Who says?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue Aug 20, 2002 9:05 pm

As schools try to meet higher state and federal standards, testing programs and college preparation should all work toward the same end,
said Debra Nelson, the associate superintendent for the Hickman Mills School District in Kansas City.
"We want to make sure our kids are prepared," she said. "We know that kids who do well on the ACT do better in college. It's all related." (Kansas City Star)***Is it? Do we know that? I don't seem to find anything in this story to support those conclusions.***

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:43 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
As schools try to meet higher state and federal standards, testing programs and college preparation should all work toward the same end,
said Debra Nelson, the associate superintendent for the Hickman Mills School District in Kansas City.
"We want to make sure our kids are prepared," she said. "We know that kids who do well on the ACT do better in college. It's all related." (Kansas City Star)***Is it? Do we know that? I don't seem to find anything in this story to support those conclusions.***<hr></blockquote>
Thanks for this textbook example (no pun intended) of "begging the question" â€” assuming as proved the same thing you're trying to prove. I'm sure all of us at one point has had to explain to a reporter that he can't say "begs the question" when he means "raises the question."[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

tommangan · **Posted:** Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:05 am

Have we hashed out the reality of "begs the question" here? I can't remember. I think the old -- and, mind you, correct -- usage has become meaningless to all but a cadre of copy editors who know what it actually means. In current usage "begs the question" and "raises the question" mean the same thing.

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:20 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
In current usage "begs the question" and "raises the question" mean the same thing.<hr></blockquote>And "hopefully" means "it is hoped" to most people. "Continuous" and "continual" also mean the same thing to most. As do "that" and "which."We're copy editors. We're trained to know the difference. That's why our employer hired us. If we're going to ignore the misuse of the English language, then what's the point of our showing up to work in the first place?

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:24 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
In current usage "begs the question" and "raises the question" mean the same thing.<hr></blockquote>And "hopefully" means "it is hoped" to most people. "Continuous" and "continual" also mean the same thing to most. As do "that" and "which."We're copy editors. We're trained to know the difference. That's why our employer hired us. If we're going to ignore the misuse of the English language, then what's the point of our showing up to work in the first place?

tommangan · **Posted:** Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:41 pm

How to define the difference between "misuse" and evolution of the language? I think when a phrase has taken on a new meaning ... no matter how debased that new meaning may be to the purists ... that the new meaning has to be recognized.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Thu Aug 22, 2002 5:24 pm

During its evolution, a word or expression can become useless unless its meaning is perfectly clear from context. Meanings change, but not for everyone at the same time. This can take years.From my current employer's pages: This week a features section story referred to a musician as a "diva." To my middle-aged mind, she's the antithesis of a diva, aside from being a talented woman who sings. To me, a diva is a flamboyant, arrogant, difficult performer (most likely a woman -- a whole other issue). To the MTV-VH1 generation, a diva is simply a famous female singer. So, in reading about a performer I know little or nothing about, the label "diva" does me no good. I've given up the fight about "layoff" vs. "furlough," though i sometimes don't know what is intended when i read the terms.
<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
How to define the difference between "misuse" and evolution of the language? I think when a phrase has taken on a new meaning ... no matter how debased that new meaning may be to the purists ... that the new meaning has to be recognized.<hr></blockquote>

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:54 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
How to define the difference between "misuse" and evolution of the language? I think when a phrase has taken on a new meaning ... no matter how debased that new meaning may be to the purists ... that the new meaning has to be recognized.<hr></blockquote>I agree, but by the same token, we as copy editors can't rationalize bad English as "evolution." We do have benchmarks for measuring whether a word or phrase is "debased" or "evolutionary."I submit that "begging the question," to cite one example, does not even come close to representing the evolution of English. Using it to mean "raises the question" is bad English, plain and simple.

dmfugitive · **Posted:** Mon Aug 26, 2002 6:05 pm

The so-called incorrect use of "beg the question" crops up all the time, far more often than it should, regardless of what it means. Yet in every case, it would be clearer and more direct to burn another 2 letters and say "raise the question." On those blessed occasions when the phrase is used correctly, the writer invariably tosses in some breast-beating about how all those other idiots say "beg the question" when they really mean "raise the question." They do this not only to show off their big, throbbing brains, but also because most people, like it or not, have come to think the phrase means "raise the question." (My boys Tom and Wayne might call that evolution, but I'll just stay out of it.) So here's your choice: Use it incorrectly and know it's a cliche, or use it correctly and be a pedant. I hesitate to say whether that qualifies as a dilemma, but I'm sure someone has the definition handy and can beat me about the head and shoulders with it.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:34 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
[QB]And "hopefully" means "it is hoped" to most people. "Continuous" and "continual" also mean the same thing to most. As do "that" and "which."*The that/which distinction is useful because it promotes consistency in publications that have many editors, but it is "violated" all the time by literary types. I don't think the distinction, as defined by AP, has much historical validity. I still follow it, though.*

