Words

[The Knize]

A recent Bryan Garner "Daily Tip" explained that "masterful" should always mean "domineering." That the correct word for expertly accomplished is "masterly." Merriam-Webster disagrees and says this is what H.W. Fowler wanted to prescribe, but that, essentially, "masterful" has always also had a meaning of expertly accomplished.

Anyone have any thoughts? "Masterly" does not sound commonly used to me, and might even seem pedantic. I was unaware of any controversy over using "masterful" to mean expertly accomplished, but I guess I am forewarned now to be careful in using it to avoid ambiguity and/or looking like I do not know English well!

 

[Claudel Xerxes]

I think pedantic is spot on. It sounds like Bryan A. Garner is trying to justify his career. I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "masterly."

 

[Mempho]

"masterful) (masterly. Some centuries ago both were used indifferently in either of two very different senses : (A) imperious or commanding or strong-willed, & (B) skilful or expert or practised. The Differentation is now complete, -ful having the (A) and -ly having the (B) meanings ; and disregard of it is so obviously inconvenient, since the senses, though distinct, are not so far apart but that it may sometimes be uncertain which is meant, that it can only be put down to ignorance." Fowler, 1963 edition.

I think this is one of the many battles that was lost before Fowler took it up, certainly in the US.

 

[Doc4]

I can't say I've given it much thought before today. So, seventeen B&B bonus points for @The Knize for getting me to think about this bit of arcane trivia.

I rather suspect that most people ... even those who would use these terms in daily parlance ... would be unaware of the distinction. So ...

I guess I am forewarned now to be careful in using it to avoid ambiguity and/or looking like I do not know English well!

... I doubt there is much risk of such risk. A lot will be added and clarified in the context and (if spoken) tone of voice when either term is used, so I doubt the intended meaning will be misunderstood.

 

[luvmysuper]

Language evolves.
In common use, masterful triumphs.
I don't recall ever hearing someone say masterly.
Pedantic or not, the function of language is to convey thoughts from one to another.
Though masterly may have had a wonderful battle plan, through common use, masterful has won the war.
For now.

 

[NorthernSoul]

What words mean is based on current usage. If people use words in the "wrong" way and it catches on, then the meaning of the word has been changed. That's the way language works.

When you go to school, your teachers teach you what they know and are familiar with. That does not mean what they teach you will always remain constant and unchanging.

 

[Manye]

In Australia, many people misuse the word reticent. These people use it when they mean reluctant. Reticence refers to a reluctance to verbalise. Reluctance refers to an unwillingness to act. I find this habit most annoying.

 

[The Knize]

Cool! I think I have made similar posts on arcane language issues previously, but have not had this robust and useful a response previously. Makes me think there is enough interest some further discussion, without people being bored to death before I am done! My wife might say you should not encourage me.

through common use, masterful has won the war.

As reconfirmed here, I have run this past quite a few people now. and the clear consensus I seem to have found is that "masterful" means done in an expert manner. That there is not even an implication in the word that anyone normally thinks of of domineering. And that "masterly" sounds almost archaic and in use might stand out as odd. I am also guessing that folks find a need to describe something as expertly done from time to time, but rarely need a word to describe something as done in a domineering or bullying manner.

Thanks Mempho, for the Fowler excerpt. I wonder what Fowler said in the 1925 or whatever it was first edition of Modern English Usage.

Here is what a Merriam-Webster on-line source says:

"Some commentators insist that masterful must only mean "domineering," reserving the "expert, skillful" sense for masterly. The distinction is a modern one. In earlier times, the terms were used interchangeably, with each having both the "domineering" and "expert" senses. The "domineering" sense of masterly fell into disuse around the 18th century, however, and in the 20th century the famous grammarian H. W. Fowler decided that masterful should be similarly limited to a single meaning. He summarily ruled that the "expert" definition of masterful was incorrect. Other usage writers followed his lead. But the "expert" meaning of masterful has continued to flourish in standard prose in spite of the disapproval, and, considering the sense's long history, it cannot really be called an error."

This whole thing is interesting to me on a number of levels. I generally really like Garner, and for that matter Fowler, and I suppose various other English language experts out there. I would put David Foster Wallace in there, too. Garner's updated editions of Modern English Usage seem wonderful to me in every respect, and very well researched. I like his "Daily Tips" okay, and they seem generally accurate and non-controversial, but most of the time they are not telling me anything I did not already know. I think Garner has done a lot to justify his career, and I do not think of him as normally seeking out controversy. This one sort of leaped out of my inbox as something I had not heard of.

What words mean is based on current usage.

I normally think of Garner as very much taking this approach. His books are often filled with statistics on usage supporting what he says. I would actually think of Fowler as taking a similar tact. I do remember his decrying that "disinterested" had evolved to mean both "unbiased" and "uninterested," which he viewed as the loss of useful word and the creation of unnecessary ambiguity. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But he did not contend that that evolution had not taken place and he did not try to prescribe that "disinterested" should only be used to mean unbiased in good English writing.

