Notes & asides

* Dear Mr. Buckley: In the March 28 Notes & Asides, Kelley Dupuis cites some pet peeves regarding the language. I have some of my own, after 40 years as a newspaper copy boy, reporter, editor, and publisher (and still a working stiff):

Using "impact" instead of "effect." Using "venue" (except in a legal sense) instead of "location." Not understanding the difference between "anticipate" and "expect." Not understanding the use of "include" to mean that not all items, persons, etc., are listed. Using "cement" when they mean "concrete" (cement is an ingredient of concrete). Failure to have verb tenses agree with their subjects, such as the often-misused "media." Not knowing that "criteria" and "criterion" are plural and singular. Unnecessarily using "in the month of" when listing months. Not knowing the difference between "alumni" and "alumnae." Using "over" instead of "more than." Using "at the present time" instead of "now." Not knowing the difference between "continuing," "continual," and "continuous."

And on and on. These are but a few of my pet peeves. Not all are included.

Best to you,

Robert R. Rodriguez

Cave Junction, Ore.

Dear Mr. Rodriguez: You are nicely warming up.

Cordially, WFB

* Dear Mr. Buckley: The letter on "singlenounization" of the word "media" (Notes & Asides, April 25) reminded me of an article in a Royal Engineers surveying publication in the mid-'80s entitled "Data Is Not What They Used to Be." The writer said, "We do not talk about three data or 423 data, or of isolating one datum from the data." To illustrate his preference for treating the word "data" as singular, he pointed out that the word "news" used to be considered plural and went on to say, "During the Crimean War, John Thaddeus Delane, editor of The Times, cabled William Howard Russell, the first war correspondent: 'Are there any news?' Back down the wires the electric message came: 'Not a damned new.'"

The writer used these arguments to justify treating "data" as singular. If that is good enough for Her Majesty's surveyors and a few of her professors, who are we to argue? The same could be said for "media."

Hugh Caddess

San Antonio, Tex.

Dear Mr. Buckley: You can call off the hunt for the elusive "encephalophonic." I have it cornered in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, where the noun "encephalophone" is defined as "an apparatus that emits a continuous hum whose pitch is changed by interference of brain waves transmitted through oscillators from electrodes attached to the scalp and that is used to diagnose abnormal brain functioning."

I knew right where to look, because you provoked my search for that word a generation ago, when I first (and not last) encountered it in one of your books.

If it was used derisively about you, I can only infer that the reviewer's brain was set a-humming by a) his failure to follow your illaqueating logic, b) his dizzied awe at your manifold talents, and/or c) his inability to distinguish lexiphanicism from lectio divina. I say, keep it up. We could all do with more brain vibrations.

Cordially,

Julian Schmidt

Treynor, Iowa

Dear Mr. Schmidt: I could not have said it better myself!

Cordially, --WFB

COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning