LANGUAGE
CORNER
by
Evan Jenkins
Each
other/one another
To Each His Other
Ronnie Matthew, a sub-editor at The Times of India living
in Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat, e-mailed this: "What's
the difference, in usage, between 'each other' and 'one another'?
Is 'each other' used in the case of two people and 'one another'
in the case of more than two?"
Yes
and no. The rule is clearly arbitrary -- examine the words
and it's hard to see why any distinction is made between the
phrases. Designating "each other" for two and "one another"
for more than two was the brainstorm of an obscure grammarian
in the late 18th century; the phrases had been used interchangeably
for centuries before, and have been since, by writers from
Samuel Johnson to Noah Webster to E.L. Doctorow. Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary of English Usage, the source for that history,
says the rule was "cut out of the whole cloth" and "there
is no sin in its violation." The venerable H.W. Fowler declared
that "the differentiation is neither of present utility nor
based on historical usage," and the 1990's reworking of his
Modern English Usage concludes that belief in the rule
"is untenable."
HOWEVER:
Although a needless complication, the supposed rule is prescribed
as style -- the sometimes arbitrary dicta that publications
issue in the service of consistency -- by such broadly influential
outfits as The Associated Press and The New York Times.
So while logic may not sanctify it, safety may. (CJR, May/June
2000)
Elegant
Variation
Elegant, Shmelegant
An article mentioned "a letter that Tripp wrote Newsweek back
in August after the Willey story first appeared," and continued,
"In her missive, Tripp . . ." Another, after mentioning a
"letter to the editor" in one paragraph, continued, "His missive
inspired a second letter to the editor . . ." Still another
reported on " . . . a pointed, important May 8 letter to Dombeck.
The missive also was signed . . ."
"Missive,"
meaning a communication, is often a stilted word. It has its
uses (usually humorous) but none of our examples qualifies;
each simply substitutes the word for the innocuous "letter."
And
that is the writing crime of (shudder!) elegant variation
— straining conspicuously to avoid totally inoffensive repetition.
A classic cliché example is "wet, white stuff" to avoid "snow."
Less shopworn, but no less offensive, was the caption that
mentioned "beef sandwiches" and followed up with "savory treats."
In
his Dictionary of Modern English Usage, the great H.W.
Fowler declared of elegant variation, "There are few literary
faults so widely prevalent, and this book will not have been
written in vain if the present article should heal any sufferer
of his infirmity." Here's to our good health. (CJR,
Sept./Oct. 1998)
Enormity
The Big and the Bad
"There's an undercurrent of awkwardness in the room,"
the reporter wrote, "for the imminent enormity of the alternative-medicine
industry will not just be demographic but also financial."
Using "enormity" that way -- to denote only great size - is
like using "fortuitous" to mean "lucky" ("Fortuitous," CJR,
May/June 1997). In both cases, we're in danger of losing a
nice precision. "Enormity" should be reserved for things that
are both huge and evil or outrageous, as in "their attempt
to convey the enormity of the Holocaust." To denote sheer
size, "enormousness," though enormous enough itself, is available.
So are immensity, vastness and, uh, sheer size, among other
words and phrases. (CJR, Nov./Dec. 1997)
BACK TO INDEX PAGE
