usage

Algorithms don’t need defending 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged language software usage writing on by

I’m constantly annoyed by the statements that people ignorant of software development make about “algorithms.” They don’t have the least idea what one is, yet they think they’re competent to declare how evil an algorithm is.

Let me focus on one article, because it’s from Reason, which I expect better things of. The piece is “In Defense of Algorithms,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown. A look at her bio shows that she’s got the background to write about many things, among which she claims “tech,” but she doesn’t mention any experience with the computer industry or software development. She should have known better than to pick up this topic and put a dent in a record of excellent articles.
(more…)

More linguistic griping

This entry was posted in Commentary Techniques and tagged grammar language usage on by

Just some more miscellaneous complaints about how people abuse the English language. I’ll avoid ones I’ve already written about, and hopefully the items here aren’t the ones you usually see. To vary things a bit, I’ll include some alleged corrections which I disagree with.

“Free reign.” The term “free rein” means lack of restriction, letting someone do what they want. If it’s applied to a government official or agency running wild, “free reign” could make sense, but in general it’s wrong.

“LOL.” Laughing out loud is appropriate when something is funny or ridiculous, but too many people on the Internet stick it onto everything they say. For some, it’s a cheap way to score a point. Some people seem to think it softens what they say. It doesn’t.

“Illegal” as a noun. People do illegal things. There is no such thing, at least in the United States, as a person whose existence is illegal.

“Begging the question.” I’m losing this battle, but I’ll keep fighting it. Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming the point which is to be proven. Example: “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.” People often use it to mean something like “leading to the question.” Granted, expressions shift in meaning, but “begging the question” as a term for a fallacy conveys a precise, useful meaning that shouldn’t be watered down.

“Ad hominem.” While we’re on the subject of logical fallacies, here’s another one whose name is often misused. An ad hominem argument attacks the person making a statement rather than its facts or reasoning. We often see it used for insults in general. An ad hominem argument doesn’t have to be insulting; an example of an ad hominem argument could be “X isn’t European and has never been to Europe, therefore his statement about Europe is wrong.” (Technically, this item is about abusing the Latin language.)
(more…)

Misusing scientific terms in writing

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged science usage writing on by

The direct inspiration for this article was a piece (by a friend I won’t name) that complained about a “quantum increase” in something. The idea of a “quantum increase” or “quantum leap” is that at a sub-microscopic level, changes in the state of particles are discrete, not continuous. A particle’s energy goes from one level to another without going through intermediate levels. In other words, a quantum leap is the smallest amount of change possible. A lot of writers must think it means something else.

That’s just one of many scientific terms that get mangled in popular writing. Let’s look at a few more.
(more…)

The use and misuse of “fascism” 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged fascism history usage on by

The word “Fascism,” as it’s too often abused in political discourse, has come to mean nothing more precise than “bad.” There are clearer words for governments that exercise improper power, such as “authoritarian” and “totalitarian.” Fascism is supposed to denote a certain kind of authoritarian system. Writers need to exercise precision when using the word, rather than tossing it around as a general insult.

In its original sense, the word comes from the Fascist Party of Italy and refers to Italy’s government under Benito Mussolini before and during World War II. It’s used more broadly to indicate governments that follow policies similar to Fascist Italy or people who (allegedly) support those policies. Just what are those policies?

The best place to start is with Mussolini’s own words. The History Guide provides some key writings by Mussolini. The page is in English; my Italian isn’t up to any serious reading. Near the beginning we find the most important point:
(more…)

The war on words

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged language usage vocabulary on by

Calling someone a “villain” is a city-ist insult. The word originally means “base or low-born rustic,” clearly an insult by the urban higher classes aimed at farmers, serfs, and others from the villages. By the censorious standards we run into so often, we should stop using the word and denounce anyone who does. This is, of course, silly, but no sillier than many actual attacks on words.

