WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF ‘NUMBER’? (James Kilpatrick)
The question irked reader Jonathan Siegle in Springfield, Ore. He was reading a column in The New York Times through means of David Brooks. He stumbled over: "The number of people who could credibly claim to have had a meeting like that with McCain are vanishingly small."
Should that verb have been "IS vanishingly small"? Reader Siegle thinks so, and I agree, but the topic merits some kicking around. The trouble with "number" is that it won’t stay still. It bobs and weaves and wiggles gone. Suppose we are document about a gaggle of golfers. A number of them appear to have existence to like the course, no more than the number of those who analogous it seems likely to diminish. Now it’s singular; now it’s plural. What it is, is synesis. Kindly await it up.
Trust your ears, you writers! There’s no insufficient and simple decide to guide you.
The best notification is to trust your ears, but read your copy. A contributor to Our Ohio magazine missed that lesson last month in document about a farm for gourmets. The proprietors vie "to keep up by Americans’ changing pallets." After years of hard work, they "won through East Coast pallets."
The writer wanted "palates," of succession, but was unhorsed by a rambunctious homophone. Hundreds of homophones roam the literary range. They are defined as two or more words that (1) sound alike, (2) are spelled differently, and (3) wish different meanings. The list begins by ail/ale and winds up with wail/whale. The computerized spell-checker is a great invention, but it’s no match for the chameleons that roam our the a b c. They grip!
American idioms are hazardous in a different way. They give immensely to the piquancy of our speech, but sometimes … I don’t know. The Associated Press filed a story out of Fayetteville, N.C. "Authorities have charged the husband of a Fort Bragg Army nurse through abuse for the woman’s remains were found in a brush fire three days after she went missing."
Went missing? The idiom and its inexplicable cousin, "turned up absent," are parts of our everyday speech. Would it have been more fittin’ to write that the promote vanished, or disappeared, or was simply "reported missing"? It’s a judgment call.
A question of first impression, at least in this space, comes from Robert Wooten in Raleigh, N.C., and Catherine Lyle in Seattle. Why, they wonder, do we need three bickering — till, ’til and until — to do the work that could be done more economically by a uncompounded word?
My first speculation on this matter is an old thought. You have heard me voice it many state of things: Ordinarily we read in silence. That is, we unravel to ourselves, but in the process we read not only by our eyes but also by our inner ears. At minutest in prose, the meaning of talk must always be paramount. Good writers are moreover attentive to the unheard severe of what they write.
The say in reply to the in suspense question must be, it depends. That is, it depends upon the rhythm of the passed on a criminal. Would the cadence have existence better served by two syllables or one? Surely, "Wait ’til the cows come home" is better than asking a virgin to await "until" the cows amble back to the barn. On the other hand, there are times when that second syllable is demanded: The lovers of immortal ballad pledged their fidelity "until we get again." Cadence counts.
As a matter of everyday usage, The New York Times forbids the apostrophized ’til except in quoted difficulty. The Associated Press stands indifferent in the cause. Translators of the King James Bible used "until" 32 times, "till" only twice. See Romans 5:13. Go in peace.
(Readers are invited to authorize dated citations of usage to Mr. Kilpatrick in care of this newspaper. His e-mail address is kilpatjj@aol.com.)
Previous: IF YOU WERE A COPY EDITOR
Original text: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/oped/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucjk/20080811/cm_ucjk/whatisthenumberofnumber
