Dear Sir

Daniel recently asked me, “Is it correct to address someone by Sir even in informal contexts such as Instant Messaging or on a blog comment?”

The word sir serves a very useful purpose in English, even in those cultures that cherish democratic ideals to the extreme.

Sir has been used as a respectful form of address in English since about 1350. Its use as a salutation at the beginning of letters can be traced to 1425.

Originally used as a title for a knight, baronet, or (until the Seventeenth Century, a priest), the word sir, like sire, comes from a Latin word related to the word senior and had the meaning “older” or “elder.” Sir is still used to preface a knight’s given name: Now that Rudy Giuliani has been knighted, he can be called “Sir Rudy.”
The form sire, with the sense of “your majesty,” is used to address a king. As a noun in more general use, sire has the meaning “father” or “male parent.” The word can also be used as a verb: John Brown sired several sons.

The most frequent general use of sir is in the context of letter writing, a form of expression that is notoriously conservative in its language. For example, the British complimentary closing “yours faithfully” sounded really abject to my American ear the first time I heard it, but, living in England, I soon became accustomed to it for what it is, a polite convention that no one takes literally.

Outside its conventional use as a written salutation, sir is a convenient word to have in a situation in which one wishes to politely catch the attention of a stranger:

Sir, you’ve dropped your credit card.
Excuse me, Sir, can you direct me to the town center?

The female equivalent in such a situation would be “Miss” or “Ma’am.”

Even in a democracy–perhaps especially in a democracy–the older forms of courtesy are never out of place.

“Could Care Less” versus “Couldn’t Care Less”

My article about the loss ofThou received some comments on the use of “could care less” instead of “couldn’t care less.”

My choice to write “Shakespeare could care less” was a deliberate one. I felt that “could care less” was more euphonious than “couldn’t care less” and sounded a bit “cheekier.” I thought that by now either form of the idiom was acceptable.

How wrong can a writer be?!

So wrong that a Google search of the phrase “could care less” garners 1,930,000 hits. Some of the discussions are quite impassioned. Although the newer form of the expression meaning “not to care at all” has been widely-used for some time, many people still regard it as an uneducated error.

Paul Brians, English professor at Washington State University, points out in an interview with Avi Arditti the difficulty of dealing with idioms that are in the process of changing:

the problem is that as [a new idiom] evolves, you get caught as a user between people who are going with the new pattern and those who know the old pattern and are comfortable with it.

Cautions Brians,

some people will disapprove or think less of you if you say it [the new] way.

He concludes that speakers and writers may choose to use the newer pattern, but that they do so at a certain risk because people who are bothered by the new pattern may be in a position to hire them, or grade their papers, or reject them as social equals.

The Oxford dictionary already recognizes “could care less” as an American colloquialism. Many people, however, regard it as incorrect since it makes no logical sense (if you “could care less” it means that you care at least a bit).

What do you think about it? Have your say in our Poll! (RSS readers will need to visit the site to take the poll).

6 Foreign Expressions You Should Know

Whether you like it or not, foreign expressions represent an integral part of the English language (and of many other languages, too). Knowing the meaning and usage of the most used ones is very important. First of all because it will enable you to understand pieces of text that include them. Secondly, because you might also need to use those expressions on particular situations (avoid using them just to sound smart though). Below you will find 6 foreign expressions commonly used in English, enjoy!

1. De Facto

De facto is a Latin expression that means “actual” (if used as an adjective) or “in practice” (if used as an adverb). In legal terms, de facto is commonly used in contrast to de jure, which means “by law.” Something, therefore, can emerge either de facto (by practice) or de jure (by law).

And what of the plastic red bench, which has served as his de facto home for the last 15 years and must by now be a collector’s item? (NY Times)

2. Vis-à-Vis

The literal meaning of this French expression is “face to face” (used as an adverb). It is used more widely as a preposition though, meaning “compared with” or “in relation to.”

It’s going to be a huge catalyst in moving the whole process forward and it really strengthens the U.S. position vis-a-vis our trading partners (Yahoo! News)

3. Status quo

This famous Latin expression means “the current or existing state of affairs.” If something changes the status quo, it is changing the way things presently are.

Bush believes that the status quo — the presence in a sovereign country of a militant group with missiles capable of hitting a U.S. ally — is unacceptable. (Washington Post)

4. Cul-de-sac

This expression was originated in England by French-speaking aristocrats. Literally it means “bottom of a sack,” but generally it refers to a dead-end street. Cul-de-sac can also be used metaphorically to express an action that leads to nowhere or an impasse.

But the code of omerta was in effect for two carloads of fans circling the cul-de-sac to have a look at the house. (Reuters.com)

A cul-de-sac of poverty (The Economist)

5. Per se

Per se is a Latin expression that means “by itself” or “intrinsically.”

The mistake it made with the Xbox is that there is no game console market per se; there are PlayStation, GameCube, and Xbox markets. (PCMag.com)

6. Ad hoc

Ad hoc, borrowed from the Latin, can be used both as an adjective, where it means “formed or created with a specific purpose,” and as an adverb, where it means “for the specific purpose or situation.”

The World Bank’s board on Friday ordered an ad hoc group to discuss the fate of President Paul Wolfowitz (CNN)

Let the Word Do the Work

When language-mutilator Yogi Berra said that something was “like ‘deja vu’ all over again,” everybody laughed. Lately I get the feeling that some people who say it don’t know it’s a joke.

Yogi’s “belts and suspenders” approach to words seems to be on the increase. We’ve all seen ads that offer “a free gift.” Sometimes it’s “an absolutely free gift.” It’s as if people don’t trust a word to mean what it means.

Some recent examples from the media include: “adequate enough,” “a navy sailor,” “an army soldier,” “coupled together with,” and “the maroon-colored Jaguar.”

Sometimes explanatory constructions are necessary in certain contexts. One can refer to a Mafia “soldier,” for example, but if the context is the evening news about the Iraq war, a listener can be trusted to understand the word without tacking on “army.”

Besides sounding foolish, the practice of bolstering a word with a a word that replicates its meaning weakens the expressiveness of the language.

Here are some redundant combinations I’ve heard or read lately in the media. The careful writer will avoid such nonsense.

• return back
• progress forward
• forests of trees
• other alternatives
• continue on
• evacuated out
• regress back
• penetrate through
• speeding too fast
• refinanced again
• a human person
• charred black
• a baby nursery
• reiterate again
• fast forward ahead
• socialize together
• two twin towers