Some sympathetic pedantry

There may have been people who once 'followed' this blog, but by now have given up, after many months of dissatisfaction. I can only apologise for many months silence, and explain that in the interim my energies, such as they are, have become increasingly diverted into matters musical - or, more specifically, choral. (The music too is likely to emerge sooner or later in the form of a blog or website or both.)

But what has stirred me to resume this series of mini-essays in pedantry is a slip of paper that I have just re-discovered on which I noted in faint pencil the mild solecism of a broadcaster who referred to three different schools, and remarked that of the three, "the latter is the favorite".

The adjective 'late' has a curious history; whether as an adjective or an adverb. In the early middle ages it meant 'slow', 'behindhand', and the comparative form was spelled either 'later' or 'latter', and the superlative either 'latest' or 'last'. After a long while the forms 'latter' and 'last' came to be associated with adverbial use, 'later' and 'latest' with adjectival - though most English-speakers would find it hard to spot the difference. But we would always refer to 'the latest' news rather than 'the last news', and would not say 'three weeks latter'.

The term 'the late King' or 'the late Albert Higgins' is an idiomatic use: it might once have implied that His Majesty or his humble subject Albert was slow to act, or 'slow on the uptake'. More recently it could have implied that he (or Albert Higgins, MP) had not arrived on time for the opening of parliament. More recently still, it would imply that the one referred to had recently died. 'Late' meaning 'recent' has the adverbial form 'lately', equivalent to the phrase 'of late'.

Back to this choice between the three schools. Among pedants it is an axiom that "you can't have a latter of three". Theoretically the comparative form of an adjective should only be used when 'comparing' two things. So you can't correctly speak of more than two 'alternatives'*. Nor should you speak of 'the bigger of the three' any more than you would (or should) say ''the biggest of the two'.

* The very word 'alternative' is derived from the Latin adjective alter meaning 'the other of two'.

All of which complex waffle is really just a preamble to two important observations. The first is that we adapt the way we speak to the situation we find ourselves in. We may twitter in a different style to the way we compose a letter applying for a job; a poet will write a poem in a different style to that in which he writes to his bank manager to ask for an extension of credit. The Prime Minister will address Parliament in different language to that in which he chats to his family at home. There is no across-the-board 'right style'. But in every situation and for every purpose there will be an appropriate one.

The second point (obvious enough) is that word usage is constantly evolving, so that terms that are well understood in one generation may gain a new significance - or lose it altogether - in the next. If we find some of Shakespeare's language hard to follow, it is not because either we or Shakespeare speak or write badly. But it is important to remember (in case this little essay seems to be an invitation to verbal anarchy) that speech and writing are tools that we always use in order to achieve something: and if they aren't clear, then we fail in our purpose; and we need either to sharpen the tools or to use them with greater skill.

Some sympathetic pedantry