LANGUAGE CORNER
by Evan Jenkins

"If Not"
Whaddya Mean, 'If Not'?
In the passages below, and in thousands like them, the little phrase "if not" is inescapably sloppy, and it can be unfair.

"...at worst, he bullied his opponents and impugned their integrity, if not their patriotism."

"Off and on for two decades, Dr. Lee's behavior was curious, if not criminal."

"If not" in both cases achieves the rarefied status of perfect ambiguity.

Did the writer mean that the subject in the first passage actually stopped short of attacking his opponents' patriotism? Did the second writer mean Dr. Lee's behavior was probably not criminal? Distinct possibilities, but the terse yet flabby "if not" doesn't get the reader there.

Or, perhaps more likely in these examples (and more commonly), "if not" could mean the writers wanted to imply guilt without quite coming out with the charge. That's dirty pool. Whatever meaning is intended, saying it directly -- and providing supporting evidence later -- is the responsible way to go.

A third distinct possibility, a cousin of the second, is that a writer doesn't have a clue, but just wants to slip in the possibility of something ugly. That's both sloppy and unfair. (CJR, May/June 2001)

Imply/Infer

Think 'M' Before 'N'
To imply is to suggest, hint, get an idea across — deliberately or by accident — without saying or writing it in so many words. Politician A might not quite say Politician B was a crook, but he certainly might try to make his audience think so.

It would be up to the audience to infer. That means to read or listen to something and deduce, or guess, what is meant. Inferring is a thought process. The confusion between the words is a lot more common than it should be, and almost always involves “infer”:

• A government official issued an apology for “inferring that a 14-year-old girl might have instigated a sexual relationship with a clergyman.” What he inferred didn’t matter; what he apologized for was putting the thought into words — implying it.

• A writer discoursing on a denizen of the deep — the horseshoe leatherjacket, no less — declared, “As the name infers, this fish has a horseshoe-shaped pattern on the side of its tough thick skin.” A name can’t think, so it can’t infer; it implies.

A stab at mnemonics: Someone iMplies, then someone else iNfers — “m” before “n.” Or, the sPeaker imPlies. Or, the listener or reader INfers, as in INgests, as in takes IN … or maybe… (CJR May/June 2002)

Important/Importantly
Important ? Well, Interesting
Steve Parrott, associate director for university relations at the University of Iowa, e-mailed to ask, "Please consider a few words on 'more important / more importantly.' "

Okay. Mr. Parrott had in mind sentences or clauses that begin with one of those phrases, like "Most importantly, the charges are tied directly to the original topic Mr. Starr was supposed to investigate." The short answer is that either form of the word is acceptable in such cases. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) has a lengthy and interesting (really) discussion of the longstanding argument (really) over important vs. importantly, and concludes that "both are defensible grammatically and both are in respectable use."

The tilt here, and it's slight, is toward "importantly" or other adverbs, rather than adjectives. The adverb seems stronger, somehow, because it can stand alone at the start of a sentence or clause -- without "more" or "most" or any other modifier -- and the adjective can't. Try it. Drop the "most" from the example quoted above; the sentence still works. Then, with "most" gone, drop the "ly" from "importantly"; the sentence no longer works. Small potatoes, though. (And in passages that start with modifiers ending in "ly" -- "equally" comes to mind -- avoiding an echo by using "important" seems to make sense.)

Individuals/People/ Persons
People Need People
The article attributed new developments in a banking scandal to "individuals who have direct knowledge of the investigation." Why "individuals"? Why not "people"? The answer is that bureaucratese is infectious. At times it's necessary to distinguish beween individuals and groups, so "individual," singular and plural, has its uses as a noun. Otherwise, such solid old English words as "man," "woman" and "people" are just fine. (And "people" is almost always preferable to the stilted "persons," except on signs about restaurant occupancy, where the bureaucrats rule.) (CJR, Nov/Dec 1999)

Irrelevant (not irrevelant)
Relevant, as in Middle East
There's an old name for the lands just east of the Mediterranean --"Levant" -- that can avoid some trouble with a couple of much more commonly used words.

One article applauded a "very strong, revelant message to the people." Another deplored the "devilishly clever labels on a collection of random, irrevelant scenes."

Typos both, maybe, and an easy slip to make. But a database search suggests that a widespread switching of middle syllables -- "vel" replacing "lev" -- is going on out there. That strong message, if the writer was right, was "relevant." Those scenes, by contrast, were "irrelevant."

To avoid the misspellings, it may help to think of "relate," to which "relevant" is, as it were, related. But that will carry us only as far as the "l" in the correct spellings (a critical place to reach, though). So "levant," with the appropriate prefix, may be the best mnemonic. And there are extra showoff points for working "Levant" into conversation.

BACK TO INDEX PAGE