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:04 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by dmfugitive:
The so-called incorrect use of "beg the question" crops up all the time, far more often than it should, regardless of what it means. Yet in every case, it would be clearer and more direct to burn another 2 letters and say "raise the question." On those blessed occasions when the phrase is used correctly, the writer invariably tosses in some breast-beating about how all those other idiots say "beg the question" when they really mean "raise the question." They do this not only to show off their big, throbbing brains, but also because most people, like it or not, have come to think the phrase means "raise the question." (My boys Tom and Wayne might call that evolution, but I'll just stay out of it.) So here's your choice: Use it incorrectly and know it's a cliche, or use it correctly and be a pedant. I hesitate to say whether that qualifies as a dilemma, but I'm sure someone has the definition handy and can beat me about the head and shoulders with it.<hr></blockquote>I don't mean that "evolution" always leads to improvement. In fact, unlike in evolution within nature, we can and should try to save valuable nuances of language.My point is that change does occur over time (evolution), whether we like it or not. How we deal with changes in language usage is crucial to clarity in the short and long term.We're not obligated to use new terms if they're unclear, and we're not obligated to misuse old terms. This goes for formal terms and slang. When they're proper to use is a judgment call.In my opinion, some words are dead to us in most contexts, if only temporarily. For instance, no one needs to use "presently," but we're nearing the point at which few people know how it was used a few decades ago; soon, it will be clear to all when it's used to denote "now" -- its most popular usage today, though probably incorrect to most of us here.Another word: "gay." Not so many years ago it became recognized as slang for "homosexual." I'm looking at a dictionary from 1984 that has "homosexual" as its third definition of "gay," and not as slang. AP began allowing it about a dozen years ago, and most publications have dropped their prohibitions of it. Probably 100 percent of readers will immediately think "homosexual" when they see "gay" in a headline; how many did in 1990? 1980? 1970? I don't remember when I first heard "gay" used that way, don't know when I began to consider it the dominant meaning, and sure can't speak for readers at large.Computers could be programmed to survey the use of language and make such determinations ("jumping the shark," anyone?), but who trusts word-processing programs' spelling, hyphenation or grammar checking? Folks like us will have to keep making these judgment calls.[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ][ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]

tommangan · **Posted:** Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:31 am

re Gay: among youngsters it's become a synonym for anything bad or negative or disliked."That is SO gay," they're saying.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:54 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
re Gay: among youngsters it's become a synonym for anything bad or negative or disliked."That is SO gay," they're saying.<hr></blockquote>I'd heard that, Tom, but forgotten it when i wrote my post.so, even with a word i said 100 percent of readers would recognize as intended by a headline writer, the hed could be taken the wrong way in some contexts; perhaps "gay" would mislead in the display type of some features-section story with a youth angle, for instance.and if i write display type or edit text that the reader takes the wrong way because of my word choice, it might be my fault for not being clear, not the reader's. for what it's worth, i can't imagine using the word in this way into the paper unless the story was about homosexuality and language, or something like that.in nature, many evolutionary paths end in extinction; at the risk of being called politically correct, this slang use of "gay" is one i'd like to see die, and refusing to use it would speed the process.

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Aug 29, 2002 12:28 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Wayne Countryman:
in nature, many evolutionary paths end in extinction; at the risk of being called politically correct, this slang use of "gay" is one i'd like to see die, and refusing to use it would speed the process.<hr></blockquote>I hasten to add, with only a hint of facetiousness, that many people were saying the exact same thing about the exact same word 20 years ago.Anyway, the "new" usage of "gay" may not die right away, but even if it doesn't, its use will remain confined to kids. I personally don't have to "refuse" to use "gay" this way; I would no more do that than say "rad," "tubular," "bitchin'" or whatever the middle-school lingo is these days. Besides, grown-ups don't want to use terms whose meanings could be interpreted as offensive.

