Zestful Blog Post #230
One of my dearest friends had trouble with language. She
couldn’t pronounce ‘hierarchy’ properly; the best she could do was ‘hyarchy.’
The word ‘weaponry’ became ‘weapondry.’ There was something about the mid-word ‘r’
sound. She would occasionally use words she’d picked up without being entirely
clear on their meanings. She wanted to be thought of as a literate person. And
therein lay danger.
One night she invited all of her top friends to a party at
her house. I got there in the middle of the evening, grabbed a glass of wine,
and went to find my hostess. She was standing with a circle of half a dozen friends,
talking. When she saw me come up, she smiled and opened her arms and said—loudly,
clearly: “Everybody, this is Elizabeth!” And then, in a very serious, approving
tone, “Elizabeth is a pseudo-intellectual!”
I stood there silently, as did the crowd. Then I realized
that, very possibly, my friend did not understand the term. I murmured, “You
just called me a phony.”
“Oh! That’s not what I meant at all!”
“The prefix pseudo means fake.”
“Oh! Everybody, that’s not what I meant! Elizabeth is very smart! She writes for the paper! I’m sorry, hon.”
“That’s all right.” And it was, because I loved my friend,
and everybody understood.
However, it does bug me when somebody uses a word in an
attempt to be linguistically impressive, especially in print. Not long ago, I
read an essay in a magazine about a distinguished, prizewinning novelist. The
writer of the piece referred to the author as “prosaic.” Instantly, I knew the
writer meant “prolific.” But the writer probably thought about “prose,” and
figured, vaguely, yeah, a lot of prose. Prosaic. Yeah, put that in.
This kind of mistake, passed over, I must painfully
emphasize, not only by the writer but by the editor of the magazine, and
possibly a copy editor and proofreader, in
a literary magazine, makes me sigh deeply. It does not make me want to set
my hair on fire or throw a hatchet through a window, but it does make me sigh
deeply.
Prosaic means commonplace; literally like prose, with the
implication that there is no poetry or artistry there. “My wardrobe is pretty
prosaic: just jeans and polo shirts.” To be prolific is to be abundantly
productive. “He’s prolific, having written ten books in five years.”
Another error I’ve noticed from time to time is the use of ‘ascetic’
for ‘aesthetic.’ They are different words. Ascetic, pronounced ass-HEH-tic, means
to practice severe (usually religious) self-denial. Aesthetic, pronounced
ass-THET-ic, means having to do with beauty, or the appreciation of it. “The
aesthetics of the building will be important, as it will be situated on a
promontory for all to see.”
Now you understand. One more for today: the increasing
practice of using ‘discomforting’ to mean ‘disconcerting.’ The word that’s
mixing them up is ‘discomfiting,’ which they’ve heard somewhere, and they want
to use it, but at the last second they bail out to ‘discomforting,’ because they’re
not really sure about ‘discomfiting,’ and ‘disconcerting’ is entirely beyond
them.
To be discomfited is to feel uneasy or embarrassed.
To be disconcerted is to feel more deeply uneasy; disturbed.
To be discomforted is when somebody steals your pillow.
I am, as always, yours in the love of precision.
What do you think? Any linguistic lapses bugging you today?
To post, click below where it says, 'No Comments,' or '2 Comments,' or
whatever. [amazing sketch by ES]
If you'd like to receive this blog automatically as an
email, look to the right, above my bio, and subscribe there. Thanks for looking
in.
I laughed out loud at this! Over the recent holidays, I went to a party where the host promised to serve "bon mots." Great! Unfortunately, the party was terribly dull and I realized the host had probably confused the concepts of cocktail food and bon appetit!
ReplyDeleteThat's a good one. Then there are the people who don't know how to pronounce 'hors d'oeuvres' and think it's funny to say 'horse ovaries.' Yes.
Delete