Lonely lament for language

One of the sad but apparently too-little-noticed losses in recent months was the retirement of the great writer and grammarian James Kilpatrick.

//

The venerable Kilpatrick provided a weekly column discussing - as the title of the column indicated - the writer's art. He was a far-too-rare grammatical hero speaking up for precise use of the English language.

What makes such an effort difficult is twofold: First, people don't want to hear correction, especially regarding the language they've used (or misused) since birth. Second, because none of us are perfect, anyone who points to someone else's error is likely to become an immediate gotcha-target: "See! You used the singular form of the verb when you should have used a plural! Not so smart now, is you?"

But as a thick-skinned glutton for punishment, I'm willing to risk the occasional triumphant notice of a plank in my eye while I attempt to point out the poor use of words from others.

Besides: I actually appreciate the reverse, when someone points out that I've made an error in writing (and I don't mean simple typos; even rudimentary spell check finds those). I can only improve as a result, and I harbor what is perhaps a windmill-tilting wish that other writers, casual or professional, would likewise appreciate the unsolicited correction.

In addition to Kilpatrick, in this regard I admire Lynne Russ, author of Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Her hilarious, exasperated take on the misuse of language - especially punctuation - ought to be required reading in high school English classes.

Sad to say, though, her follow-up book Talk to the Hand, an examination of the rudeness of modern society, was received much less warmly. It's available right now at the Dollar Tree.

All this is prelude, somewhat, to a mini-rant on frequent misuse of words. I've just gotten fed up with these lately, plucking them from recent newspaper copy or - egad - Internet message board postings, where some writers display their lack of grammatical skill as proudly as a bald peacock.

Here are just a few:

* "Literally" means "literally," as in a precise description of something. It is not a word indicating an exaggerated meaning, as often misused: "He was so mad he literally blew up." Unless there was an explosion, no, he didn't. The angry fellow might have exploded figuratively, but unless there's substantial bloodshed, it wasn't literal.

* "Unique" does not take a modifier. The word refers to a singular object. It does not mean "really awesome." There is no such thing as something that is "most unique"; that's like saying "most best." Saying that something is "unique" simply means it is one of a kind. Literally.

* "Tenant" and "tenet" are two different words. They aren't even homophones, unless you're either deaf or lazy. A recent Chronicle story described "the basic tenants of faith"; are those people who live in churches?

* "Invite" and "install" are verbs. Shifting the emphasis to the first syllable does not make them nouns; that's done by adding the "-ation" suffix. You don't "send someone an invite"; you send an invitation. A computer geek doesn't come to your home to "perform an install"; he conducts an installation. Related but less common are annoying noun uses of "consult" and "deduct."

* "You're" and "your" are not even remotely the same word, so it is stunning how often one shows up where the other should be.

* And the worst: "It's" is a contraction for the words "it is," and it's never possessive. This particularly egregious misuse of the written word probably should be punished with beatings for anyone older than age 6, yet I continue to be astounded at the number of educated people - including educators! - who use "it's" to indicate possession: "The play will hold it's opening Tuesday." Really? The play will hold it is opening Tuesday?

It's enough to make a wordsmith explode. Literally.

Barry L. Paschal is publisher of The Columbia County News-Times. E-mail comments to barry.paschal@newstimesonline.com.