ramblerdan · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 3:27 pm

I suggest the usefulness test as a guide for whether to accept or reject a new word, meaning or usage."Gay" as teen slang for "bad" doesn't pass on its own merit, and certainly not when it would cause confusion with "gay" as no-longer-slang for homosexual. "Retronym," OTOH, is a beautifully apt and useful word, for which there is no synonym that I know of.A few examples, pro and con:The much-ignored difference between "ratio" and "margin" is useful; likewise "which" and "that." Battles worth fighting. I'll even stand up for "among" vs. "between."Meanwhile, "compared to" vs. "compared with" strikes me as a useless distinction, not to mention almost impossible to remember. (If "to" and "which" were reversed, would it make any more or less sense? No. The form is arbitrary, just as the distinction itself is rarely needed.)I also don't see why "more than" is better than "over" when it comes to quantities. When you're fighting widespread and entrenched usage, you need a better argument than "Well, it says so right here in this book.""Hopefully," IMHO, falls in the middle. I can see why one might defend reserving it for the rare sense of "She sat hopefully as winning number was picked," but the overwhelmingly more common sense of "it is hoped" or "one hopes" is also useful, and there is no good alternative. Anyone who uses "It is hoped that..." in place of "hopefully" really is being pedantic, in my book.Which reminds me of a little joke.Freshman to upperclassman: "Where's the library at?"Upperclassman: "You are in college now, and you need to speak correctly. A sentence should never end in a preposition."Freshman: "Oh, sorry. I mean to say, where's the library at, you jerk?"-30-

SusanV · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:57 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ramblerdan:Meanwhile, "compared to" vs. "compared with" strikes me as a useless distinction, not to mention almost impossible to remember. (If "to" and "which" were reversed, would it make any more or less sense? No. The form is arbitrary, just as the distinction itself is rarely needed.)
It's not an arbitrary distinction--they don't mean the same thing. "Compared with" is what's called for probably 95 percent of the time--use it when putting things side by side to examine similarities or differences. It's also the one for numerical comparisons (the business earned $1 billion this year, compared with only $750,000 last year). "Compared to," OTOH, is used to express a similarity or put things in the same category.In other words: If I compare you with Ted Bernstein, I'm looking at your attributes and looking at his attributes to find similarities and differences. But if I compare you to Ted Bernstein, then I'm saying that you are his equal.

tommangan · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:59 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SusanV:
[QUOTE] In other words: If I compare you with Ted Bernstein, I'm looking at your attributes and looking at his attributes to find similarities and differences. But if I compare you to Ted Bernstein, then I'm saying that you are his equal.<hr></blockquote> So "compared to" is only for similarities and "compared with" is for similarities or differences? Sorry, but that's a trivial difference.

SusanV · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:37 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
 So "compared to" is only for similarities and "compared with" is for similarities or differences? Sorry, but that's a trivial difference.<hr></blockquote>Compared to makes the point that things are equivalent to each other. Compared with is a side-by-side examination of all the properties. You compare Ted Williams's record with Stan Musial's to conclude, say, that Williams compares to Musial (meaning they were equals). Or doesn't compare to Musial, as the case may be! ;) I have to disagree with you. I don't see that as a trivial difference at all.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:31 pm

This discussion really needs a clearer definition of what the difference is between the two phrases."Compared with" is an examination of two things that are the same form. The Williams-vs.-Musial example in the previous post is a good one."Compared to" is used to compare things that one wouldn't think as being the same kind of thing. "Her high-pitched chatter can be compared to that of a modem."Does this help?

SusanV · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 11:27 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
This discussion really needs a clearer definition of what the difference is between the two phrases."Compared with" is an examination of two things that are the same form. The Williams-vs.-Musial example in the previous post is a good one."Compared to" is used to compare things that one wouldn't think as being the same kind of thing. "Her high-pitched chatter can be compared to that of a modem."Does this help?<hr></blockquote>That's an interesting way of looking at it, but where'd you find that? Even Bernstein says merely "When the purpose is to liken two things or to put them in the same category, use to." He doesn't say anything about their not being thought of as the same kind of thing.For that matter, regarding compared with, again, all he says is to use it "when the purpose is to place one thing side by side with another, to examine their differences or their similarities." No mention of their having to be the same form. How often do we hear about comparing apples with oranges, after all? (And I swear, I never looked there till just now. Any similarity between my earlier post and Mr. B is strictly coincidence!)[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: SusanV ]

