Decades ago, in a dusty used book store, I came across a real find. It was a little book by a writer I admired, Ambrose Bierce, who will forever be known as the author of the brilliant _The Devil's Dictionary_. It was a little book I didn't know existed. Bierce had written it 1909, _Write It Right_, his guide to avoiding the slang, vulgarities, and unhappy idioms he was horrified to see creeping into the English language (or even claiming long-term residence). He obviously loved English and could wield it with vigor. His book of guidance in language use was sharp and cranky and fun to read. It was more idiosyncratic and less universal than Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_. It was dated, but of course even White had to update Strunk. It was a bunch of decrees from a man who might be a cynic but who wasn't cynical enough to think language use could never be improved. Now Bierce is back, in an edition with commentary and notes. _Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers_ (Walker) has all of Bierce's short, pithy commandments, but is mostly commentary on each one by Jan Freeman. Freeman writes a weekly language column; she is one of the language mavens readers call upon to guide them through the complexities of speaking and writing properly. She doesn't have the biting wit of Bierce, but she has a good sense of humor, and an obvious affection for Bierce's indignation. This does not, however, keep her from pointing out when Bierce's advice is outdated; of course, Bierce could do nothing about inevitable changes in the language. She also does not refrain from pointing out when Bierce is dead wrong, which is distressingly often, though it must be said that Freeman has research tools, like the _Oxford English Dictionary_ to which she frequently refers, that Bierce would not have had at hand.
It is, in fact, seldom that Freeman can wholeheartedly accept a Bierce pronouncement. When he says, "Authoress. A needless word - as needless as `poetess,'" Freeman can answer "Indeed." But she often has to make corrections. Bierce wanted writing to have clarity. Unfortunately, he often wanted it at the expense of acceptance of the breadth of meaning a word could take. Wheeler points out this tendency toward literalism over and over again. Bierce writes of the mistake "Dilapidated for Ruined. Said of a building or other structure. But the word is from the Latin lapis, a stone, and cannot properly be used of any but a stone structure." Wheeler shows that not even the Romans had used the term literally, and (using the historic research tools she frequently cites) that "dilapidate" was used in the sense of "fritter away funds" even in the 15th century. She says, "Bierce enjoyed the role of etymological fundamentalist, but he was virtually alone in suggesting that wood and brick buildings could not be `dilapidated.'" Many of Bierce's other cautions are obsolete or irrelevant. American English has often found useful the changes Bierce decried. The use of "reliable" for "trustworthy" he said was "not yet admitted to the vocabulary of the fastidious," but it is certainly there now. He wanted people to continue to say "trousers," not "pants," of which he writes, "Abbreviated from pantaloons, which are no longer worn. Vulgar exceedingly." He wanted people to say "Joe was graduated from college," not "Joe graduated from college," a form that was creeping into use in Bierce's time and has become standard, even though Freeman points out that "... the Biercean orthodoxy was stoutly defended into the 1980s. And then, of course, along came `Joe graduated college' to scandalize traditionalists. The goalposts have moved, but the contest goes on."
This is an important point. None of us uses English perfectly, but some of us fret over usage more than others, and some of us fret over the usage of others more than our own. Freeman invites us to ask, looking at what are now Bierce's irrelevancies and superannuated bits of advice, whether we ought to be so vexed at the next misplaced apostrophe we see. "Would a little more historical knowledge help us keep our cool in the face of language change?" I don't think so; it is fun to spot others using the language in ways we don't think proper, and certainly Bierce had fun railing against usage mistakes, even when his barbs were misdirected. This edition is less a book of language advice than a partial portrait of a man who loved good language use. It is interesting, for instance, to read that Bierce, a proud Union veteran, wanted to make sure we did not use "jackies" for "sailors": "Vulgar, and especially offensive to seaman." It is fun to read him fulminating against commercial encroachments which he especially hated, like "casket" for "coffin": "A needless euphemism affected by undertakers." And sometimes, he is simply, practically right. He says not to use "partially" for "partly", as it is "A dictionary word, to swell the book." Wheeler corrects that "partially" was not dictionary padding since it had been in use since 1475, and that the words are interchangeable. They may be, but if they are interchangeable, there is nothing wrong with preferring the shorter one just as Bierce did.
