The Court of Peeves, Crotchets and Irks resumes its autumn assizes with a motion from Patty Dashiell of Charlotte, N.C. She urges the court to enforce a distinction between “each other” and “one another.” The motion is denied, but it is regretfully denied. One more lost cause!

Ms. Dashiell contends that “each other” should be reserved exclusively for a relationship between two persons, leaving “one another” for a relationship of more than two. It is a nice distinction. The court is fond of it. For example, “Paul and Susan always give each other a book at Christmas.” But, “Members of the Buncombe County Book Club give books to one another.” The distinction may be easily observed.

The trouble is, most authorities say there’s nothing to it. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage traces the supposed distinction to an English grammarian in 1823, but the fellow’s mandate never caught on. Respected writers spurned it. Samuel Johnson wrote of ministers who meet “at each other’s houses.” Macaulay wrote of men “cutting one another’s throats.” Chesterton saw nothing amiss in a chain of witnesses “who confirm each other.”

In “Usage and Abusage,” Eric Partridge says the putative rule “has never been consistently obeyed and seems to be of little practical utility.” H.W. Fowler regarded the distinction as based “neither on present utility nor historical usage.” R.W. Burchfield says the notion is “untenable.” In his “Modern American Usage,” Bryan Garner is more tolerant. “Careful writers will doubtless continue to observe the distinction,” says Garner, “but no one else will notice.” Let it go.

Dr. James W. Randolph of Long Beach, Miss., is irked by the misuse of “vis-a-vis.” In evidence he offers a piece from the New York Daily News. A columnist remarked that architects who build scale models can expect to have their ears chewed off. “That’s what’s happening vis-a-vis the nine potential designs for the World Trade Center.”

Vis-a-vis? It means “face-to-face.” The court rejects the notion that it means “about” or “concerning” or “in regard to.” Some authorities sanction the use of vis-a-vis in a sense of contrast or comparison, e.g., a study of protective tariffs “vis-a-vis free trade.” This court is not persuaded. A better idea is to junk “vis-a-vis” altogether. Why Frenchify a clear English phrase?

Janet Mason of Raleigh, N.C., asks the court to rule on this typical construction: “She is not so perky as she used to be.” Shouldn’t it be “not AS perky as she used to be”? Some 19th-century grammarians insisted on “so” in negative contexts, but in our own time the choice is loosely governed by considerations of speech and cadence. The court likes “not so perky,” but would avoid “not so savvy” or “not so sociable” because of the bumping sibilants.

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.

Copy the Story Link