Writing, Clear and Simple

It makes one weep. The whole problem of emphasis is one that really seems to stump people. I'm not sure why people find it relatively easy to make text blink in hot pink, in goofy unreadable fonts and surrounded by several sets of "quotation" "marks," but find it so difficult to just mark a word in italics.

In defense, there is something of a steady state of linguistic evolution to the "new" "use" of those "quotation marks."

(Even if I can't resist mocking them. I once mockingly suggested a PhD write a thesis on The "Use" of "Scare-Quotes" in "Academic" "Secondary Criticism" of "Literature.")

It started (in the mid 16th Century, no less) that quotes only were used to indicate direct speech. But then you ran into phrases like this:

My opponent said that I was a "complete and total buffoon." But you know what, this 'buffoon' still knows more about how to govern the city than my opponent ever will!"

There, you have a sort of missing link with modern "mis-"usage (again, coudln't resist.) Clearly, the quotation-marks around the word "buffoon" indicate that the word "buffoon" is being quoted, but they have the more immediate value of alerting the reader to the fact that the word "bufoon" is being used ironically.

Extend that to the idea of quoting groups, or even quoting a society whose definitions you are resisting, and you end up with phrases such as:

"The protagonist demonstrates this "piety," therefore, only at the expense of many women whose lives he has callously disregarded in order to retain his "honor" within the aristocracy."

Quotation is hard to pinpoint (unless the author has recently quoted a passage talking about the concept of piety) but the idea is that, by inserting the word in quotation marks, the author is letting us know clearly that she is talking about someone else's concept of "piety."

(And then there is the third use: for titles of a short story, article, short film, or song.)

Of course, all of that is to say--quotation marks are still rampantly overused, both in ways that obscure (rather than elucidate) meaning and in ways that are just plain dumb.

But never, never, never will they equal the stupidity of the following sign, found in front of a very expensive day-care center:

"Slow
Children
Running"

I agree with Chestertonian Rambler's comments that quotation marks are used these days, and it has been the case for some time, to express far more than a mere quotation. It seems to me that the usage to indicate irony, or that the writer views the quoted item as untrue or inviting ridicule, is probably a more common usage than actual quotation.

But that is always the way with language. As we all know it changes over time, grammar, punctuation, word meanings and so on are in constant flux. One must, eventually, go along with these changes, even if hurts, in order to communicate successfully. And what is language for if not to communicate?

Pedantry, insisting on outdated rules, while it has its place at times, must eventually surrender to change. For if not, the pedant cannot communicate. That doesn't mean I agree with totally incorrect usage which breaks even a modern usage rule. But my guess is that a lot of changed usage arises from what is initially totally incorrect usage. If that incorrect version then for some reason catches on widely, then what was formerly incorrect is now acceptable and no longer wrong.

There are numerous examples in addition to the changing use of quotation marks. Here are just a tiny few:

At school in the UK, many decades ago in my case, I was taught never to end a sentence in a preposition. Now it is totally routine and acceptable. One hears it constantly but it still grates with me. But if I started pedanting (a verb I just coined) about it no doubt I would be seen as a little odd.

Similarly the splitting of an infinitive verb by an adverb was considered wrong, at least in the UK, I know it has long been used in the US. But now, and for some time I can boldly go in that direction with impunity.

Going back much further in time, the word egregious used to mean outstandingly good. Now it means the precise opposite, outstandingly bad. It must have been difficult for people, around the time its meaning was changing to use that word without misunderstanding.

And who can use the word gay now to mean happy? And incidentally another thing I was taught was not to start a sentence with a conjunction. But now I can do it without it being considered poor English.

Recently in the UK, people have started to use the word barter when they mean to bargain, to haggle over the price of something. I've heard it from people I know and even on a TV programme about buying and selling property. A complete misuse of the word barter of course and it pains me to hear it used that way. But my point is that if sufficient people use the word in that totally incorrect sense, it will with usage become correct. Pedants like me who object will be swept aside by usage and then I, whether I like it or not, will have to accept it. The unfortunate consequence is that I will never then be able to use barter in its earlier normal meaning if I wish to communicate with people and the word will be lost. Sad but that kind of thing is almost inevitable I feel.

I guess the way to be pedantic is to object to misuse as long as it has not gained currency. But if it becomes clear one has lost the battle, then if you can't beat 'em...