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:07 pm

There is a difference between "compared with" and "compared to," at least in some cases. My own rule of thumb: Use "compared to" if "likened to" is meant. "He compared her to a rose" and "He likened her to a rose" say the same thing. Essentially, these are similies. "He compared her with a rose," to my ear, sounds vaguely comical, as if the speaker were studying the anatomies of a woman and a rose to see whether they were similar. I realize this doesn't cover all uses. There are instances where either phrase would work. It seems to me that "Compared to winter, this is a good time of year" and "Compared with winter, this is a good time of year" are equally understandable and correct, though I prefer the first. Would anyone argue that the second usage is incorrect?[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 2:03 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SusanV:
That's an interesting way of looking at it, but where'd you find that? Even Bernstein says merely "When the purpose is to liken two things or to put them in the same category, use to." He doesn't say anything about their not being thought of as the same kind of thing.<hr></blockquote>My source is paraphrased from my 18-year-old copy of "When Words Collide," which I dug out of my closet just so that I could retype the following entry. The italics are the same as the book's. Note especially the last sentence, which pretty much sums everything up.--------------------Compared To/Compared With: Despite protests that these words are interchangeable, we continue to see reasons for their separate use. When you put one thing in the same class or category without examining it closely, you want to use compared to:
[*]The inflation rate can be compared to a hot-air balloon with an endless supply of fuel.When you put things side by side "to examine similarities and differences," you want to use compared with:
[*]The inflation rate is 8.9 percent, compared with last year's figure of 14.5 percent.Whereas you would compare (liken) today's weather to a joyous song of hope, you would compare last winter with the one in 1928. You will find that you will use compared to when your writing is more figurative and metaphorical.[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 2:11 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
[QB]It seems to me that "Compared to winter, this is a good time of year" and "Compared with winter, this is a good time of year" are equally understandable and correct, though I prefer the first. Would anyone argue that the second usage is incorrect?<hr></blockquote>No question but that they're equally understandable. But since we're talking about two of the same kind of thing ("time of year"), I prefer the second usage, not the first.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:01 pm

Heh. This thread reads like it belongs on the ACES board. Next thing you know, we'll be discussing "that" vs. "which."

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Sep 06, 2002 2:08 pm

OK, blanp, this is my last post on this topic, I swear. Gary's posts seem pretty much on the mark. But note these two excerpts:*When you put one thing in the same class or category without examining it closely, you want to use compared to.*Then, in a later post, he objects to "Compared to winter, this is a good time of year," on the following ground:*But since we're talking about two of the same kind of thing ("time of year"), I prefer the second usage [compared with], not the first.*Maybe I'm confused (I know I'm confused), but isn't this contradictory? The larger point is that such quibbling starts to sound pedantic. And the rule is artificial if not backed up by ordinary use or by a clear rationale. I stand by my original position: The distinction is useful in some cases but not all. As for the that/which distinction . . .

Guest · **Posted:** Sat Sep 07, 2002 2:58 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
[b]Maybe I'm confused (I know I'm confused), but isn't this contradictory? The larger point is that such quibbling starts to sound pedantic. And the rule is artificial if not backed up by ordinary use or by a clear rationale. I stap

tommangan · **Posted:** Sat Sep 07, 2002 11:32 am

The most important standard is the easiest: Will the reader understand? I think too many times we get bogged down in trivial stuff like this and miss large parts of what's REALLY wrong with a story, such as that its fundmental premise is flawed or that it neglects to answer basic questions. (or that sentences fail to use basic parallel structure).

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Sun Sep 08, 2002 4:12 am

I can't help but throw this in...I'm sure you're all aware of the Sinead O'Connor song that came out some years ago, "Nothing Compares To You."I'm not sure where I stand on the to/with argument, but I can certainly say that a song called "Nothing Compares With You" would tickle my funny bone by virtue of its almost-ironic insulting tone.[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Pete Hahnloser ]

Rio · **Posted:** Sun Sep 08, 2002 4:35 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Pete Hahnloser:
I can't help but throw this in...I'm sure you're all aware of the Sinead O'Connor song that came out some years ago, "Nothing Compares To You."I'm not sure where I stand on the to/with argument, but I can certainly say that a song called "Nothing Compares With You" would tickle my funny bone by virute of its almost-ironic insulting tone.<hr></blockquote>Heh. "Nothing Compares With You" isn't grammatical anyway. A song called "Nobody Compares With You" would have been a different story, of course. (In more ways than one.) :)

Rio · **Posted:** Sun Sep 08, 2002 4:51 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
The most important standard is the easiest: Will the reader understand? I think too many times we get bogged down in trivial stuff like this and miss large parts of what's REALLY wrong with a story, such as that its fundmental premise is flawed or that it neglects to answer basic questions. (or that sentences fail to use basic parallel structure).<hr></blockquote>While I agree that these kind of things can bog us down, such points aren't necessarily trivial. Fixing them is as much as part of the job as finding flawed premises and unanswered questions.Granted, one can get carried away with the grammar part. I'll never forget watching a reporter and copy editor argue for 10-15 minutes over a comma, for God's sake. This was a former job, fortunately.

dmfugitive · **Posted:** Sun Sep 08, 2002 11:37 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Heh. This thread reads like it belongs on the ACES board. Next thing you know, we'll be discussing "that" vs. "which."<hr></blockquote>They discuss stuff like that? The last time I was over there, they had two discussions going. In one, people described the cutesy-clever knickknacks and over-the-counter oddities with which they decorate their desks. The other discussion was about how come no one wants to date copy editors. (I seem to remember that people were sure it was the hours.)

Testy Copy Editors

Who says?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links