Embracing the Singular They

Published at superiorprose.com, September 2024:

With its 18th edition, The Chicago Manual of Style has fully embraced the singular they.

This comes many years after the manual partially accepted the singular they in a development that one veteran editor called “the middle of the end for the insistence that ‘they’ can be only a plural pronoun.” 

The new CMOS’s revised guidelines on pronouns can be found in the fifth chapter (Grammar and Usage). At 5.44 it is noted that “they can be singular as well as plural in sense” but is always paired with “a plural verb” even when referring to just one person. Write “they are happy” rather than “they is happy.”

The chapter later notes that the singular they is nowadays “used in reference to a nonbinary person” (i.e., a person who identifies as neither female nor male) in addition to the more traditional use when gender is unknown. “In recent years this usage has become accepted in more formal contexts … and Chicago now endorses it.”

I like that the guidance at 5.52 gives a nod to themself as an alternative to themselves when using the singular they: “And themself (like yourself) may be used to signal the singular antecedent when it appears to be the logical choice.” 

Use of the singular they for those who identify as nonbinary is a matter of respect, as stated later in 5.52: “If an individual is known to use they and its forms as their personal pronouns rather than the gendered he or she, this usage should be respected.”

Later in the chapter, there’s a nine-item list of “options for gender neutrality" in pronoun use. The first suggestion is that in some cases a writer could omit the pronoun entirely. 

“For instance, in the programmer should update the records when data is transferred to her by the head office, if there is only one programmer, the pronoun phrase to her can be omitted: the programmer should update the records when data is transferred by the head office. Note that the shorter sentence is tighter as well as gender-free.”

A Commonly Misused Verb: Refute

Published at superiorprose.com, August 2024:

One too-common mistake in journalism is the misuse of the verb refute.

For example, there’s this headline at a regional news website in my part of the world: “Neebing Minor Hockey refutes allegations from Lakehead Minor Hockey League.”

The problem here is that the Neebing organization did not refute the allegations. That is to say, it did not conclusively disprove them.

Rather, Neebing Minor Hockey disputed the allegations made by the Lakehead organization.

Neebing’s president, per the article, took issue with things said by Lakehead officials. That’s not the same as proving them wrong, which would be refuting.

Unless something is actually being disproven, journalists should use a different verb. Some suggestions are rebuke, dispute, rebut, deny, reject and counter.

Don’t wanna take my word for it? Well, the AP Stylebook agrees with me. “Refute connotes success in argument and almost always implies an editorial judgment,” it says.

The Oxford dictionary I have at home does seem to suggest refute could be used to mean simply “refuse or reject,” but I’m with the Associated Press in believing the word should not be used that way. If you mean to say reject, why use the less familiar refute? Your writing is no more concise with the latter, and you could be leading readers to wrongly believe something actually was proven false.

The New York Times is with me on this issue, too. Here’s its guidance, quoted in a 2018 Columbia Journalism Review column: “Rebut, a neutral word, means reply and take issue. Refute goes further, and often beyond what a writer intends: it means disprove, and successfully. Unless that is the intention, use rebut, dispute, deny or reject.”

The Canadian Press’s Caps and Spelling (23rd edition) unhelpfully lumps the two words together with this confusing entry: “refute, rebut (prove wrong; use with care).” The smart people at the news agency should know that rebut and refute are not synonyms.

Over at the Daily Writing Tips website you can find a succinct rundown on the nuances of deny, rebut and refute. To deny is to say “No, that’s not true.” To rebut is to provide reasons for saying the other person is wrong. To refute is to prove the other person wrong.

For clarity – and, as the Associated Press suggests, to avoid appearing to take sides – one should not use refute, rebut and deny interchangeably.

Write “refute” only when something has actually been proven wrong.

Quality time in the wild for Northwest kids

Published 17 July 2024 at NWOnewswatch.com:

SHEBANDOWAN – According to official Camp Quality lore, Vera Entwistle didn’t know what to name the support camp she was starting in 1982 for kids with cancer in Australia until a physician offered some philosophical perspective.

“No one can do anything about the quantity of life,” the doctor said, “but we all can do something about the quality.”

Lily, 10, has enjoyed her quality time this week at the annual Camp Quality for Northwestern Ontario, being held for a third year at the Wilderness Discovery Centre west of Thunder Bay.

The fun has included crafts, planting flowers, fishing, swimming and a Disney trivia quiz, she said Tuesday.

“There’s nice fishing places and it’s good to meet new friends,” Lily said just minutes before a talent show involving all 17 Camp Quality children and many volunteers.

It’s the third time at Camp Quality for 13-year-old Nathan, who agrees there’s much fun to be had at the lakeside retreat.

“There’s lots of new people here and you meet new friends,” he said.

Being able to hang out with friends, make new friends and enjoy outdoor recreation is “pretty awesome,” he said.

The first Camp Quality in Canada was established in 1988 at a location northwest of Toronto. Two other camps in Ontario and one in Alberta followed in the next 12 years before the Northwestern Ontario program started in 2002.

Organizers pivoted to a “camp-in-a-box” experience for two years while the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted everything and then revived the full in-person program in 2022, camp director Sam Stovel said Tuesday.

“We’re extremely excited that Northwestern Ontario is able to provide this camping experience,” she said.

“So far, it’s been a really great week.”

Stovel added that the Camp Quality organization delivers inclusive programming year-round and happily accepts donations at its website, campquality.org.

Lily took part in Tuesday’s mirthful talent show as part of a magic act; Nathan and his Moose Manor teammates entertained with a poem cycle.

The final couplet, read aloud by Nathan, summed up the Camp Quality experience:

“From campfires at night to the games in the sun / At Camp Quality, we’re all having so much fun.”

The Right Way to Give Feedback

Published at superiorprose.com, August 2023:

I recently discovered Author Magazine, a website chock-full of advice on writing and publishing, and read an article there on how to critique other writers’ work. The article is specifically about critiquing within a writers’ group session after an author reads his or her work out loud, but much of the advice applies well to other situations.

Imagine, for example, that a colleague, friend or co-worker has written a report or memo for distribution within an organization. But, before she sends it out to others, she wants your discreet input on what she has written. We’ve all been there, I suppose, as both the advisor and the person seeking advice. Here, adapted from Gary Zenker’s November 2022 post at Author, are a few tips on how to help.

First things first: Before you start reading, find out what your colleague/friend/co-worker wants from your feedback. Does she want to know where things are unclear? What words could be cut? Whether there’s too much jargon? It will be much easier to accomplish your mission if you know what the mission is.

Another thing before you start: Keep in mind that feedback and rewrite are not synonyms. Don’t go into the process with an eye to how you would write the item in question. Another person will convey the same information differently. Respect that. (If the item in question seems unprofessional or not in the right tone, on the other hand, do raise your concern and explain why you think so.)

The article suggests you focus on “the flow of storytelling,” which sounds particularly pertinent to fiction. For the situation I’m thinking of, this bit of advice can be repurposed to say that you should focus on how the item is structured – would it be better if the fourth paragraph were the third paragraph? – and how clear the writer is in expressing her ideas.

An important caveat is not to make grammar and spelling your focus, unless the writer asks that you do. Instead, focus on how well the writing expresses ideas and explains things. Do note where corrections need to be made in grammar and spelling, but don’t fire off an email demonstrating that your grammar is much better than hers. The writer trusted you to give friendly advice; don’t make her regret that.

The article recommends the “sandwich” pattern of feedback – opening with something positive, then offering constructive criticism, and then closing with something positive. That makes sense in the context of a group session, to try to avoid sounding like you’re attacking the writer, but I think it’s unnecessary in a private email exchange. The writer asked you what could be improved; she doesn’t need flattery about how smart she is.

Once you’ve pointed out the parts that need more work, consider closing with a “big picture” statement about what you read. Do you think it will be ready for distribution after a few amendments are made, or does it need a more thorough rethinking and reworking? If the latter, the writer should appreciate your honesty.

Contronyms and Clear Communication

Published at superiorprose.com, March 2023:

We all know English can be a tricky language. It has an immense vocabulary plucked and plundered from all over the world, many words that look or sound the same but have rather different meanings, some difficult-to-follow grammar rules, and countless curveballs in spelling and pronunciation.

One confounding feature of this gloriously eccentric language of ours is the abundance of words that, depending on context, can have opposite or nearly opposite meanings.

These are called contronyms (or contranyms). The term, coined in the early 1960s by an English professor at Arizona State University, is derived from the Latin word contra, meaning against or opposing.

Contronyms are also sometimes called Janus words, in reference to a god in ancient Roman mythology who had two faces looking in opposite directions. A third term for this kind of word is auto-antonym, denoting that the word is an antonym of itself.

The verb sanction can mean “to permit or authorize” – or, alternatively, “to condemn or penalize.” NATO might sanction the use of force, meaning it authorizes the use of force. A judge might sanction (penalize) a lawyer for an outburst in court.

When we speak of oversight, we could be referring to either monitoring or a failure to notice. “The government is strengthening its oversight of independent schools.” “The error was a simple oversight.”

