The Court of Peeves, Crotchets & Irks opens its winter assizes with a motion from Dr. John W. Randolph of Long Beach, Miss. He asks the court to put an end to abuse of the French phrase vis-a-vis. For all the good it will do, his motion will be granted.

In evidence the petitioner offers a column by Lenore Skenazy in the New York Daily News. She began: “If you build it, they will come. If you build a scale model of it, they will chew your head off. That’s what’s happening vis-a-vis the nine potential designs for the World Trade Center …”

In the court’s view, the columnist was trying too hard. It happens to every talented writer. A simple “to” would have sufficed, as in, “That’s what’s happening to the nine potential designs.”

The thing is, “vis-a-vis” translates literally as “face-to-face,” as in “Tristan and Isolde knelt vis-a-vis,” but a few centuries of English usage have provided additional definitions – “in relation to” and “as compared with.” In contemporary usage, nothing is wrong with explaining that “The next chart contrasts income vis-a-vis expenditures.” The Oxford American Dictionary adds a note of admonition: “Avoid using vis-a-vis to mean ‘about’ or ‘concerning.”‘

The court’s advice is to avoid using “vis-a-vis” at all. Or “voila!” Or “au naturel.” Carefully employed, foreign phrases can add a nice garnish of parsley to an otherwise pedestrian dish. Ineptly used, they are likely to embarrass the overconfident writer. Nothing good can be said of the menu that boasts “a cup of au jus on the side.” The court has inveighed against foreignisms many times, to no visible effect, but hope springs eternal.

Dick Freshley of Lake Worth, Fla., moves for a permanent injunction against “as of yet,” as in, “We do not have a report from the police, as of yet.” Granted! Words and printer’s ink are precious. Waste them not! In his “Modern American Usage,” Bryan Garner bluntly condemns “as of yet” as a “vulgarism,” which may be a tad too much, but the phrase adds nothing that is not better conveyed by “so far” or simply “as yet.”

Rick Riedmiller of Cyberspace asks the court to ban “consensus of opinion.” The court has slain this bete noire a dozen times, heh-heh, but the redundancy lives on. It dwells in Outer Darkness with “general consensus,” its odious cousin. Nothing remains to be said, except to remind attentive writers that a “consensus” demands more than two participants. Two committee members agree; four reach a consensus.

Bill Clarke of Hazel Green, Ala., petitions the court for an advisory opinion on “arguably.” His motion offers an opportunity for comment on the matter of introductory adverbs generally. In his “Modern American Usage,” Bryan Garner lists 22 such modifiers. The most widely observed specimens include: accordingly, admittedly, arguably, curiously, fortunately, importantly, ironically, regrettably, sadly and theoretically.

The court regards “importantly” as a criminal offense in any degree. To write that some idea or action occurs “more importantly” or “most importantly” is to commit something worse than a misdemeanor; here we’re talking felony. The court scorns “arguably” as a girly word embraced by writers who paint in pastels. Otherwise, the court regards these bouncy adverbs as useful springboards for getting into a pool of meaning. Ideally, we could get along without them, but truthfully they serve a purpose.

A final word: Beware of an introductory “hopefully,” as in “Hopefully, the sun will come out tomorrow.” Would anyone like to diagram that sentence?

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.

Copy the Story Link