Is it actually possible to use English incorrectly?
Image: Tomasz Sienicki via Wikimedia Commons (cc)
As a writer and editor, my professional existence relies on my ability to use the English language to communicate. But given the constantly evolving nature of English, is it actually possible to ever truly use it incorrectly?
It was a letter from my uncle in England which prompted me to consider this conundrum. Being something of a self-confessed grammar geek, Nigel sent me a book review from the Financial Times for Horrible Words: A Guide to the Misuse of English by Rebecca Gowers. Gowers is the great-granddaughter of renowned grammarian (and hero to Red Pony’s own Andrew Eather) Sir Ernest Gowers.
My existential crisis was triggered by Gowers’ criticism of British journalist Simon Heffer, who suggested that people who use the term ‘decimate’ to mean anything other than ‘reduce by 10 per cent’ are wrong on the grounds that they are wrenching it from ‘from its correct etymology’.
As Gowers explains, the nature of the English language is that words constantly change their meaning and evolve through common use – ‘journey’ originally referred to a single day of travel, while in the 17th century ‘quarantine’ apparently referred to the 40 days a widow could remain in the family home after the death of her husband. Who knew?
So, as an editor, when should I change the word ‘decimate’ if it’s not applied in its original, ‘literal’ sense? What constitutes a legitimate evolution of meaning, and when is something just plain wrong? We often fall back on the dictionary as the final arbiter of truth in these matters, but this is not always helpful. At least when it comes to decimation though, my Macquarie comes at least close to taking a definitive stand:
Originally this word referred to the killing of one in ten, and by extension to the destruction of some part of the whole. It is now frequently used to refer to almost total destruction, but despite the weight of corpus evidence in favour of this shift in meaning, some writers still do not accept it.
Can something really be correct if enough people say so? Possibly yes, but then how is this measured? Our language is in a constant state of flux, and editors have to understand that sometimes there is no definitive answer, no binary right or wrong.
I have two important rules that I apply when rewriting or editing:
Is the meaning clear? (this rule takes precedence over anything else)
Is the use of language consistent?
If the answer to both these questions is ‘yes’, then I am at least part way to having done my job.
