In a silly fit of pique about editors' nit-picking, I once titled a column "Let's Kill All the Copyeditors." The compressed last word in the title was corrected to "Let's Kill All the Copy Editors." When I remonstrated with a green eye shade afterward, his answer was "That's our style." Such a riposte is as unanswerable as the sign in Loeb's Delicatessen across the street from my Washington office: "There's no reason for it -- it's just our policy."
In response to my provocative headline, a scholarly copy editor (if that comes out as two words, you'll know who's boss on this page) pointed out that my "Let's Kill All the Copyeditors" was an allusion to Shakespeare's "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" in Henry VI, Part II.
My colleague said that the Bard, by placing his gleefully savage suggestion in the mouth of a character named Dick the Butcher -- a villain plotting treachery -- was indirectly praising the loyalty of lawyers, not condemning them. That was a point well taken. I slumped corrected.
These thoughts are triggered by the copy desk's (two words) objection to the spelling of a word in last week's column, which dealt with irregardless as a jocular redundancy and therefore, in my judgment, "arrant nonsense."
Last year, I chose that very phrase as an example of "wedded words," like unmitigated gall, congenital liar and blithering idiot.
As a language columnist, I have a license to use almost any taboo word or misspelling as an object of study, but not as part of my own prose. The objection was not to its being a word-wedding, cliche or fixed phrase, but because the desk held that arrant should be spelled errant. You could look it up, it (the desk) said, in the Dodger and Yankee manager Casey Stengel's classic phrase.
I looked it up, in Webster's New World, and in Merriam-Webster's, and in American Heritage, and cannot fault the desk: There it was in all three of the best sellers: "arrant, adjective, variant of errant."
That was the lexicographers' way of saying that although some spelling deviants insisted on arrant with a beginning a, most sensible people agreed with the establishment and spelled errant with an e. The Times' copy desk was going by the book.
As they say in the Pentagon, I nonconcur. (That's how colonels can disagree with generals without having the eagles stripped off their shoulders.) We are not dealing here with one word with one meaning spelled two different ways, one preferred and one variant; in my view, we are dealing with a word whose meaning has split, and the resulting spelling "variation" signifies the difference between the two.
Start with the Latin root, iterare, "to travel," which spawned "itinerant" and "itinerary," a knight-errant was one who wandered around, clanking in his armor, occasionally helping distressed damsels. Spelled with an e, errant's meaning remains "aimless, drifting, straying."
Other errants, however, were highwaymen who preyed on travelers; as the word became synonymous with "thief" -- in Hamlet, Shakespeare wrote of an "arrant knave" -- that spelling with a signified the meaning of "notorious, extreme, consummate, double-dyed," all more intense than "complete."
What had been one word with two senses was changed into two distinct words, each with its own meaning signified by its unique spelling..
If you Google errant, you get nearly 3 million citations, their sense "roving, straying, sometimes from high standards"; arrant gets only one-tenth as many. But if you enter the phrase "arrant nonsense," you get 35,000 to a mere 772 for "errant nonsense."
People know the word with the a means "utter, thoroughgoing, complete," usually carrying the connotation of disapproval. Arrant, the former variant, is now out on its own, its meaning independent of the wandering errant. Let the dictionaries catch up with the living language.
INANITY, INSANITY
In his blistering, 139-page criticism of the Dover Area School Board's decision to include intelligent design into the Pennsylvania district's science curriculum, US District Judge John Jones wrote that "the breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which [sic) has now been fully revealed through this trial."
A reader of the Salt Lake Tribune hailed the judge's ruling about "an issue of 'breathtaking insanity."' That may have been a typo, but many others equate inane with insane.
There's a difference. Insane is rooted in the Latin sanus, "sound, healthy," also the basis of "sanitation." Insane is applied to the health of the mind, and means "unsound, unhealthy, mentally deranged, mad," though these words carry a stigma and are no longer used by medical professionals in describing mental states.
Inane is Latin for "empty" and came to mean "empty-headed, silly, vacuous." The poet Shelley wrote redundantly of "some inane and vacant smile."
Synonyms today range from "foolish, absurd, daft" to "senseless, harebrained, stupid" but stop well short of the menacing insane.
Students of intelligent design and others who challenge Darwinian evolution theory considered Jones' opinion intemperate, synonyms for which range from "immoderate, excessive, testy" to the angrier "choleric, seething, splenetic, fractious" and "out-of-control."
The adjective breathtaking, which long ago lost its hyphen, can be used to emphasize the noun inanity but requires the addition of an -ly, turning it into an adverb, when intensifying these adjectives.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers