Verbatim: From the Bawdy to the Sublime, the Best Writing on Language for Word Lovers, Grammar Mavens, and Armchair Linguists (review)

This collection of ‘greatest hits’ from the Verbatim newsletter covers a wide range of topics from nearly 30 years of quarterly publication. Edited by the current editor, with a foreword by the founding editor, Laurence Urdang, it’s an eclectic mix, and any reader will be as baffled at the inclusion of some items as they are pleased with the inclusion of others. For some of the best articles, follow-up correspondence is included, and as in the newsletter, the spaces between articles are filled with humorous ambiguities and malapropisms from the popular press. Glaringly and frustratingly omitted are the dates of the chapters’ original publication.

The book opens with two articles on intolerance of linguistic intolerance—setting the stage for an approach that celebrates creative and precise language use, including the celebration of nonstandard varieties and ‘vulgar’ forms. After a bit of intolerance (of intolerance and of bureaucratic language and pleonasms), other sections of the book include a few articles each on onomastics, varieties of English, dictionaries and lexicographers, specialist vocabularies (slang, jargon), etymologies, the printed word, language-based humor and word play, and rude words, plus a couple of hodgepodge sections labeled ‘Armchair linguistics’ and ‘Other languages: Just the good parts’. Many of the articles are basically lists of words that exemplify some dialect, jargon, slang, derivational procedure, or what-have-you. Others identify ‘new’ linguistic phenomena, like ‘polysemania’ and ‘quasi-malediction’. Each aims for an amusing pace and style, and some are indeed gems, like Richard Lederer’s ‘The world according to student bloopers’ and Peter Sypnowich’s ‘Needless to say’.

While the book (like the newsletter) is commendable for its invitation to one and all to celebrate and have opinions on language (particularly English) and its usage, it’s also interesting for its insights into the popular status of the professional linguist. In his foreword, Urdang warns that ‘Professional linguists guard their domain zealously, often forbidding any untrained “amateur” admittance to the secret annual cabals sponsored by such august institutions as the Linguistics [sic] Society of America, the Dialect Society [sic], the American Name Society, and so forth’ (xii–xiii). I can only assume that Urdang’s (or his copyeditor’s) failure to get the names of these organizations right is a clever way of avoiding charges of libel: surely the LSA or ADS have never refused a registration check on the basis of its writer’s professional status? The amateur/professional status of most contributors is hidden here, with no biographical blurbs or affiliations for the authors—with one interesting exception. While those with degrees in linguistics or related fields are not identified, those with medical degrees carry ‘M.D.’ after their names. Never mind the eggheads, the real doctors are here to save the day—and the language!