Curiosities in the public record

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

The Oxford American is a roughly 2 and one half inch thick, 800 some odd page version that combines a respectible vocabulary, American spellings, and just enough British stick up the ass linguistic puritanism to be humorous without being overbearing. For example, "Careful writers do not use contact as a verb. Instead of contacting someone, they will call or visit him."

It lacks, however, the wonderful etymologies that make the OED indispensible when on a bender in a college dorm room. Wow, those were the days....


(edited because that is what good writers do)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
And its cousin, the butchering-a-foreign-word-to-sound-more-cultured trick. Like people who pronounce "forte" with two syllables ("for-tay"), when the French word is pronounced simply "fort."

It divides humanity into three distinct classes. At the top, people who use the word with one syllable. Then people who use it to impress but mispronounce it, with unintentionally bourgeois results. Then, at the bottom, the people who don't know what it means anyway.

Alas, it's the people in the top class who have to suffer the odd and pitying looks, like they're the stupid social climbers who overreached their educations.

The people in the middle win, and the people whom you have identified as on top are the one's whose presumption that we import the foreign word into our language without change qualifies as its own little bit of pretension. Thus, for example, my little Oxford American Dictionary that proved so useful on the other thread shows forte as being pronounced (for tay) regardless of how the French do it. The bourgeois have prevailed so thoroughly that even the priggish Brits concede that the battle is lost; the aristocracy is no more. Vive la revolution!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

So, let's bring this all down to a practical level. What do you do when a partner (or attorney more senior to you) uses incorrect grammar? Do you correct it (say in writing?), or do you let it go? I've had back-and-forth bouts on various grammatical issues, where I do it right, and the partner changes it to the wrong, and I change it back. Of course, nothing is said, but I don't really feel I can do anything that the passive-aggressive way. Thoughts?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

As one of those beasts whom you fear, let me say that I appreciate all grammatical corrections, and believe most GPs would. We do, after all, generally prefer to look like fools in front of associates rather than clients.

That having been said, I reserve the right to abuse the language to obtain my ends.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What do you do when a partner (or attorney more senior to you) uses incorrect grammar? Do you correct it (say in writing?), or do you let it go? Thoughts?

I would correct it in writing, and more often than not, the person will ask why you changed it, and then I would explain. The back-and-forth works too, and eventually you could just staple a page from some treatise proving that you are (of course) right.

I remember one particularly annoying partner I once worked for who would sooner gouge her eyes out than be proven wrong, who patronizingly began another lecture by pointing out how "half the time you use 'set off' and half the time you use 'set-off'" and then continued the lecture by explaining the importance of consistency, etc.

I politely stepped in, explaining that one is a noun, one is a verb, and depending on the usage, you may need a hyphen, you may not. Her response? Long stare.... "OK"

Turned on heel and left.

GEEZ, I hated her. She is someone about whom the following sentence was uttered (but, lamentably -- I wish I had thought of it first, not by me): "I could put a bullet in her head and get a good night's sleep." Not a popular partner, that one.

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, let's bring this all down to a practical level. What do you do when a partner (or attorney more senior to you) uses incorrect grammar? Do you correct it (say in writing?), or do you let it go? I've had back-and-forth bouts on various grammatical issues, where I do it right, and the partner changes it to the wrong, and I change it back. Of course, nothing is said, but I don't really feel I can do anything that the passive-aggressive way. Thoughts?

For me, it depends on whether the document requires the signature of the supervising partner/attorney.

If the document does not require em's signature, I *might* engage em in an enlightened discourse on the finer points of proper grammar, depending on the egregiousness of the error. Whether I change it back or not depends on how prominent the change would be (e.g., the title of the document vs. some parenthetical text within a footnote) and the type of document.

If the document does require em's signature, I express only mild disagreement (actually, it doesn't really sound like disagreement -- more like uncertainty) limited to a single sentence or less. And if em insists that em is correct, I will prepare a finalized version exactly as em wishes, bad grammar and all. I do this because I view the situation as being equivalent to em having prepared the document all by em's self, signing it, and sending it off.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Damn -- you all work with folks who don't always insist they're right. I think that's my problem. Usually they're pretty obtuse about their bad grammar (well, I guess that's when I notice it). I've started to find it pretty funny. It's one thing when they err in the first place (heck, I do too); it's another to change a grammatically correct sentence (or phrase) to one that is not.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Damn -- you all work with folks who don't always insist they're right. I think that's my problem.

Mine, too. Even when you win the argument by citing to a reliable source, some assjack is always willing to say that nobody observes that rule anymore, and it has better "flow" the way they wanted it. This is usually the point where I humbly acquiesce, because being seen as a team player with a keen sense of which way the wind is blowing is ultimately more rewarding than being right.