In some circles, you can’t have a “master” switch or password anymore. The word has a range of meanings, generally in the categories of someone in authority or someone with extensive knowledge and skill (or at least a degree saying so). One of these meanings is “a person in authority over slaves,” so the use of the word is deemed an endorsement of slavery, and it has to go. There are even people trying to rename the Maine coon cat. The origin of the name is obscure, but the most likely explanation is that the tail somewhat resembles a raccoon’s. However, the term “coon” has been used as a racial insult, so the name has to go. Probably raccoons need to be renamed as well.

(more…)

The misuse of “identity” 1

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged usage vocabulary writing on by

If you’ve followed this blog regularly, you know that the misappropriation of words is a favorite topic of mine. Today I’d like to discuss the misuse of “identity.” Some people misuse it deliberately, but writers can fall into accepting it as it’s misused. Hopefully this post will help in avoiding that pitfall.

“Identity” is a straightforward word. It means “who someone is.” We can talk about the identity of someone who committed a crime, a case of mistaken identity, a secret identity for a superhero, establishing your identity, and identity theft. Some people, though insist that your identity is your group membership: your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Interestingly, people on the “left” as well as white supremacists like to promote this view.
(more…)

Kyiv or Kiev?

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged language usage on by

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine (not “the Ukraine”) dominating the news, many of us have noticed for the first time that most reports now call its capital Kyiv rather than Kiev. I wondered when this shift happened and why, and exactly how the name should be pronounced.

Ukraine flagKiev comes from the Russian name for the city, Kyiv from its Ukrainian name. Both Russian and Ukrainian use the Cyrillic alphabet, so any version of the name in the Roman alphabet is a transliteration. With the current situation, using “Kyiv” is especially satisfying, since it rejects Russia’s claim to the nation. (So far, thankfully, I haven’t seen any claims that criticizing Russia is “red scare racist.”) We can safely say it’s the new standard spelling. For similar reasons, we now talk about “Ukraine” rather than “the Ukraine.” The latter suggests a region rather than a nation. A few other countries have a definite article in front of their names, but they’re ones where the name is a phrase (e.g., “the Netherlands,” “the United States”).
(more…)

Prescriptivism vs. descriptivism

This entry was posted in Techniques Writing and tagged usage writing on by

Attitudes toward changes in a language range between two poles. The prescriptivist says words have fixed definitions, and using them in ways that aren’t in the dictionary is misuse. The descriptivist says that words mean whatever people choose them to mean. Few people take a pure position at one end or the other. Prescriptivists face the fact that dictionaries change. Descriptivists can’t treat every neologism they hear as part of the language if they expect people to understand each other. The debate is over how much legitimacy a word needs before it’s considered standard. Words pass through the stage of slang or jargon before they reach full citizenship. Some words don’t go beyond that status, and they don’t have to. Professions need their jargon and subcultures need their slang, and they don’t have to impose it on the whole linguistic community.

Linguistic change isn’t something that a mysterious Sprachgeist causes. It’s the product of the users’ choices. Prescriptivists exert a drag on changes, and that can be good. If the language changes too fast, it becomes less precise. No one’s sure whether a word means what it always meant or it’s become something else. New words are necessary to convey new concepts, but they should prove their worth before getting wide adoption. Some words, like “nice,” have changed so many times that no one’s sure what they mean, except by context and tone of voice.
(more…)

You aren’t a virtual person

This entry was posted in Writing and tagged usage vocabulary on by

You don’t lose reality by communicating at a distance. You don’t become a “virtual” person. I wrote about this a year ago, but the silliness hasn’t abated, so I want to make the point again.

An online gathering of people can appropriately be called a “virtual” gathering. They aren’t really coming together; they get the effect of it through technology. The people participating, though, remain real. You’d think that after over a century of telephones, everyone would grasp that people can be real without being in the same room.
(more…)

What is irony, and how can writers use it?

This entry was posted in Techniques Writing and tagged irony usage writing on by

Irony is one of those things we know when we see it, but it’s hard to pin down if you’re asked to explain. Merriam-Webster gives two definitions: (1) the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny. (2) a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected.
(more…)