« I think I will name my child “Yeah Detroit” | Home | Ooooo, got me. »
Jargon or bureaucratese?
In looking up a word online (I was puzzled as to why OpenOffice accepted “dialog” as a viable spelling but not “dialogue”), I stumbled across an interesting usage note:
Usage Note: In recent years the verb sense of dialogue meaning “to engage in an informal exchange of views” has been revived, particularly with reference to communication between parties in institutional or political contexts. Although Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Carlyle used it, this usage today is widely regarded as jargon or bureaucratese. Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Critics have charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with representatives of the community before hiring the new officers.
I’m all for revival of archaic forms of words, but I guess this rejection makes sense. It’s also led me to find out that both the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster have entries for “bureaucratese,” yet Google is still oblivious to this.
Also, if you are considering ever using the word “dialogue” in any sense in the future, please heed this:
dialogue
c.1225, “literary work consisting of a conversation between two or more people,” from O.Fr. dialoge, from L. dialogus, from Gk. dialogos, related to dialogesthai “converse,” from dia- “across” + legein “speak” (see lecture). Sense broadened to “a conversation” 1401. Mistaken belief that it can only mean “conversation between two persons” is from confusion of dia- and di-.
It really bothers me when people try to correct me for using “dialogue” to refer to a discussion among many people.
10 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss | trackback uri