NyTimesAbuses

For better or worse, I rely on the New York Times (via Bloglines of course) as my primary news source. That means I read a lot of Times articles.

I've come to realize that there are some out-of-control writers there. They love to throw in extremely obscure words, particularly when an obvious alternative exists. From their 12/22/04 review of 'Meet the Parents':

Ms. Streisand and her cascade of curls, which evoke the style she

1. Uncommon; rare.
2. Exquisite; choice.
3. Overrefined; forced.
4. Pretentious; overblown.

The word means so many things it essentially means nothing. Are her curls 'rare' or 'forced' or 'exquisite'?

Actually, the dictionary.com definition is probably just useless. The 1913 Webster's (my definitive reference) says:

Sought out with care; choice. Hence: of rare quality,

elegance, or attractiveness; peculiar and refined in kind.

So why didn't the editor just substitute a word that someone with a decent education would know?

I'm going to say one of two things happened here:

1. The writer really meant 'elegant in a retro way', but wanted a fancypants way to say that. So, he picked a french word because it sounded better.

2. The editor didn't know what the word meant, so he was afraid to change it because he didn't want to admit that.

Phil's new rule of journalism: if you pick a word with an accent, it's probably not the right word.

Or am I just exposing my lack of class and inferior breeding?

The article was written by Manhola Dargis. I call on him for an explanation.

--phil 12/22/04

In Politics and the English Language, George Orwell warns us to "never use a foreign word when an English one will do." Manhola needs to step up and explain himself.

-- Kenneth

Once again Orwell nails it on the head. Oh, I just thought of another NY-Times-ism: . They throw that around all the time. Why, oh why, is second home not good enough?

I amend my rule of journalism: any word you can't type on a standard US keyboard is strongly suspect.

--phil 12/23/04