Loath vs. loathe

"Perhaps you're correct, little champion," she said lightly. "Personally, I think the damage will linger. I've found such fertile ground on both sides -- the lords who hate and loath everything the war maids stand for, and the war maids whose resentment of all the insults and injustices they and their sisters have endured over the years burns equally hot and bitter." -- Wind Rider's Oath, by David Weber, pg. 546.

I don't know why so many seem to consider the subject words to be interchangeable. Just like "bath" and "bathe" are not interchangeable, the words are quite different. Though I have heard an ignorant mother tell her children to "Go bath," the two words do not mean the same thing. They are not even the same parts of speech, "bath" being a noun, "bathe" a verb.

Though writers and editors ought to have a solid grasp of parts of speech, vocabulary, and syntax, I suspect that the misuse of the two essay-subject words is not due to editorial oversight so much as to editorial ignorance. I could be wrong, and it doesn't really matter whether I am or not. The fact is that I have seen "loath" (pronounced with a hard 'th,' as in "bath") and "loathe" (soft 'th,' as in "bathe") used incorrectly in print a large number of times.

"Loath" is a an adjective describing, usually, a person or persons that are unwilling (or, at least, reluctant) to perform some action, as in "I am loath to let such lapsus pass un-noted." It is almost always followed by an infinitive phrase (here, "to let such...").

"Loathe" is a transitive verb meaning to dislike intensely or abhor, as in "I loathe that authors and editors often use 'loath' and 'loathe' interchangeably." Because it is a transitive verb, it requires at least one object; one does not simply loathe, one loathes something. Intransitive verbs do not have objects.  So, "I live," but not, "I loathe."

I don't really mean to pick on David Weber, but since I read a lot of his books, within them, I find a lot of grist for this mill. I also note in the quote above, that there is little real difference between "hate" and what should have been "loathe," making that part of the sentence redundant; that, too should have been caught by the editor(s). I promise that I'll pick on another author, and publisher, for my next essay on this blog.

Only

 "And," she added, "they only have one Harrington, thank God! The longer they leave her at Sidemore, the better I'll like it." -- War of Honor by David Weber, pg. 478

"... But of course, she's only doing it because of the absolute sanctity of her holier-than-thou, save-the-universe, rescue-mankind-from-original-sin ideology." -- Honor of War, pg. 376

These people were clearly maintaining operational security, and like everyone else in the briefing room, McKeon could think of only one star nation against which any Havenite operation in Silesia could possibly be directed. -- War of Honor, pg. 667

There may not be a single aspect of grammar that is currently so ignored and abused than the placement of the modifier "only" (and "just" when used in the vein of "only"). Because "only" acts as both adverb and adjective, it might modify nearly any word in a phrase, clause, or sentence. What causes such problems, I do not know, because it takes only a modicum of thought to place it correctly. (Of course, most people do not really think about much at all, forget about grammar!) Apologists excuse such incorrect usage with a variety of arguments, but the most cogent and reasonable of these is that in most such cases, the true meaning cannot readily be misconstrued.

However, those apologists miss the main point. The onus of information transfer is on the speaker/writer. That is, the person transferring information needs to make it clear to the receiver what s/he intends, to not allow for any possibility of misunderstanding. That is the sole reason that there are rules in grammar, so that all know what to expect and where to expect it. Yes, in most such cases of misplacement of "only," one would have to stretch to misunderstand the intent. However, my experience suggests that people get lazy when not following the rules and when the situation is important to get usage right, they strike out, as they've become accustomed to being lazy. For the same reason, it is important at all times to use one's turn signal appropriately when driving a car, else when you really need the driver of the car behind you to understand your intent, that person may be completely unaware that you plan to turn because you haven't used your turn signal; you have fallen out of the habit of doing things correctly!

In the first quote, above, the speaker is intending to indicate that she is glad that only one Honor Harrington exists.  The placement of "only," however, implies something else, nebulous I grant you, but something else. That is because it is placed immediately before "have," a word that, as a verb, could certainly be expected to be modified by "only." The second quote is marginally more obvious as being incorrect. These might be just minor lapsus in copy editing (but which really ought to be caught), if it were not for the fact that the book and series are riddled with examples of incorrect placement of "only." Even that might have been a conscious style decision by author or editor, except for the fact that there are numerous examples in the same book, as in quote #3 above, in which the use of "only" is correct. These three examples do not differ in any material way. I infer, then, that author and editor(s) did not care or, worse, did not notice, that usage differed.

If we follow the apologists, should we, then, cease to find it important where other modifiers are placed? Shall we just willy-nilly string a bunch of words together and expect the hearer/reader to understand our intent?  That is, shall we appropriate put the modifiers different in places turning lucid our thoughts into mush so much?

Whom

 "Gets out to who?" demanded Ringstorff. -- Crown of Slaves by David Weber and Eric Flint.

One of the first things we "learn" in elementary-school English or Language or whatever the class is called in your school, is that there are subject forms of pronouns and object forms of pronouns. I put that "learn" in quotes to emphasize that, perhaps, not all of us really learned that distinction. Perhaps, recalled it long enough to get the question on the quiz correct, but some/many of us never really learned that fact, never really took it into our being. That must be true, why else would folks have so many problems when confronted with the needs of a compound subject involving a pronoun? Certainly, we've all heard people start sentences with something like "Jimmy and me went...." When encountering such, those with any modicum of learning and care for the language wince (visibly or not), because all such people know when to use "I" and when to use "me."

