July 16, 2004

Me being stodgy

David Kolodney

NYT
"Sarkozy....has acquired a reputation as a man of action...who speaks his mind on controversial issues, while Chirac is often seen as reigning more than ruling, speaking obtusely and saying little to offend."

In this case, the word they meant to use is anybody's guess. Mainly obscurely, I'd think, with some mix of abstrusely, opaquely, and obliquely. A couple of weeks back, the NYT had something like "discrete inquiries."

Neither of these has joined the growing class of close-enough-for-Jazz misnomers that people would now think you picky or technical for correcting.

"Diffusing a crisis," for example, is already common and well-established.

Posted by david at July 16, 2004 5:06 AM
Comments

One of my favorites is the use of "under siege." Back during the Rodney King riots, someone was interviewing John Singleton - I think it was Bryant Gumble - who said something like, "with all of the rioting on the streets, looting and burning, is it safe to say that Los Angeles is a city under siege?" My immediate mental response was, "Well Bryant, since a siege is when a hostile army surrounds a city and attempts to starve it into submission, no, LA is not under siege. In chaos, out of control, sure, but not under siege."

I think people use words sometimes because they like the sound of them without really considering what they mean.

Posted by: Boris Khadinov at July 19, 2004 11:44 AM

I think the word "they meant to use" was, in fact, the one they used: obtusely. Nothing wrong with that; it's not a made-up word or error. See Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 10th ed, obtuse, definition 2b: "difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression".

Posted by: Pete at July 19, 2004 2:04 PM

Re: Comment 1.
Yes, it is sometimes words as mood music.

Re: Comment 2.
Interesting! I see the overlap in these definitions too:
The American Heritage® Dictionary via Yahoo
obtuse
ADJECTIVE:
1a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect. b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark. c. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.
2a. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt. b. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle. c. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin obtsus, past participle of obtundere, to blunt. See obtund.
OTHER FORMS: ob·tusely —ADVERB
ob·tuseness —NOUN
----
I get the lead sense from "obtusely" that the speaker is kind of dumb and, as a consequence, may be hard to understand--especially in the case where there was not really much of a point in mind to begin with.
With the terms I proposed: "obscurely," "abstrusely," "opaquely," and "obliquely," the reason the speaker is hard to understand is different. There _was_ a point to be made, and it probably could have been made pretty clearly. The speaker is smart enough, maybe too self-consciously smart, but did not achieve clarity--and may even have avoided it.
From what I have heard from Chirac, plus the suggestion of pomposity in "reigning," I think that is what the author wanted to get at--not that Chirac is dumb, dull-witted, etc.
What do you think?
It is characteristic of what I call "close-enough-for jazz" misnomers that they _do_ have a meaning that is relevant. That is why a correction might be felt to be picky. "Diffusing a crisis" and "defusing a crisis" _are_ in the same neighborhood.
.

Posted by: David Kolodney at July 19, 2004 3:09 PM