I freaking hate prescriptive linguistics. The people who love to prescribe are so often prescribing incorrectly. I couldn't get past the first one in this article:
> Acronym: this is a word, like radar or NATO, not a set of initials, like the BBC or the IMF.
Wikipedia:
> In 1943, Bell Laboratories coined the term acronym as the name for a word (such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words (such as SOund Navigation And Ranging). The terms initialism and alphabetism are neither widely used nor widely known. The term acronym is widely used to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters.
First off, the word was created by a corporation; secondly, the term is widely used and understood to apply to words like "BBC" ("Three Letter Acronym"); thirdly, the "correct" alternative is not widely used or understood. So if you use the correct terms your communication would actually be less clear, which is, as I understand, the point of studying grammar/linguistics in the first place.
For more on this exciting subject, see David Foster Wallace's excellent "Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage":
To be fair, this is their style guide, and the editors can choose the rules they want for word usage in their magazine, and they are generally done so to help make sure their writers use a consistent style.
Very good point. I was about to jump into the prescriptivist-bashing fray - in fact, I upvoted subwindow's comment, and I can't take it back, since I don't have enough karma - until I took a look at the heading of the "article" and realized that it was in fact part of the Economist's style guide. It's clearly not meant to be accurate reflection of any up-to-date dictionary - look up pretty much any word in its list at www.m-w.com (e.g. "collapse" IS acceptable as a transitive verb) and you'll see they're way behind the times as far as common usage goes. Let them maintain their backward-looking editorial standards if they wish to do so for consistency's sake, and leave them be.
Agreed; there are some people who cannot grasp the concept of evolving language, often forgetting that much of the language we use today was considered "incorrect" as recently as ten years ago. The irony of this prescription is that many of the writers whom we consider the most influential and talented are often those who do not constrain themselves to these rules (and in doing so, often develop new phrases and structures that become part of regular language).
Some of the advice given in this article is simply wrong. As an alternative to this article, I'd suggest Paul Brians' site, (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html) which points out legitimate errors while recognizing trends and usages which have become acceptable.
The problem is that for every evolving "rule", you reduce (or have the potential to reduce) the clarity of the message.
Ergo a language with loose rules is a language with loose communication capability. (Of course this is arguable too, since a language that is too rigid is unable to adapt to a fast changing world.)
English is the start-up of the language world, apparently. :-)
I respectfully disagree. If we refused to accept colloquial usage of a word as valid, we would actually be reducing meaning therein.
Would you advocate using archaic definitions of common words from 100 years ago? 200 years ago? How about we maintain this purported clarity by reverting to Middle English?
I used to be anal toward the definition of words until I got a little older. Then I realized that, over time, language does indeed evolve.
Here's a good example for you. "The web." If we didn't accept the "evolved" definition of this word as a synonym for "the Internet," then the statement "Catch Hacker News on the web!" would be nonsensical.
You can be a purist to a degree, but to declare that such an approach improves clarity is a bit... misguided. :) (I'll grant that you did suggest it has the "potential to," but I want to assist in preventing others from making broad generalizations against the evolution of language, so this isn't necessarily directed to you.)
Technically, no. (I've never understood how anyone got sequel from S-Q-L.)
And TLA is more correctly Three Letter Abbreviation. :-)
But like I said, I know there is no hard and fast rule. Acronym has had its meaning changed through popular use, and there isn't much to harp about there. It's as futile as pointing out that "begging the question" is used incorrectly 99% of the time.
For a style guide though, there's nothing wrong with insisting on a particular definition.
I've never understood how anyone got sequel from S-Q-L.
They didn't. They got SQL from SEQUEL (Structured English Query Language). After the name was changed from SEQUEL to SQL people just kept saying "sequel" since it's easier to say than "s-q-l".
Sure, but words mean things. I can't see the harm in knowing the most appropriate word for my meaning, even if most everyone is oblivious to the preference.
There are items I find questionable too ("Brokerage is what a stockbroking firm does, not what it is."), but most of it is good.
"Cassandra's predictions were correct but not believed."
"Beg the question means neither raise the question, invite the question nor evade the answer. To beg the question is to adopt an argument whose conclusion depends upon assuming the truth of the very conclusion the argument is designed to produce."
"Crescendo. This is not an acme, apogee, peak, summit or zenith but a passage of increasing loudness. You cannot therefore build to a crescendo."
I tend toward being a little picky about grammar, but this particular style guide is a bit ridiculous. So, I have to agree.
Here's one that strikes me as odd:
> Demographics: no, the word is demography.
Seems to me that demographics is commonly accepted as a valid study.
The Economist claims this is a guide to "common solecisms." I wonder if their claim to solecisms is a solecism itself?
> a nonstandard or ungrammatical usage, as "unflammable" and "they was."
In their defense, they do highlight several words that are pet peeves of mine (among/between). Though, to outright claim that others are outright nonstandard or incorrect is a bit misleading.
demographic is an adjective, like financial. True, people say financials when they mean financial (statement)s, but I share the Economist's dislike of this linguistic slop.
Consider also that the written word still enjoys somewhat higher esteem in Britain, where the Economist is published; it is by no means uncommon to find corpses in the gutter of London's Fleet Street in the early dawn, driven to suicide by the shame of a misplaced apostrophe.
Yeah ... I don't know how I feel about it either. I like to imagine that I have a pretty good grasp of English - but I'm pretty sure I violate about half those rules on a regular basis.
In any case, it's informative to see the style guide of one of the best periodicals in existence. Also, there are some really hilarious jokes hidden in there if you're into easter eggs ;-)
It means that something "performs well". The specific criteria of performance depends on context.
Both "fast" and "efficient" are more specific than performant, but are related concepts. Note that "speed" and "efficiency" are also often related, but not quite the same thing. They fill a different linguistic need.
Performant is pretty widely understood, in my experience.
'blint' is pronounceable but doesn't actually mean anything. The same is true of my username, for that matter.
'Performant' doesn't have any etymological basis, nor does it fill any real need; such words only serve to highlight their employers' lack of vocabulary. Children make up such portmanteau words on a regular basis, but this is generally the result of ignorance rather than originality and is generally curable with the help of a dictionary and thesaurus.
English has such a massive vocabulary that if you need a new word and you're not writing a fantasy/sci-fi novel, then it probably means that you weren't paying attention.
Nuh-uh. This style guide says "Agree: things are agreed on, to or about, not just agreed." So, bizarrely, "I agree" or "We agree" are not valid, despite any good dictionary saying otherwise.
Of course, this could be because it's a style guide and most people here seem to have missed that point ;-)
'NATO' and 'SCUBA' are pronounceable. The Economist contends that'BBC' and 'IMF' aren't acronyms since you can't pronounce the words they form (you just sound out the letters).
I was thinking the same thing. One of the rules is that 'agreed' goes with 'on', 'to', or 'about'. But the Economist is the only place I can think of where I have seen something like:
> Acronym: this is a word, like radar or NATO, not a set of initials, like the BBC or the IMF.
Wikipedia:
> In 1943, Bell Laboratories coined the term acronym as the name for a word (such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words (such as SOund Navigation And Ranging). The terms initialism and alphabetism are neither widely used nor widely known. The term acronym is widely used to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters.
First off, the word was created by a corporation; secondly, the term is widely used and understood to apply to words like "BBC" ("Three Letter Acronym"); thirdly, the "correct" alternative is not widely used or understood. So if you use the correct terms your communication would actually be less clear, which is, as I understand, the point of studying grammar/linguistics in the first place.
For more on this exciting subject, see David Foster Wallace's excellent "Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage":
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html