usage

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…)

Enough with the “phobia” epithets

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

Sometimes, to make a point you just have to lecture. This is one of those times. I don’t think most of my regular readers need the lecture, but you might like to point it out to those who do.

Start of lecture:

Do you know what the word “phobia” means? Merriam-Webster gives a single definition: “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

The central word is “fear,” which is what “phobia” means in Greek. It’s generally a reaction someone has no immediate control over, though it’s possible to reduce it with long-term measures. Examples are acrophobia (fear of heights), claustrophobia (fear of enclosed places), and agoraphobia (fear of crowds). They don’t normally entail hostility, just a strong desire to avoid whatever it is.
(more…)

Virtually absurd

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

When you don’t see people face to face and all your interactions are by phone or over the Internet, life can take on an unreal quality. It feels as if we’re living virtual lives, not real ones. Maybe that’s why writers put the adjective “virtual” on virtually everything. Instead of real learning, we have “virtual learning.” There was talk of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates having a “virtual debate,” apparently in lieu of actually debating. Yet perversely, people we barely know on Facebook are “friends,” not “virtual friends.”

We need to hang on to the reality of life. The term “virtual” means being not quite something or being simulated. If something is “virtually impossible,” it still has a glimmer of possibility.

Many things are now simulated on the Internet because we can’t do them in real life; there are virtual meetings, virtual classrooms, virtual attendance, etc. That’s legitimate. But the outcomes ought to be real. Virtual classrooms should result in real learning, or what’s the point? Distance doesn’t make things less real. People have debated by correspondence for thousands of years; why does distance suddenly make debates “virtual”?

The word “virtual” is an antonym of “literal.” Maybe the long history of abusing “literal” has made the abuse of its opposite inevitable. If you can say someone “literally exploded” when there was no explosion, then why not say you “virtually learned” when you actually learned?

“Virtual,” like “algorithm,” is a trendy word to stick everywhere because it makes the writer sound computer-smart. But it’s virtual smartness, just the appearance of it. Let’s hold on to what’s real in life and not dismiss everything we do at a distance as “virtual.”

How to impress people with the word “algorithm” 1

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

If you want to come across as a writer who really understands computers, the best way is to learn about them. Read technical books and blogs. Learn how HTML and HTTP work. Find out what the common security fallacies are.

But that’s a lot of work. A quicker way is to use the word “algorithm” a lot.

An algorithm is a precise but abstract description of a computational process. “Precise” means laying out each step mathematically, so that any implementation should produce the same results. “Abstract” means it’s independent of a particular programming language or operating system. You can implement an algorithm in C, PHP, Java, or any other language. Some algorithms work more easily in some languages than in others, but there’s no inherent requirement to use specific technology.
(more…)

Capitalizing (on) skin color

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged capitalization race usage on by

In the first half of the twentieth century, race was widely considered a scientific concept. Terms like “Caucasian” and “Negro” were capitalized to emphasize their significance. Today science recognizes that no objective division of humanity into genetic races is possible. One group shades into another, and differences within groups are greater than those between them. The view of people as members of races has done only harm, setting people against each other.

I prefer strictly descriptive terms when possible, such as “light-skinned” or “dark-skinned.” At the same time, I recognize that dark-skinned people very often get badly treated. It just lets me avoid giving unwarranted significance to these categories. A person with straight, blonde hair and light skin is as human as one with black, curly hair and dark skin. Their experiences are likely to be very different, but their humanity is the same.
(more…)

The right word 4

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

Of all the crimes against good writing, the worst is using the wrong word. A grammatical error looks sloppy, but as long as it doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence, people will get what you mean. Use the wrong word, though, and you fail to convey what you’re trying to say. That amounts to failing as a writer.

Usage errors fall into several categories. This isn’t an exhaustive list, but it includes the types of errors that annoy me the most.
(more…)

Which English are you writing in?

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

My writing work goes to several countries. Just in the past couple of days I’ve written for American, English, and Australian customers. Keeping the customer happy requires writing in the kind of English they want. You can’t always assume it from the country they’re in; I have a regular customer in the UK that wants American English.

Spelling

Spelling is the easiest part to adjust. Britain tends to use “-ise” where Americans use “-ize,” “-our” where we use “-or,” and “-re” where we use “-er.” Australia and New Zealand generally follow Britain. Canada does sometimes, but not always.
(more…)