Comments on: Self-Promotion Department: Patterico in a Book! http://patterico.com/2004/08/03/self-promotion-department-patterico-in-a-book/ Harangues that just make sense Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:00:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: L. Barnes http://patterico.com/2004/08/03/self-promotion-department-patterico-in-a-book/#comment-3204 L. Barnes Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-3204 I think I shall order this book, even though the author thinks "critique" is a verb. The fact is the media are adapting very slowly to new technology that has redifined freedom of the press: we are now all able to become commentators and reporters, as well as monitor the accuracy and bias of the major media. It's a genuine revolution, and people like Patterico are on the bleeding edge of it, defining it and exploring its evolving potential. What a refreshing and exciting development! I think I shall order this book, even though the author thinks “critique” is a verb. The fact is the media are adapting very slowly to new technology that has redifined freedom of the press: we are now all able to become commentators and reporters, as well as monitor the accuracy and bias of the major media. It’s a genuine revolution, and people like Patterico are on the bleeding edge of it, defining it and exploring its evolving potential. What a refreshing and exciting development!

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2004/08/03/self-promotion-department-patterico-in-a-book/#comment-3205 Patterico Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-3205 My understanding is that "critique" is often used as a verb, although some (like you) object to this. I don't think using it that way is clearly wrong, though some grammar experts counsel against this usage. My understanding is that “critique” is often used as a verb, although some (like you) object to this. I don’t think using it that way is clearly wrong, though some grammar experts counsel against this usage.

]]> By: Peter Wayner http://patterico.com/2004/08/03/self-promotion-department-patterico-in-a-book/#comment-3206 Peter Wayner Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-3206 I use critique as a verb all of the time. What's wrong with verbing words when it makes sense. It's an arbitrary distinction that has no place. There are many times when we want to speak of both the action and the effect and so it makes sense to use the same word as a verb and a noun. I use critique as a verb all of the time. What’s wrong with verbing words when it makes sense. It’s an arbitrary distinction that has no place. There are many times when we want to speak of both the action and the effect and so it makes sense to use the same word as a verb and a noun.

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2004/08/03/self-promotion-department-patterico-in-a-book/#comment-3207 Patterico Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-3207 "verbing" words? I think you are going to be accused of junking the language -- but not in so many words. “verbing” words?

I think you are going to be accused of junking the language — but not in so many words.

]]> By: Tom http://patterico.com/2004/08/03/self-promotion-department-patterico-in-a-book/#comment-3208 Tom Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-3208 Heh...you made a <i>funny</i>. Oh, wait...different problem there... Heh…you made a funny. Oh, wait…different problem there…

]]> By: L. Barnes http://patterico.com/2004/08/03/self-promotion-department-patterico-in-a-book/#comment-3209 L. Barnes Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1774#comment-3209 My undersanding is that when an English teacher announces on national television, "I teaches English," that she is simply ignorant -- though some people talk that way. Fortunately I am not required to. Not yet; political correctness has not advanced that far, though I suspect the enforced use of incorrect language (lest we stigmatize the ignorant) may be around the corner. Just kidding. Seriously, though: why discard the perfectly good verb "to criticize" and replace it with a totally unnecessary word that simply demonstrates one's ignorance? Because of sloth and ignorance. Yet we try to shame the news media into accuracy, do we not? Why do we try to expose bias and distortion and omission, when we know that most people are willing to accept them and live by deceitful slogans? Because we know that ignorance is inferior to knowledge and understanding, and that precision in thought and word is a prerequisite to an ethical life. For example: the precise language of the law is essential, and only a rigorous education will prepare law students for their intended profession. It is indeed a matter of standards and education; there is no shame in that. By the same token, it strikes me as perverse that the educated use of English should come under attack as somehow negative or churlish. Yet I know that I shall be scorned and mocked for refusing to debase my language by allowing others' ignorance to pollute it. My education is incomplete and my knowledge finite, and I shall not apologize for doing what I can to improve both. Nor shall I beg forgiveness for my elitist attempt to express myself correctly (knowing, even as I assert my resolve, that this message probably contains errors of some sort!). When I point out that someone who makes a living as an author may not know the fundamentals of correct usage, I realize that I touch a nerve. But correct is correct, and ignorance should be removed when possible. So: we don't vote on things like the meaning of "critique." We go to a good dictionary --yes, there are bad ones -- and discover that the word is a noun, and that to use it as a verb is improper and marks one as ignorant. Then we wince when otherwise educated people defend debased usage. Language change that stems from utter ignorance can and should be ignored. My undersanding is that when an English teacher announces on national television, “I teaches English,” that she is simply ignorant — though some people talk that way. Fortunately I am not required to. Not yet; political correctness has not advanced that far, though I suspect the enforced use of incorrect language (lest we stigmatize the ignorant) may be around the corner. Just kidding.

Seriously, though: why discard the perfectly good verb “to criticize” and replace it with a totally unnecessary word that simply demonstrates one’s ignorance? Because of sloth and ignorance.

Yet we try to shame the news media into accuracy, do we not? Why do we try to expose bias and distortion and omission, when we know that most people are willing to accept them and live by deceitful slogans? Because we know that ignorance is inferior to knowledge and understanding, and that precision in thought and word is a prerequisite to an ethical life.

For example: the precise language of the law is essential, and only a rigorous education will prepare law students for their intended profession. It is indeed a matter of standards and education; there is no shame in that. By the same token, it strikes me as perverse that the educated use of English should come under attack as somehow negative or churlish. Yet I know that I shall be scorned and mocked for refusing to debase my language by allowing others’ ignorance to pollute it.

My education is incomplete and my knowledge finite, and I shall not apologize for doing what I can to improve both. Nor shall I beg forgiveness for my elitist attempt to express myself correctly (knowing, even as I assert my resolve, that this message probably contains errors of some sort!). When I point out that someone who makes a living as an author may not know the fundamentals of correct usage, I realize that I touch a nerve. But correct is correct, and ignorance should be removed when possible.

So: we don’t vote on things like the meaning of “critique.” We go to a good dictionary –yes, there are bad ones — and discover that the word is a noun, and that to use it as a verb is improper and marks one as ignorant. Then we wince when otherwise educated people defend debased usage. Language change that stems from utter ignorance can and should be ignored.

]]>