It's a special disease in which self-absorbed partners refuse to recognize when the arguments they win with their employees weren't won on merit or with vigorous vetting by properly motivated opposition.

But forte is pronounced "for-tay." It's Italian, not French. The instrument with the black and white keys is a pianoforte, which isn't pronounced "pianofort" in any language as far as I know.

What puts me in an annoyed pedantic mood is hearing the phrase laissez faire pronounced as "law-zay" instead of "less-say."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Boxmuncher
But forte is pronounced "for-tay." It's Italian, not French.

Beg to differ. As does the American Heritage (sorry, couldn't find the Oxford American online). The two different meanings of forte (quality of strength versus loudness in music notation) have different etymologies (French versus Italian).

Sadly for me, though, the total pussies on the AH usage panel now permit the for-tay pronunciation. Oh, the humanity!

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, let's bring this all down to a practical level. What do you do when a partner (or attorney more senior to you) uses incorrect grammar? Do you correct it (say in writing?), or do you let it go? I've had back-and-forth bouts on various grammatical issues, where I do it right, and the partner changes it to the wrong, and I change it back. Of course, nothing is said, but I don't really feel I can do anything that the passive-aggressive way. Thoughts?

If you have a high strung or otherwise self-important boss - change it and if it is noticed, blame the original error on the boss' assistant's typing - you will all know who the dope it, but em saves face and will not fuss at you.

Or if you are like me, tell them they screwed up and remind them that they need to let their assistant proof their work before it goes out.

-TL

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Beg to differ. As does the American Heritage (sorry, couldn't find the Oxford American online). The two different meanings of forte (quality of strength versus loudness in music notation) have different etymologies (French versus Italian).

Sadly for me, though, the total pussies on the AH usage panel now permit the for-tay pronunciation. Oh, the humanity!

Like I said, this is America, the middle class wins.

But that's a really good dictionary site you've found. I like those etymologies, and I really like that little bit of pomposity in the note at the bottom indicating that users aware of the word's origins may prefer to continue to pronounce forte with one syl., but at the risk of confusing their (stupid) listeners. From now on, American Heritage has my heart. Oxford American, begone.

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Mine, too. Even when you win the argument by citing to a reliable source, some assjack is always willing to say that nobody observes that rule anymore, and it has better "flow" the way they wanted it. This is usually the point where I humbly acquiesce, because being seen as a team player with a keen sense of which way the wind is blowing is ultimately more rewarding than being right.

It's a special disease in which self-absorbed partners refuse to recognize when the arguments they win with their employees weren't won on merit or with vigorous vetting by properly motivated opposition.

In those rare instances where I engage in a verbal ping-pong match with a supervising partner/attorney about grammar, I never refer to style manuals, Strunk & White, or any other "authority." Instead, I focus primarily on the unintended vagueness/ambiguities generated by em's "correction," or how the "correction" might result in a change of meaning.

As for those insubstantial grammatical errors which em insists are correct, I simply don't pursue them beyond a passing comment -- for winning them often requires a more academic/theoretical line of reasoning for which em does not have any patience. Any victory in such an exchange will most likely be a phyrric one.

Posted by Atticus-Grinch
The two different meanings of forte (quality of strength versus loudness in music notation) have different etymologies (French versus Italian).

Ahh, I see. You are referring to forte as in "His forte is making deponents cry." I was thinking about music. I was not aware of the discrete etymologies. Thanks for the illumination, Grinch.

BTW, I just checked forte on m-w.com and found the following info that expands a bit on your point. It's an interesting dilemma.

usage In forte we have a word derived from French that in its "strong point" sense has no entirely satisfactory pronunciation. Usage writers have denigrated \'for-"tA\ and \'for-tE\ because they reflect the influence of the Italian-derived forte. Their recommended pronunciation \'fort\, however, does not exactly reflect French either: the French would write the word le fort and would rhyme it with English for. So you can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose. All are standard, however. In British English \'fo-"tA\ and \'fot\ predominate; \'for-"tA\ and \for-'tA\ are probably the most frequent pronunciations in American English.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by TexLex
If you have a high strung or otherwise self-important boss - change it and if it is noticed, blame the original error on the boss' assistant's typing - you will all know who the dope it, but em saves face and will not fuss at you.

Or if you are like me, tell them they screwed up and remind them that they need to let their assistant proof their work before it goes out.

-TL

I have no problem editing their work. 90% of the time they don't realize that they had misplaced an "only" or improperly used (or not used) a hyphen). What gets me is when they, upon reviewing a later draft, change it back to its original, incorrect form. I guess, at bottom, I don't really want to discuss grammar with a partner, since it necessarily calls a shortcoming to their attention (and I don't argue the points I'm not sure of); it's somehow different than saying something like "I think the general trendof the cases is contrary to the position you want to take" (translation: every circuit has held directly opposite that which you want to argue).