Wishydig

Ben Zimmer was one of the first language bloggers to notice Wishydig and occasionally direct readers this way. I still remember that almost 4 years ago he was kind enough to mention one of my posts to Mr. Verb. It was a post I had written in response to one of William Safire's not very careful On Language columns on word history. Mr. Verb, writing with the same frustration I felt, remarked that it was time someone take over for the Times' resident Language Maven. Little did we know that in only a few years, the column would be Zimmer's.

Earlier today, Zimmer announced that his On Language column, "at least in its current incarnation," is being dropped from the redesigned New York Times Magazine. He has been trusted with that space for the past year, and he repaid that trust with careful, relevant, reliable, and interesting commentary on language. To make his columns interesting he didn't resort to making up facts, exaggerating claims, or stoking fears. He's a linguist who knows that language is fascinating on its own when represented accurately and analyzed reasonably.

I don't need to speculate about the business reasons for cutting On Language from the Times Magazine. I don't like it. Rational and insightful discussions of language are rare enough in mainstream news outlets. There are too many dilettantes and dabblers who go no further than to complain about variation and throw tantrums against change. Zimmer, on the other hand, provides calm and informed commentary. I'm sure he will continue to do so at Language Log, and the Visual Thesauraus. This is a coda, ending no syllable articulated by Zimmer, but by the New York Times.

The meeting will now come to order. Our agenda for the day is as follows.

1) Provide assurance that I am still here, and this link is not defunct.

2) Make pledge to get back to posting regularly, tho timeline is not yet established.*

3) Share great news about language writing in major media outlets.

---

So our first item has been accomplished. If you're reading this, you know it's been written. Let's move on to the next.

Hereby pledged. Timeline still pending.

Finally:

The New York Times has announced that Ben Zimmer is now the regular "On Language" columnist. He will carry on, and add to, the legacy of the late William Safire. This is very exciting. The column has a large readership, and wields great influence over the tenor of common observations about language. Mr Zimmer will certainly be a fair, insightful, incisive, and accurate commentator. The space is in good hands.

---

*I only ask--beg, plead--that Neal Whitman not remove me from the "frequently updated" blog list. Because occasional gaps are allowed, right?

Today Jaimie Epstein fills in for William Safire who has allowed us a vacation from his On Language column. Her offering, entitled "Sentence Sensibility," laments the loneliness she has to endure because she's so picky about language.

I've been there (I promised Casey I would tell the story soon). But now I'm in a good place. A calm place. And it feels like an enlightened place when I come across the following from Ms Epstein:

But just imagine what it’s like to be afflicted with an excess language-sensitivity gene.

There is a big difference between being very picky about usage and being very sensitive to language. All speakers/hearers are sensitive to language. It's called competence. Knowing that in the phrase "the black shoes" both the and black help determine shoes and that the order of the and black is fixed is natural "language-sensitivity." It is standard English because that's the way the language works and we don't need to be explicitly told that the article goes first. We learn the language from learning...the language.

Epstein's column focuses on factual and typographical errors that are not natural language features. It is not genetic language-sensitivity that allows her to notice when someone claims the author of Atonement is "Ian McGregor". That's just an information error. It's not a "language-sensitivity gene" that sets her against the description "slurshing sound of the waves" because it made her think "drink sloppily and quickly" and drove her to seasickness. That's just a preference. Someone who really likes the word "slurshing" isn't less sensitive than Epstein.

Epstein laments that there is no "12-step program for usage addicts." So she's addicted to usage? Well who isn't. I find I can't get through a single conversation without using a usage. My speech is full of usages.

Yes yes I know what she means. She's addicted to complaining about usage. She herself admits that her language isn't "perfect." I agree with her that a lot of writing such as the copy on a résumé deserves extra attention. But she lumps in spelling errors with the difference between who and whom and the importance of using media as a plural noun. These are all very different issues whose uses depend on varying norms and registers.

Spelling and prescriptivism are bodies of information that must be taught. Nobody asks about what are you talking? because of a language-sensitivity gene or because of an ear that is fine tuned to correct usage (Epstein refers to herself as "someone whose ear is as tuned to the pitch of language as a cellist’s is to music"). That construction comes from attention to the schoolmarm. It comes from attention to some claims about language. Investigating the music metaphor I'd say it's more like a cellist who insists on playing everything in one key.

Here's one sour note that Epstein's trusted editors missed. Take a look at the byline.



I would have willingly chuckled at it thinking it's a clever little joke but on the ADS-L Laurence Horn confirmed that in the print version the spelling is correct.

[Update:
The editors caught the error and changed it. It's not a horrible mistake. Just look at any of my posts and you'll find typos of that sort all over.

Bad genes I suppose.
]