Henrietta Hay's Column

Every now and then I feel compelled to write a protest against fuzzy-speak and bad grammar. This is not to suggest that I claim perfection in those fields, but if I break a rule, I usually do it deliberately. And if I don't write clearly, my friend the philosopher is sure to tell me about it. Anyway, editors need to have something to do. (Only kidding, Janet.)

English is not the most consistent language in the world, but it is ours, and it is most effective when it is spoken and written clearly and correctly. Although language changes with time, those changes should make it easier for us to understand each other, not harder. Today's changes sometimes make it impossible.

My number one pet peeve is still the "izing" of nouns. My favorite non-word is prioritize, although I no longer cringe when others use it. I just refuse to say it myself.

The "-ize" words have a long history. According to the Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, harmonize dates from 1483, and memorize from 1591. Maybe if we live to 2132 incentivize, strategize and bureaucratize will sound OK. But in the meantime, the Sunday Parade story that said that Margaret Thatcher "peripheralized" Europe may be a bit hard to comprehend. And I do frown a little over a letter from an insurance adjuster, which says, "I request that you allow me to statementize your client concerning this accident."

Clarity sometimes requires that we invent a new word to describe some new activity. How do you describe a person who uses and is fascinated by a computer? Several suggestions are computician, computertant, and computerablist. My personal favorite is computer-nut, with or without the hyphen, but Webster hasn't accepted it yet.

I'm all for using any teaching method that works in the schools, but I think there are some things the kids simply have to memorize. There is no logic to homophones. Even the majestic Time magazine slips up on that one now and then. They once referred to giving reporters free reign. A headline in Chicago announced that transferring teachers will create undo hardship. The Seattle Weekly once said that when Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables he was already on the lamb from Napoleon's goons. And some reporter referred to "the Bushes' grandchildren gambling on the White House lawn."

If I had to choose between good grammar and clarity, maybe I would lean toward clarity. English is becoming a language of gobbledygook which makes understanding nearly impossible. It is a combination of fuzzy thinking and deliberate obfuscation, meaning either the complete opposite of what is being said, or nothing at all. It is getting harder to understand the things we hear and work with daily. Recently a Denver lawyer made this statement after a settlement, "I think it isn't accurate to say that we think we did anything wrong, but the (reinstatement) fits our overall perception of fairness." Well, now, wouldn't "we goofed" have been a bit more clear?

Politicians speak a great deal of gobbledygook. It can be mildly entertaining to read and hear, but we seldom have any idea what it means. We're going to have more of it over the next nine months than we want or deserve. Presidential election years are terribly hard on the language. One of our local lawmakers, who shall be nameless because I am sure he knows, better, uttered this little gem recently, "Before I ask the next question, I must recognize the most honorable chairman of Finance, who I have eight bills in front of."

I cannot, of course, omit Mr. Quayle from this particular column. He recently won The Golden Bull award from the Plain English Campaign for this. "We offer the party as a big tent. How we do that (recognize the big-tent philosophy) within the platform, the preamble to the platform and whatnot that remains to be seen. But that message will have to be articulated with great clarity." Right on, Dan.

The battle for clear and correct speaking and writing goes on. A lot of what we hear and read don't make no sense no more.