Main
| Grammar »
I would like to explain ...
Comments on my previous entry expressed doubt about the correctness of the grammar of "I would like to thank ..." when it means "I am now thanking." Don't worry -- it's fine. By way of explanation, I've hunted up highlights from an e-mail exchange I had in 2006 with Joe Pickett, the editor of the American Heritage Dictionary, in which I asked for his thoughts on a closely related point. Me:
Here's
a question I'm trying to answer:
Harold
Shaw, of Penobscot, Maine, writes: "Tell them to stop it! When
someone says, 'I want to thank all the little people who voted for me,' why don't
they just go ahead and do it? Say 'I thank all the little' etc., and get it
done with?"
Of course, "I want
to thank ...," meaning "I am now thanking," is perfectly
standard. (Similarly, "I want to tell you a story. Once upon a time ...")
But I don't find a relevant definition in the AHD or any other dictionary.
Doesn't seem to me that the ordinary "desire" meaning ("Used to express desire or
intent: She said she would meet us at the corner") quite
fits, because someone who says "I want to thank ..." is gratifying
the desire. The "be in need of" meaning doesn't fit either. The idea
is more nearly expressing an intention to ..., no? What am I missing?
I think this is related
to polite requests using would and like and want, rendering what are really
commands:
"Would you like to
go to the store and get me some aspirin?" "Want to go to the store
and get me some aspirin?"
I think it ostensibly
fits the "desire" meaning but is used pragmatically to mean
"please."
But let me look around a
bit.
I looked in A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, by Randolph Quirk, Sidney
Greenbaum, et al., and they confirm what I noted before.
As for would (I am
simplifying):
p. 233 section 4.63
discusses "tentativeness or politeness: could,
might, and would";
"Tentative Volition
(in polite requests)" e.g. in "Would you
lend me a dollar" would is more
polite than will.
As for like (again
simplifying):
p. 235 notes this:
Hypothetical would when followed by a verb such as like,
love, or prefer is used
to indicate a tentative desire in polite requests, offers, or
invitations: Would you like some tea? Thanks but I'd prefer
coffee.
While this doesn't
exactly address your reader's concern (the expression of thanks in public), the
situations seem close enough. The expression of gratitude naturally calls for
politeness and self-effacement, and so would like is
the natural choice.
While we might not be
taken aback if someone said "I thank all the people who made this movie
possible," it's just not as polite as "I would like to thank . .
."
So there you have it: would like to adds an extra tinge of politeness to what it precedes. Politeness may not be ipso facto grammatical, but it comes close.
"I would like to thank ..."
That thoroughly ordinary staple of awards ceremonies demonstrates something curious about English -- and probably many other languages too. Namely:
If you'd like to thank someone, why don't you?
Um, I just did.
In "I would like to thank...," "would like to" means "I'm doing it even as I speak." But you won't find that meaning of in dictionaries -- at least, not anywhere you can find it, in any recognizable form. I believe this is called an "implicit performative utterance" -- "performative" because the statement actually does what it refers to, and "implicit" because it doesn't do it literally and directly, the way, for instance, "I hereby thank ..." would.
Hinky!
Reader Brian Clark writes: I have a two-year running dispute with my brother about the existence of the word 'hinky.' I had used it in a sentence, "Well, my car's brakes are feeling a little hinky." He did not believe in the word, so I bought him an unabridged dictionary, I believe American Heritage or some such, and hinky was not in there, but then I found a different one, Oxford maybe, and there was the word.
So, who decides the veracity of words and how they will make it into a certain dictionary?
I'll answer that after the jump.
Continue reading "Hinky!" »
Joining the "conversate" conversation
My fellow Atlantic blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates posted a couple of days ago about "conversate": is it a word or not? He interviewed Jesse Sheidlower, of the Oxford English Dictionary, and they had a good conversation, well worth reading. Jesse is a smart guy and a first-rate lexicographer. But one thing no lexicographer is likely to tell you is that we don't need dictionaries anymore to tell us what counts as a word. We can decide for ourselves.
As Jesse said, what lexicographers do is search out words that people use, see how they use them, and write them up. Adding a new word to the dictionary doesn't amount to giving it a stamp of approval; it just means that the lexicographers found the word in wide enough use over a long enough time that they decided dictionary users might want to know about it.
Well, owing to the Internet, anyone today can figure out how widely used a given word is. Just google it. "Conversate" is all over the Web. If, however, you want to find out whether it's in standard use -- which is often what people mean when they wonder if something is a "word" -- archives of edited media, such as Google News, are a better place to look. According to a search I did just now, "conversate" has turned up in the newspapers and press releases, etc., that Google News tracks exactly five times in the past month. That's very few. Two of the five come from Ta-Nehisi himself; two are from AllHipHop.com, and one was published in an actual newspaper, in a quote from a basketball player. Isn't this already starting to be a good basis for drawing your own conclusions about "conversate"?