I really do not think of Fowler or Garner as opposing the evolution of language. The opposite really.

Anyway, very interesting stuff to me. And I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks of masterful as meaning what I think it does.

 

[The Knize]

<In Australia, many people misuse the word reticent. These people use it when they mean reluctant. Reticence refers to a reluctance to verbalise. Reluctance refers to an unwillingness to act. I find this habit most annoying.>

Interesting that you raise this one. I read that Garner's Modern American Usage reports that reticent for reluctant is at stage 4 of language change: a nearly universal form that only "linguistic stalwarts," those "die-hard snoots," object to. Other commentators applaud taking the effort to preserve distinction between these two word. I do, too, and I think Fowler would have. Actually, Garner in the latest, fifth edition, of Modern English Usage advocates for the same. Similar to Fowler as to "disinterested," to me reticent has a useful, distinct, nuanced meaning. Why lose that by making it of ambiguous meaning, when we already have another word available of the precise meaning that we would mix into it.

 

[Tirvine]

It is, indeed, interesting. I would never have considered using masterly, despite being a person with a moderately good vocabulary and a penchant for words and word usages that have passed out of favor and common usage. I like using for as a coordinate conjunction. I use shall rather than will for the first person unless I want to be emphatic, in which case I use will. I like using whom for the objective. I am even worse on paper, only because one would be speaking too slowly if one always had to imagine correctness first.

I am also pleased to note that reluctant was not listed in my online thesaurus as a synonym of reticent.

 

[Mojo88]

<In Australia, many people misuse the word reticent. These people use it when they mean reluctant. Reticence refers to a reluctance to verbalise. Reluctance refers to an unwillingness to act. I find this habit most annoying.>

Interesting that you raise this one. I read that Garner's Modern American Usage reports that reticent for reluctant is at stage 4 of language change: a nearly universal form that only "linguistic stalwarts," those "die-hard snoots," object to. Other commentators applaud taking the effort to preserve distinction between these two word. I do, too, and I think Fowler would have. Actually, Garner in the latest, fifth edition, of Modern English Usage advocates for the same. Similar to Fowler as to "disinterested," to me reticent has a useful, distinct, nuanced meaning. Why lose that by making it of ambiguous meaning, when we already have another word available of the precise meaning that we would mix into it.

I seen what you did hear.

 

[Doc4]

there is not even an implication in the word that anyone normally thinks of of domineering

Which reminds me ...

... I remember "somewhere" coming across someone making the point that any word ending in "double-e r" has a negative connotation. A mountain climber is a solid fellow, but a mountaineer has something shady about him. And "privateer" of course. They are probably all domineering.

Don't know if it's actually accurate, but any time I hear one of those "-eer" words, I always remember that. So, to quote FDR, the only thing we have to fear is "-eer" itself.

 

[The Knize]

Which reminds me ...

... I remember "somewhere" coming across someone making the point that any word ending in "double-e r" has a negative connotation. A mountain climber is a solid fellow, but a mountaineer has something shady about him. And "privateer" of course. They are probably all domineering.

Don't know if it's actually accurate, but any time I hear one of those "-eer" words, I always remember that. So, to quote FDR, the only thing we have to fear is "-eer" itself.

I had never heard that about double er! Hard to think of a mountain climbing guy as shady. Domineering and masculine, sure!

The more you know!

 

[Manye]

The overuse of the word “obviously” by burly athletic types [read: professional sportsmen] interviewed post-game in Australia is another annoying example of language use for me. Sometimes every sentence uttered is peppered with this word. A great source of frustration!

 

[Manye]

And since I’m ranting, the overuse of “bereft” by football commentators in this country to describe a lack of on field effort annoys the hell out of me. These people are bereft of synonyms!

 

[The Knize]

I am not sure whether "obviously" is overused in the States. I can see how it would be annoying. I am guessing it is being applied to things that are not so obvious.

I do not think I have ever heard bereft used by a US football commentator. Not the team was "bereft of field effort," but simply "the team was bereft." If the latter, it sounds like a misuse of the word. If a person ss bereft, they are sad, maybe melancholic, usually over something serious that has taken place, such as the death of a loved one or a marriage break up. Or someone or something can be bereft of some quality, such as, I suppose, field effort. But it seems like an unusual choice of words for that context to me!

 

[Doc4]

I do not think I have ever heard bereft used by a US football commentator.

"That's a good play by the offence, Bill!"
"Yeah, but da zebra threw a yellow flag. Dey be ref'd!"

 

[Manye]

I like this thread, Knize. TY

 

[The Knize]

"That's a good play by the offence, Bill!"
"Yeah, but da zebra threw a yellow flag. Dey be ref'd!"

That was brilliant, Ian! I am impressed!

 

[The Knize]

I like this thread, Knize. TY

I am glad, Manye. Seems to me I have posted a number of English usage opinion inquires on B&B over the years, and they usually do not get much traction. This one did! My wife would say you all should not encourage me!

I sure hope Garner does not read this thread and think that I do not respect him. I certainly do and I love his work!