Comments on: From the language-police blotter: “loath” and “loathe”

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:03:41 +0000

And one for the idiom-police blotter: To “beg the question” is to make an assertion that presumes the answer to the question at hand, not to prompt, or raise, a question. And people misuse “myself” all the time (it should only appear in reflexive constructions, I think, so “John and myself went to the bar” is verboten).

The lexicographers will argue about descriptivism vs. prescriptivism. And it’s certainly the case that the meaning of language is mostly determined by its use. That’s undeniable (and it’s also the foundational insight of a lot of Wittgenstein’s most interesting philosophy).

But understanding the actual etymology of words and idioms is both 1) just a lot of fun and 2) educational, in that it helps us build new connections between different words and ideas. And I suspect that the smart people complaining about the perhaps nitpicky nature of the loath/loathe distinction above will actually be sure to use the right word in the future.

By: ACLS

ACLS — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:26:01 +0000

Parroting Ali and Dilan Esper, there’s not a whole lot to be done about this, and I think we’re going to see this one go the way of the slowly morphing “champing at the bit.”

Although I have to admit, I didn’t realize there was a distinction. Embarrassing!

By: Michael Drake

Michael Drake — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:56:21 +0000

Nor should one ever loathe and invite one’s soul.

By: Dilan Esper

Dilan Esper — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:43:00 +0000

Lots of linguistic distinctions are “useful”. That doesn’t mean that people have any obligation to preserve them.

The wonderful thing about language is that it is wonderfully libertarian– people can complain about it’s “misuse” all they want, but vox populi always prevails in the long term. And we are actually so much for the richer for it, both because popular usage is a good determinant of which distinctions are REALLY useful to the public, and also because expressions embraced by the public which drove the language police crazy have made our language so much richer.

So if people are loath to maintain a distinction, or they simply loathe it, good for them! And the language police should turn in their badges and worry about things they can actually do something about.

By: Ali

Ali — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:50:22 +0000

Why object to this? It seems like what we’re looking at is just a tendency to regularize the spelling and pronunciation of the words. Since one is an adjective, and the other a verb, why would you worry the distinction is in danger of being lost? We could use ‘loathe’ /ˈloʊð/ for both senses just as easily we use ‘light’, ‘rock’, and ‘ring’ with multiple unrelated senses today.

By: karen

karen — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:18:17 +0000

While you are at it, do you think you can do anything about the rapidly spreading practice of ending a clause with “as well” that already had an “also” in it? I hear cable newspeople doing this constantly of late, and I wonder if they ever listen to themselves–oh, wait….

By: Gary K

Gary K — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:47:13 +0000

Another distinction: “loath” is pronounced with an unvoiced “th” (thus rhyming with “both”), “loathe” with voiced “th” (thus rhyming with “clothe”).

[Thanks, Gary! Updated. MK]