Feezed

Jul. 14th, 2011 11:11 am
avevale_intelligencer: (Default)
[personal profile] avevale_intelligencer
A friend posted a link to an article about Americanisms creeping into British English, and either she or the article writer mentioned "faze" as being one such, meaning to discompose or give pause.

So you can understand why I was fazed when, just the next day, I encountered the word "fazed" in the pages of one writer whom I would imagine would be the very last person to employ a colonial neologism, and employ it, I may say, without comment or even quote marks, just as if it were a real proper English word.

So I went to my trusty OED, and discovered that the word, while marked as a "U.S. transf.", has a pedigree going back at least to 1890, and may indeed be nothing more than a variant form of "feeze," which goes back to about the ninth century, and includes among its definitions "to frighten." In other words, it is a real proper English word, so there. :)

And this, of course, is the point about Americanisms; while many of them may be new coinings or loan-words from other languages (and none the worse for that), many of them started out here and simply fell out of common usage in Britain while remaining alive and well on distant shores.

As I said in the comment there and have said at exhausting length here and in other places, Americanisms in themselves don't bother me in the slightest, any more than local or regional dialects or deliberate assumption of a "folksy" mode of speech or dyslexia or anything else of that sort. I happen to like BBC English myself, but I don't expect everyone else to do the same. What gets my goat, whether it be in America or Australia or the Isle of Man or anywhere English is used, is carelessness in the use of language, and carelessness, I venture to suggest, is something against which we should be wary wherever it may occur. It's human, it's natural, I'm as prone to it as anyone else, but it's not a good thing.

Cries of "snobbery," "fascism," and so on will now doubtless ensue, as they always do. But they will not faze me.

Date: 2011-07-14 02:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] redaxe.livejournal.com
It was one of her three usage quirks. The other two were that "new" referred to a replacement item, whereas an innovative technology was "novel", and...um...it's been 30 years, and I forget the third. I disagreed then and now with her on "new/novel", though since this was technical writing, I understand why whe wanted to increase precision. I've gone back and forth on "employ" over the years, but tend to follow her rule. Old habits die hard! :-)

Profile

avevale_intelligencer: (Default)
avevale_intelligencer

April 2019

S M T W T F S
 123456
78 910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 3rd, 2025 02:20 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios