"Unergative," if I bothered to learn its meaning, would end up in the same cranial filing cabinet drawer as "anodyne" and "ontological": "Yeah, I've Heard Of That Word And Even Looked It Up A Bunch Of Times But I Will Never Use It Because I Never Feel Confident I'm Sure I Know What It Means."
Can confirm, after very cursory Googling, that I will go the rest of my life knowing that "unergative" exists while having only the vaguest sense of its meaning.
I just want to thank you for this lovely missive! As a Top Chef fan, I could actually understand the pop culture references. But also, all of the other news this week is so HEAVY. This is a welcome delight.
Mediopassive, fun. (As I'm sure you know.) Amazon was recently trying to lure me to shop for "books that read great on the Kindle." Our friends at M-W have a note about this:
In England there is Masterchef. It fronted by two men (often manic and shouty) who lean into this type of use of language. It’s not my bag because it eats so awfully.
However, this piece was a joy to read. And ate wonderfully.
Now I’ve got that out of my system, I will never apply the wonderful verb to eat in this egregious manner ever, ever again.
Once I realized that many of my strongest preferences have little if any relationship with whether a usage is “correct,” whatever that means, I became more fond of them and less prescriptive about them. Go ahead, world, use “gift” as a verb if you insist. I won’t tell you you’re wrong — but I’ll never stop hating it.
I believe that we are each allowed up to ten idiosyncratic language peeves that needn't be based in or on anything beyond taste and instinct; beyond that, to be sure, we are insane. I also think that we're victims of conditioning: As I decided relatively recently, the use of "impact" as a verb doesn't really bother anyone on a visceral level; people just decide that it bothers them and they keep repeating that it bothers them.
Ten seems fair. I might even have a few slots I have not yet filled up, which is an exciting opportunity. RE: "impact": That's where I am with "literally." Also all kinds of words are used hyperbolically as intensifiers and nobody objects. But hating "literally" became trendy, like hating The Eagles, but without "Desperado" to justify the hatred.
<<not enamored of the word “eats” when it’s utilized to describe how a morsel of food interacts with one’s palate (“it eats well")>> Yes. And I remember the first time an editor said to me, at Time when I was a child, that a piece I'd just turned in "reads well," it was the first time I'd encountered any version of that form. And loathed it.
“Mary the Jewess” reminded me that I used to think “prowess” was a female prow (not that I had any idea at age 9 what a prow was). “Prowess” appeared frequently in the Nancy Drew books I consumed — they read so well when you’re a 9-year-old girl — and I was much too lazy to look it up.
On "restaurateur" — I'm surprised the subtitles had the correct spelling since so many of them are from voice recognition software and one would have to be hearing alert to notice the difference in speech. I like to watch Film Noir from the 1940s and 50s and usually watch with subtitles because I can read faster than I can listen. Much to my surprise, one weekend I saw "Ms" used in films from the 1940s. I haven't seen it again but there must be a story there. Was it the person who programmed the voice recognition software?
With respect to how Campbells has used the word eats, I consider advertising jingles and taglines as a poor reason to change grammar or word usage, although it’s a losing battle. I enjoy my Apple devices a great deal but I will never “Think Different”. Just typing that makes my teeth hurt.
Benjamin, thanks so much for pointing out the n-less-ness of 'restaurateur'. I'll be 76 next week and yet this is TIL stuff. Yay! (Can we still be friends if I persist in avoiding in all cases the use of 'utilize'?)
"Unergative," if I bothered to learn its meaning, would end up in the same cranial filing cabinet drawer as "anodyne" and "ontological": "Yeah, I've Heard Of That Word And Even Looked It Up A Bunch Of Times But I Will Never Use It Because I Never Feel Confident I'm Sure I Know What It Means."
Can confirm, after very cursory Googling, that I will go the rest of my life knowing that "unergative" exists while having only the vaguest sense of its meaning.
All I know about "ontological" is that I like to say "ontological horror" even if I have no idea what it means.