When people say something is fine, they might mean it’s of high quality. Then again, they might mean it’s just “OK” or barely satisfactory. “Fine china” is fancy stuff; “I’m fine” means I’m feeling OK but certainly could be in better shape.

Dozens of other contronyms are listed at Daily Writing Tips. They include cleave (which can mean either to adhere or to separate), left (departed, or remained) and trip (a journey, or a stumble).

When using a contronym, take care to be sure that the context makes your meaning clear. You don’t want the reader unsure which kind of oversight or sanction you’re talking about.

Also, consider using different words that remove doubt as to what you mean. Instead of saying the sportswriter overlooked the soccer club’s achievements, you could say she failed to notice their achievements.

As always, clarity is paramount.

Coming to Terms with Publishers

Published at superiorprose.com, October 2022:

Penguin Random House’s proposed (and, as of October 31, court-blocked) merger with Simon & Schuster raised concern about the future of competition in book publishing.

Stephen King spoke to those concerns in August when he testified for the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit to stop the merger. In the 50 years since start of his career, he said, there has been a decline in the number of imprints.

That word, imprint, is being used here in a way that may be unfamiliar to people outside the publishing industry.

In book publishing, an imprint is the trade name or brand under which a book is released. Penguin Random House has seemingly countless imprints, including Zeitgeist, Modern Library, Anchor Books, Vintage Books and Plume. Simon & Shuster’s many imprints include Scribner (which has published many of King’s novels), Enliven, Touchstone and Free Press.

In a CBC radio discussion this fall, I heard a journalist say a Penguin-S&S merger likely would mean less variety in the colophons one sees on the spines of new books.

A colophon, she explained, is an imprint’s logo. The Chicago Manual of Style says the word can also refer to a statement at the end of a book “about the materials, processes, and individuals or companies involved in its production.” My New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says the word comes from the Greek kolophon, meaning summit or finishing touch.

The logo kind of colophon could appear on the title page, which is not to be confused with the half title. The latter is a page containing only the book’s main title and not any subtitle, author name, or publisher name – which all appear on the title page. The half title, when there is one, precedes the title page.

One might also find a colophon on the copyright page, the overleaf to the title page. As the term implies, the copyright page features a “copyright notice” stating whose intellectual property the book is. The page also usually includes the title, place of printing, and International Standard Book Number, commonly referred to as the ISBN.

The copyright page is, by the way, always verso while the title page is recto. Verso (from the Latin verso folio) refers to a left-hand page; a right-hand (generally odd-numbered) page is recto.

A Very Overused Word

Published at superiorprose.com, August 2022: 

“Never” rules are, in my opinion, always wrong. (Or, if you will, never right.)

When I was in my first year of journalism school, a senior student told me to “never lead with a quote.” I just couldn’t agree with him then, and I still disagree. Leading with a quote usually isn’t advisable, but there are times when a quote makes for a strong start to an article.

Another “never” rule that is often dispensed but still wrong is to never use the word very. Sometimes it can be just the right word, actually.

It is true, however, that the four-letter intensifier is used all too often by inexperienced writers trying to add emphasis: “Jenny is a very smart child.” “The bear was very large.” “Professor Proton was a very big influence on young Sheldon.”

The problem with very is that it is so overused that it has no impact. When readers see it in every other paragraph, the word becomes meaningless to them.

There are three basic approaches to cutting very from your writing: replacing it with another intensifier, replacing very and the adjective that follows with a single word, and simply deleting it.

In place of very, you could write abundantly, amply, mightily, or profoundly, depending on the adjective you’re modifying. There is, in fact, a multitude of words that can be used instead.

You could say Jenny is an exceptionally smart child. You might write that the bear was extraordinarily large. You could say Professor Proton was a particularly big influence.

Here are some other words to consider: decidedly, deeply, enormously, exceedingly, extremely, highly, quite, rather, seriously, and vastly. Which word to use when will depend on context and intended meaning. Consult an online or paper thesaurus for more.

Instead of writing “very [adjective],” consider replacing that phrase with one word of equivalent meaning:
♦ Jenny is a precocious child.
♦ The bear was enormous.
♦ Professor Proton was a tremendous influence.

GrammarCheck and other websites have lists of such words – exact for “very accurate,” and filthy for “very dirty,” to cite just two examples. A suitable adjective may be just two clicks away.

Often you could just dispense with the four-letter word and write, for example, “Jenny was a smart child.” After all, very doesn’t add much in many cases. Mark Twain supposedly had this advice for writers: “Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write ‘very’; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.”

It should be noted, though, that Twain used the little word himself many times. I don’t think he was making a “never” rule.