Editor’s Note: Anne Curzan’s video series is on hiatus, so this month we have a text-only column. Video fans, do not fret, however! View Curzan’s recent Tedx talk, “What makes a word ‘real?'”
Change it up
There are changes in the English language that people notice: the noun impactbecoming a verb; the word literallybeing used to mean “figuratively”; new words such as guesstimate, LOL, and incentivize;and the list goes on.
These language changes steal the linguistic limelight, and speakers can fail to notice the language is changing in other ways too. As a result, these quieter changes often infiltrate our spoken and written language without the barrage of criticism that can accompany changes squarely on the radar.
Let’s look at just a few changes you may not have noticed (out of the hundreds we could choose from).
Must we?
Did you realize the auxiliary verb mustis on the decline? It may already be on your radar that the use of the auxiliary verb shallis waning. We still use the expression “shall we?” but we don’t tend to use shallvery often to talk about the future (“I shall go running tomorrow”) or about obligation (“Any interested party shall file an application”). Less noticed is that we are using mustless and less to talk about obligation, as in “I must run errands this afternoon.” You can see the decline of these two words in this chart from a search of Google Books with the Ngram Viewer:
Instead of using mustwe often opt for have to,as in “I have to run errands this afternoon.” Must,at least to me, feels very strong to talk about something as mundane as errands; have toprovides a more neutral expression of obligation, and it is on the rise in British and American usage. I’ll also note here that if we didn’t have such a standardized spelling system in place, this new auxiliary would be spelled hafta. (The use of mustremains quite healthy when expressing the possibility or probability that something is true — e.g., “Her shoes are wet; it must be raining.”)
Re-noun?
A construction that is quietly trending in English is the use of noun modifiers in front of other nouns — that is, constructions in which a noun appears before another noun, and in some cases can express possession without the possessive -s. Consider these relatively common expressions: book cover, reader reaction, student experience/achievement/grades, instructor manual — or something less common and longer, such as the department website logo color.
Very few people seem to have noticed the dramatic rise in the use of the word frustratingas an adjective since the 1930s. (The word derives from the participle of the verb frustrate).The adverb frustratinglydoes not have a citation until 1955 in the Oxford English Dictionary.No one seems to mind this new adverb.
And are any of you feeling concerned about the proliferation of the compound skill set?An astute language observer emailed me about it recently, asking if the word was new because he was noticing it everywhere. Skill setis not completely new; in a preliminary search of Google Books I have found examples back into the 1970s. But the word is suddenly popular, as this chart from the Google Books Ngram Viewer shows:
What an efficient way to talk about sets of skills — and one that seems to have snuck into the language without many of us noticing. And, in case you haven’t noticed, the form snuck(which I snuck into the previous sentence) is sneaking its way into American English as the past tense and past participle of the verb sneak.Very sneaky, as are a vast number of changes underway in the language right in front of our eyes and ears.
Thomas Moore - 1976, 1980
Lately I’ve been noticing people saying “tuh” instead of “to” and it gets on my nerves, although I noticed that I also use tuh when followed by a person’s name, as in “go talk tuh Jerry.” Is tuh a regionalism or is is something new in the language?
Reply
Mark Gascoigne - 1966
With regard to “tuh”, in American English unless a vowel is accented most of us use “uh”. For example, Uh-mer-uh-cuh is the way many people say America.
So, tuh for to is a natural when the to is not accented.
Reply
Booth Muller - 1969
…and you didn’t even mention your own use of (and the seeming explosion in the widespread use of) the new-to-me-in-this-context word “trending.”
Reply
W. Alan Wentz - PhD 1976
Your column is the first thing that I and a number of my non-Michigan grad friends read from Michigan Today (I forward the posts often). Always interesting, often enlightening, and tremendously useful in every case! My post-career of occasional book editing has benefited greatly, even if my language skills don’t always show it! Although in this case, I hoped the column would have spent more time on “literally,” which has become my wife’s favorite response to my declarations on science after it was so artfully used by Dr. Sheldon Cooper in “The Big Bang Theory…”
Please keep on writing!
Alan
Reply
Robert Hudson - 64, 78
I shall forever be grateful to you for this column. I must learn more about the
English language. Keep up the good work.
Reply
Jeffrey Ford - 1969
Skill set. Does 0.0000300% qualify as popular? However, I do really enjoy this column.
Reply
Tyson Koenig
Much more popular than 0.00000%, which is the point here!
Reply
Steve Levine
There is a term for the use of noun modifiers in front of a noun: a noun stack.
To a large degree, I disagree about “literally.” Most people don’t intend to use it to mean “figuratively,” they simply don’t know what literally means and misuse the word. (They don’t know what “figuratively” means, either.) The next time someone abuses the word, ask them what the definition of “literally” is.
Reply
Tyson Koenig
Actually, people have been using “literally” in figurative statements for well over 200 years now. This article provides illumination: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2005/11/the_word_we_love_to_hate.single.html
People who use “literally” to mean “figuratively” aren’t “misusing” the word, it’s simply that the definition of the word has changed.
Reply
Richard Geist - 1960
I know, I know, it’s picky, but “temporary hiatus” (in the editor’s note re: the lack of a video version of Talking About Words) is a redundancy. By definition, a (an?) hiatus is temporary. Back in the day, Wes Maurer would not have let even the greenest undergrad get away with such sloppy copy editing. Anyway, I love the column and always pass it on to my now-21-year-old grandson with whom I share my love of linguistics and grammar.
Reply
Deborah Holdship
Duly noted. — Editor
Reply
Chris Herdt - 1996
I refer interested readers to Anne Curzan’s previous article on Michigan Today, “Literally vs. figuratively” (http://michigantoday.umichsites.org/literally-vs-figuratively/).
Reply
Marc Taylor - 1989
Dr. Curzan,
As other readers have mentioned, yours is the first (and frequently only) column that I read when Michigan Today arrives. It is always fascinating, and, as a grammar traditionalist, you have taught me to be tolerant of the many changes to our language, often pointing out that English is a living, ever-evolving thing. That is, you have made me realize that there is no such thing as a grammar traditionalist, since there is no “original” grammar or usage still in existence for me to be a stickler. Thank you for your wonderful column. My only complaint is that I have to wait far too long for the next installment.
Marc Taylor (Ph.D., Biological Chemistry, 1989)
P.S., What is it like for you to be so intently aware of every word and every linguistic turn that is spoken by every one [sic] that you contact? You seem to let so much slide off your back (pardon the idiom). Frankly, I am amazed that you are able to concentrate on content of any conversation while you are being bombarded by so many linguistic nuances that might catch your attention along the way.
P.P.S., Does anyone write to you who is NOT wondering if they have inadvertently included a linguistic faux pas in their correspondence?
Reply
Del Ehresman - 1973 M.A.
Change it up
Change what? (I dislike unstated antecedents.)
Why not just change it? What does “up” add?
Reply
Bradford Stone - 1951, 1954Law
Cf. Emily Dickinson:
There are two Mays
And then a Must
And after that a Shall.
How infinite the compromise
That indicates I will!
Reply