep territory. Not the easiest place to sell academic books. So I took a morning to go to Jarrow expecting I suppose one of those medieval abbey experience. Instead, an extraordinary view over a valley of post industrial devastation, a vast panoply of empty factories and putrifying sludge.
Presumably ‘putrefying sludge’ was the output of the local strategic gurus.
Hmm, yes, I stopped reading and pondered when I saw “venerable”.
Another very common phrase I am sure we could all live without, in the publishing industry and other walks of life, is “you know”, which seems to punctuate the speech, though not the writing, of many English speakers of all ages. It appears to now replace (note the split infinitive) “er” and “umm”, but with more meaning, perhaps “I’m really quite unsure of what I’m saying but I hope you will buy my idea nonetheless”, Yes, I rail pedantically too.
Shall we form the International Society of Pedants?
‘Learnings’ is a gerund; there are gerundives in Latin, but not in English. And a plural gerund is by no means impermissible in English: further examples are ‘teachings’, ‘gleanings’, ‘writings’, and ‘musings’, which Richard would probably not stub his toe on.
I suspect that that particular plural gerund was judged impermissible simply because it didn’t exist or at least was not well enough attested to make it into the OED. The current version online does have an entry for the singular, and a countable sense, implying that a plural is conceivable, but no plural citations.
Perhaps Richard actually objects to ‘learnings’ on account of its plurality as much as its gerundial nature, but there are just new plurals these days — ‘behaviours’, ‘disrespects’, ‘surgeries’ (in the sense of ‘surgical operations’, not ‘doctors’ premises’) — where once there was only a mass noun, and, as my father used to joke, if despairingly, “Language is a living thing, innit?”
What a lot of plurals. Your dad was right but so much of this new language is born out of laziness. Two other irritants. Opening an email with ‘I hope you are well’ and ‘Thank you for having me’ when someone is interviewed on the radio.
Spelling of ‘flavor’ leaves a tang.
I’ve been trying to think of how to use ‘trumphalism’, triumphalisn without an iota of truth?
I read this in the mid 70s and found it useful and edifying, for the most part – despite its sexism in parts. Being of its time was no excuse- naive as I was it was still breathtaking even then.
As for ‘sat’ I said it once in the hearing of the late Mike Colenso who berated me soundly and corrected my northern grammar .
Mike Colenso brings back memories.
Mike Colenso brings back memories.
Director, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., England, 1960-1972; director, Cassell & Collier Macmillan, London, 1970-1977; managing director, Year Book Mosby, London, 1977-1984; director, Times Mirror International, London, 1979-1984; managing director, Wilson Learning, United Kingdom, 1984; managing director, Wilson Learning, Stuttgart, 1986-1990; gerante, Wilson Learning, Paris, 1986-1989; chief executive, The Open College, United Kingdom, 1989-1995; director, Advanced Learning Systems, Belfast, since 1991; associate, Europe Japan Center, London, since 1995; associate, Wilson Learning, United Kingdom, since 1995.