*nods knowingly, hoping that no follow-up questions will be asked*
I just want to thank you for this lovely missive! As a Top Chef fan, I could actually understand the pop culture references. But also, all of the other news this week is so HEAVY. This is a welcome delight.
Thank *you*! I'm happy to bring a light touch to a ponderous week.
>(“it eats well,” “it eats heavy,” “it eats salty,” etc.),
Mediopassive, fun. (As I'm sure you know.) Amazon was recently trying to lure me to shop for "books that read great on the Kindle." Our friends at M-W have a note about this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/mediopassive-middle-voice-usage-verbs
"This book reads well, we suppose, if this is the sort of thing you like." That would be the mediopassiveaggressive voice.
Mahlzeit! as we say over here.
I dig this piece.
In England there is Masterchef. It fronted by two men (often manic and shouty) who lean into this type of use of language. It’s not my bag because it eats so awfully.
However, this piece was a joy to read. And ate wonderfully.
Now I’ve got that out of my system, I will never apply the wonderful verb to eat in this egregious manner ever, ever again.
Highest of fives!
Thank you. This is like one of the biggest things. It’s up there with all the highs in my life to date. And I’ve been around the park. So cool.
Three cheers for Mary the Jewess from Eric the half-Jewess!
Short and sassy. I ate it up.
That use of "eats" is new to me and extremely unwelcome.
I'd completely blocked from recollection—till someone reminded me—that it's at least forty years entrenched.
Once I realized that many of my strongest preferences have little if any relationship with whether a usage is “correct,” whatever that means, I became more fond of them and less prescriptive about them. Go ahead, world, use “gift” as a verb if you insist. I won’t tell you you’re wrong — but I’ll never stop hating it.
I believe that we are each allowed up to ten idiosyncratic language peeves that needn't be based in or on anything beyond taste and instinct; beyond that, to be sure, we are insane. I also think that we're victims of conditioning: As I decided relatively recently, the use of "impact" as a verb doesn't really bother anyone on a visceral level; people just decide that it bothers them and they keep repeating that it bothers them.
Ten seems fair. I might even have a few slots I have not yet filled up, which is an exciting opportunity. RE: "impact": That's where I am with "literally." Also all kinds of words are used hyperbolically as intensifiers and nobody objects. But hating "literally" became trendy, like hating The Eagles, but without "Desperado" to justify the hatred.
<<not enamored of the word “eats” when it’s utilized to describe how a morsel of food interacts with one’s palate (“it eats well")>> Yes. And I remember the first time an editor said to me, at Time when I was a child, that a piece I'd just turned in "reads well," it was the first time I'd encountered any version of that form. And loathed it.
Your heart and instincts were true and pure.
“Mary the Jewess” reminded me that I used to think “prowess” was a female prow (not that I had any idea at age 9 what a prow was). “Prowess” appeared frequently in the Nancy Drew books I consumed — they read so well when you’re a 9-year-old girl — and I was much too lazy to look it up.
As a prioress is surely someone who used to be a nun.
On "restaurateur" — I'm surprised the subtitles had the correct spelling since so many of them are from voice recognition software and one would have to be hearing alert to notice the difference in speech. I like to watch Film Noir from the 1940s and 50s and usually watch with subtitles because I can read faster than I can listen. Much to my surprise, one weekend I saw "Ms" used in films from the 1940s. I haven't seen it again but there must be a story there. Was it the person who programmed the voice recognition software?
With respect to how Campbells has used the word eats, I consider advertising jingles and taglines as a poor reason to change grammar or word usage, although it’s a losing battle. I enjoy my Apple devices a great deal but I will never “Think Different”. Just typing that makes my teeth hurt.
Benjamin, thanks so much for pointing out the n-less-ness of 'restaurateur'. I'll be 76 next week and yet this is TIL stuff. Yay! (Can we still be friends if I persist in avoiding in all cases the use of 'utilize'?)
(Absolutely.)