Stalking the wild misspelling
Maybe "chicken stalk" is the English equivalent of chicken cacciatore?
Seriously, I'm puzzled about why people aren't better at distinguishing between what they know and what they don't, and why many would rather guess than learn something new.
All right, not everybody has dictionaries constantly at the ready, the way I do. But isn't "stock" something a cook would want to know how to spell?
Defining 2008
Baron missed one: "bailout," from Merriam-Webster, a less capricious choice than some of the others in that it was chosen because it "received the highest intensity of lookups on Merriam-Webster Online over the shortest period of time." (Don't examine that claim too carefully!)
The American Dialect Society will have the last word, literally, when it votes on a 2008 word of the year at its annual meeting, in January. It is now accepting nominations, so if you have a candidate, do tell.
Innocently insensitive (AMF, Part VI)
I wonder if my correspondent has in mind any household names here. Once again, Ammon Shea has been rifling through the Oxford English Dictionary in search of an apt word. Will Martin, of Charlottesville, VA, writes: "I've long sought a word to describe the intersection of 'insensitive' and 'innocent' to describe the actions of those among us who are simply too shallow or immature to deserve the shade of malice implied by 'insensitive,' yet too foreseeably destructive in their actions to deserve the kindness implied by 'innocent.'"
Ammon Shea replies: "Although the first word that springs to mind is teen-aged, I'm also rather partial to the word incogitant, as it has two meanings - 1. inconsiderate, and 2. not having the faculty of thinking - that I think almost cover the concept you refer to.
"Since I do not have a perfect match for this, I will also offer up airling, which, as a noun, does come fairly close to what I think you are looking for. It describes someone who is young and thoughtless."
Idiot magnet (AMF, Part V)
Here's more help from Ammon Shea in clearing my Word Fugitives backlog. Ammon is the author of Reading the OED, and if anyone would know words that actually exist to meet the needs of fugitive-seeking readers, it's probably ..., um, he. Jaye Stevens, of Stockton, CA, writes: "I have this uncanny (albeit annoying) knack of being a magnet for every rude idiot whenever I go to a movie theatre. Is does not matter where I sit -- back row, front row, in the middle, on the aisle -- I always manage to get my seat kicked, or it's the couple with the baby, or it's the dork sending text messages, or the one answering their phone, or the ones who just won't shut up. Is there such a name for such a dreadful ability to attract the worst patrons?" Ammon Shea replies: "Although I am tempted to say that the word you are looking for is stomaching (prone to cherishing anger or resentment), I'm afraid that it's not quite correct - it just happens to be the word that springs to mind when I read your letter.
"Aside of a highly colloquial term that I am fairly certain you do not want to hear about (it has something to do with excreta and magnets) there are no single specific words for your particular talent. Since I am unable to supply you with this word I may as well join the ranks of those who ceaselessly annoy you, and tell you of some words that you didn't ask for.
"What you need at the movies is your very own silentiary (a person who asks for silence, a professional shusher, if you will), of perhaps even an exclosure (which is an area from which undesired animals are excluded) that you can somehow carry about with you. Should you be unable to procure either of these things before your next trip to the movies, act as your very own silentiary, and by the end of the evening you with doubtless be pelted with popcorn, and happily forplaint (tired out from complaining)."
Meh!
Someone asked me a few weeks ago when to expect to see "meh" in dictionaries. Soon, according to AP. Oddly, the UK imprint Collins is the first real dictionary (as opposed to urbandictionary) to seize on this word, though "meh" is American -- Simpsonian, to be exact.
(Thanks to Mike Brower for forwarding the news.)
Hypermiling and other Words of the Year
The New Oxford American Dictionary is getting the jump on the Words of the Year season. Yesterday it announced its winner, "hypermiling" (meaning doing nutsy stuff to improve your gas mileage), and runners-up.
Words of the Year lists are shameless bids for publicity, and I'm unashamedly publicizing this one because the New Oxford American is a great dictionary that deserves more recognition than it gets. The fact that the electronic version comes with Macs tells you something.
Full disclosure and more shameless publicity: Oxford has invited me to take part in panel discussions about dictionaries in Cambridge, Mass., this Thursday, November 14 (headliner Simon Winchester), and in Philadelphia next Tuesday, the 18th. I'm not saying nice things about NOAD just for that reason, though. It really is an excellent dictionary.
|
|
