February 14, 2008
A note on usage
May I digress? Yesterday, as I jogged along on the treadmill, I listened to Lou Dobbs (he helps the adrenaline, I find). He used the word "coronate"–as in, McCain wants the Republican party to coronate him. Whatever next, I thought? So now the great bloviator is making up his own words. Or perhaps it was a slip of the tongue. Anyway, I laughed and moved on–or not, you understand, since I was on a treadmill.
Just now I was reading Margaret Carlson on Bloomberg, and I saw this:
[Clinton’s] Lazarus-like win [in New Hampshire] kept her from looking any further into why she lost so badly in Iowa. It put off any move to change her insular staff and validated her original strategy in which the primaries were a mere formality. Voters would coronate her partly because she had been first lady, because she was a Clinton, and because it was her turn after all she had been through.
Maybe I owe Lou an apology. Is this recognised American usage? Is there something wrong with "crown"–an objection, I mean, that does not apply to the idea of a coronation? The American Oxford Dictionary does not offer a definition of coronate; it helpfully (in its Mac version) asks whether I meant "coronet". But the Columbia Guide to Standard American Usage has anticipated Dobbspeak. It says:
A nonstandard back-formation from the noun coronation, perhaps coined first as a jocular nonce word. The Standard verb is to crown or to be crowned, and the usual idiom is to have a coronation.
Nonce? "Made up for one occasion and not likely to be encountered again." Deep waters. But let’s not make a habit of coronate. If crown won’t work, there’s always anoint. "Smear or rub with oil, typically as part of a religious ceremony."
THE CHOICE IN NOVEMBER: One nominee oblivious to the fact that he uses a word which otherwise does not exist. The one opposite oblivious to the fact that the volume and flair of words he uses has no bearing on their content.
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | February 15th, 2008 at 4:02 am | Report this comment(ERRATUM: Mr Dobbs and Ms Carlson, not Sen McCain, used the first ‘word’. It’s not a tie between the two nominees then.)
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | February 15th, 2008 at 4:07 am | Report this commentCongratulations for using a Mac. I find the Mac has only two shortcomings: 1. the system preferences icon pictures an American-style light switch, as tasteless as American door knobs or most of American design in general (witness the behemoths from Detroit); 2. The Oxford dictionary included is of American English, a vulgar form of the language continuously in flux, as attested to by your post.
I feel American English is rapidly deteriorating. I almost cannot read books written in that dialect: the writing tends to mimic the colloquial, in an attempt to reach the lowest common denominator. It is sad that American is gaining inroads into British writing as well, a noted example being that of The Economist, which you have done well to leave.
Posted by: RCS | February 15th, 2008 at 6:07 am | Report this commentReally? I have no problem with coronate, I quite like it actually. It connotes the ceremonial aspect of crowning without so much of the practical/monarchic aspect. Anoint doesn’t work, because it needs to be appended to a noun: Carlson would have to write “anoint her the nominee” (which reads weird anyway) rather than simply “coronate her”. I welcome coronate to the English language with open arms.
Posted by: Felix Salmon | February 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am | Report this commentThere are a number of words which I, too, ‘quite like’ but are unlikely to be added to the dictionary on either side of the pond anytime soon.
The fact that I either just made them up, or the fact that I am oblivious to their inaccuracy, does not spare me from
1 being incoherent, and
2 being laughed at
if I persist on using them with a straight face anyway.
Strange thing, though, I have yet to come across two people who
Posted by: J Michael, private banker, 39 | February 15th, 2008 at 7:36 am | Report this comment1 both have English as their first language,
2 both come from the same culture, and
3 are discussing a concept not alien to that culture,
but unable to find the word to express what they mean–nuance and all. A matter of vocabulary?
Usage problem deepens.
“Although the term nonce traditionally refers to sex offenders, it is also sometimes used as a general term of abuse, typically with ‘idiot’ as its intended meaning.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_%28slang%29)
Lou Dobbs, “jocular nonce”?
Posted by: bert | February 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentThe comments system mangled the link by adding an extra bracket. So, for what its worth, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_%28slang%29
Posted by: bert | February 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm | Report this commentGrammar has been overtaken by Usage, so that any errors, wrong spelling, wrong punctuation can be justified on the grounds of “Usage”. All Dobbs has to do is to say “I heard someone use coronate, so it’s okay - it’s usage)”. Spelling is another area of dispute. But I have been told that the most important thing in communication is that one is understood.
Posted by: fh | February 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentHowever, I got a fax once from Sunnyvale, California (branch office) saying “We resent your fax of ….date”. I wondered why my harmless fax had annoyed them so I asked. What they had meant was that they had re-sent my fax (to a 3rd party who had not received his copy). The only CNN commentators worth my watching are Charles Hodson and Wolf Blitzer, if he’s on when I happen to zap around, which is seldom.
I like coronate. Crowning is blatantly about a king who wears a crown. No one is suggesting that any president would wear a crown. The coronation ceremony is about more than a crown, however. It is about divine right, and presumably hubris. Using a verb to link a president to the coronation but not the crown is my take on why it is used, and the reason I like it. We are americans, with old colonial rebel blood. Using the verb crown would be like hitting below the belt.
Posted by: Keith | February 19th, 2008 at 1:18 am | Report this commentMy favourite American dictionary, The American Heritage doesn’t list “coronate” but dictionary.com shows:
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Coronate
1. Having or wearing a crown.
2. (Zo[”o]l.) (a) Having the coronal feathers lengthened or otherwise distinguished; — said of birds. (b) Girt about the spire with a row of tubercles or spines; — said of spiral shells.
3. (Biol.) Having a crest or a crownlike appendage.
Posted by: Al Maki | February 27th, 2008 at 9:13 pm | Report this commentThanks Al Maki. Interesting. But no verb “to coronate”?
Felix: Kind of you to drop by. (Was it really two weeks ago? How time flies.) Though I’m not sure I understand, “It connotes the ceremonial aspect of crowning without so much of the practical/monarchic aspect.” And surely you can use anoint without an indirect object.
Posted by: Clive Crook | February 27th, 2008 at 11:04 pm | Report this comment