Readers await some columns with bated breath

JUNE CASAGRANDE

Apparently, behind the walls of some ivy-covered buildings, two

groups of scholars are at war.

On the one side are the grammar “descriptivists,” who argue that

language “rules” are really all based on common use. They say people

misuse the language so much that they make their own rules as they go

along. Why bother trying to lay down any official rules? Instead,

just try to establish guidelines based on how people are using the

language today.

On the other side are the grammar “prescriptivists,” who counter

that, indeed, some language choices can be “right” or “wrong.” And

that just because enough people misuse the language doesn’t make it

right. As William Safire pointed out in a column some time ago, just

because “baited breath” turned up in a newspaper database more than

1,100 times, it doesn’t change the fact that the correct term is

“bated breath,” “bated” coming from “abated,” meaning suspended or

stopped.

I would like to, once and for all, take a position on this

long-raging war. Here’s my directive: Cut it out! While you guys are

blowing smoke and stroking your own egos, the rest of us are sitting

here scratching our backsides, waiting for someone to offer us some

useful guidelines.

For example, scholars have been debating for nearly a century the

question of whether it’s better to say, “I appreciated his taking the

time to meet with me” or “I appreciated him taking the time to meet

with me.” Since I wrote a column on the subject a few weeks ago, I’ve

done even more research. I’ve concluded that, while most of the

experts seem to feel that both are OK, depending on the situation, no

one’s willing to take a stand.

But with a little further investigation, it becomes clear why the

authorities may not want to take a stand: Often, they don’t remain

standing for long.

For example, the Associated Press Stylebook’s sole purpose is to

prescribe some common-sense rules for newspaper writing. But it seems

like half the time they do, they end up looking foolish and

eventually caving in. This is most obvious in technology terms,

because they evolve faster. For example, AP once insisted that

“on-line” should have a hyphen. It continued to insist this long

after the rest of the world had opted for “online.” Same with “Web

site,” “free-lance” and “adviser,” which AP clung to long after the

rest of the world left them in the dust by using “website,”

“freelance” and “advisor.” AP caved on the first two, by the way, but

holds fast to “adviser” with an “e.”

What’s more, when the authorities do put a foot down, it usually

lands on someone’s head. For example, the AP Stylebook, which is used

by newspapers, and the Chicago Manual of Style, which is used by book

editors, have different rules for writing numbers. The result is

that, in some newspapers, a 16-year-old who has lived on 1st Street

since age 9 seven years ago might have 1,000 photographs of his

former home. But, in books, a sixteen-year-old who has lived on First

Street since age nine, seven years ago, might have a thousand

photographs of his former home and 1,288 of photographs of his

current home.

In short, the hallowed halls of language academia are too busy

stroking themselves to remember their obligation to you and me. So

when I open the Los Angeles Times and see a subhead that says

“coworker,” another subhead with the word “spaceflight” and a story

that mentions someone drinking “ice tea,” I’m left to wonder: Did

they make a mistake? Or did all those rule makers once again change

the rules, forgetting that the whole purpose of rules is to help us

little people?

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].