Why, then, do people have such problem with "who" and "whom?" They are both pronouns, with the former being the subject form, the latter, the object form. As for reflexive pronouns (and there will certainly be a blog on the misuse of those in the near future!), I feel that some speakers/writers feel that using "whom" is simply a high-class thing, meant to indicate that the speaker/writer is not just some peon off the street, but is, in fact, high-class or posh. Of course, the only thing that using "whom" as a subject indicates is that the speaker/writer simply does not know how to speak/write correctly.

David Weber's extensive so-called Honorverse is one of my very favorite sci-fi series and I have read and re-read it.  I also find it of interest that Mr. Weber does all of his writing via voice-recognition software (VRS). While some might consider that rationale enough to cut him and his publisher, Baen Books, some slack as far as lapsus go, that makes no sense to me. Catching mistakes, whether due to mis-typing on a keyboard or due to errors in interpretation by VRS is still one of the many items in the purview of both author and publisher, particularly the latter.

Because the series is set some 2000 years (give or take) in Earth's future, other apologists might argue that the language has changed and eliminated "whom," using "who" for both subject and object (as in the transformation of "you" from being solely a second-person plural pronoun). I can guarantee that the language will change in that amount of time. However, that change will be so extensive that were Mr. Weber to actually write in the English of 2000 years hence, he would have sold damned few books, as no one else would have been able to understand the language! Thus, with the speciousness of that argument exposed, I do not understand why so many authors and publishers continue to utilize incorrect grammar, using "who" where "whom" was the correct pronoun. They certainly wouldn't use "Jimmy and me went...."

Premise; and the first rant

Late at night on 24 June 2012, I had finally had enough; I started this blog. Should anyone in the blogosphere actually care, I will be surprised.

There is much angst about education and how poorly Americans do. While I do not pretend to know the reasons, I know for a fact that it's true.

• We cannot spel.
• Cannot write complete sentences.
• We do not know the correct use of apostrophe's.
• We know not the distinctions between adjectives and adverbs at all good.
• We have no concept of correct punctuation with commas especially giving us the willies either putting in too many or too few.
• Us do not at all grasp the difference between subject and object, particularly when using pronouns, although myself certainly does.

Many would agree with me about the appalling lack of writing/speaking ability in the general populace. However, I find that most people are completely uncritical in their reading, overlooking various and sundry mistakes in the written word. One would think that publishers and, particularly, editors would be above that. One would be seriously mistaken.

These days, no one can edit. Well, at least, copy edit. I make no claim to being able to do a publishing house's editor's job. That requires a skill set that I lack. However, I feel that I'm a damned good copy editor and that copy editor inside me groans every time I read a mistake that escaped detection during the publication process. While I might be willing to give those who have to publish daily a bit of a break, I see no reason why so very many lapsus get past the various levels of editing that are performed on books. They scream at me as I go winging along the printed line, my mind hiccups, and I have to backtrack, and then groan again as I realize that here is yet another mistake on the page. On this page.

This blog is intended as a vent for my frustration before I, as Mick Jagger sang, "blow a fifty-amp fuse." I have no doubt that if my rants reach anyone, the result will be a decided case of preaching to the choir. However, I very much enjoy reading and it pisses me off that writers, editors, and publishers can be successful despite so many mistakes, so many mistakes easily avoided by following a simple precaution: read what is written!

The piece that put me over the top was a bit surprising to me, as it wasn't anything within a story I was reading. No, it was a quote from a review of a book in the front pages of another book, a paperback version of Daughter of Hounds by Caitlin R. Kiernan. The review, published in  Gauntlet Magazine, was of one of the author's previous books, Threshold. The quote, in its entirety is:

Threshold confirms Kiernan's reputation as one of dark fiction's premier stylists. Her poetic descriptions ring true and evoke a sense of cosmic dread to rival Lovecraft. Her writing envelopes the reader in a fog concealing barely glimpsed horrors that frighten all the more for being just out of sight.

Did you spot it? Or, rather, them, the two mistakes in just three sentences? If you did, then you have a much more discerning eye (and mind) than do 99.99% of readers. While many would quibble about the first being a mistake, it is one. About the second, there can be no quibbling. If you haven't spotted them, yet, ignore the first sentence, and carefully scan each of the other sentences.

Mistake #1: In the second sentence, the review author is comparing apples and orangutans, poetic descriptions and Lovecraft. Now, while H. P. Lovecraft wrote dark tales and horror, I know of no source that considers him to be dark or horrible. The author surely intended to compare the writing styles of the two authors, not the writing style of one author directly with the second author. That is, the writing style of Kiernan to Lovecraft, the man. I plan to blog about faulty comparisons in writing in more depth in the near future.

Mistake #2: This one is even more blatant but, oddly, is equally likely to be overlooked. Do you know the difference between the noun "envelope" and the verb "envelop?" Now that the mistake has been pointed out, re-read that third sentence, reading the actual word present, rather than the word intended, the word that your mind inserted in place of the incorrect one.