Listen up, people

 I tell you this with utter assurance: Every time you see peoples' it will be wrong.

Oh, all right, not every time. Just nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand. 

People on nearly every occasion will be a noun singular in form with plural meaning: multiple human beings. 

One of Wilson Follett's crotchets in Modern American Usage may be recalled by older members of the assembly. He comes down hard on the distinction between people and persons, saying that "when we say persons we are thinking, or ought to be, of ones--individuals with identities; whereas when we say people we should mean a large group, an indefinite and anonymous mass." 

That distinction, what we ought to be thinking, was badly eroded sixty years ago and today is virtually gone. Bryan Garner, of course, recalls the distinction, but he is fully aware that it is pedantic and would produce sentences that sound strained to our ears. He says, "Twelve persons on the jury seems stuffy to many readers, and most native speakers of English (since about the mid-1970s) would say twelve people on the jury," which "has come to be viewed as the more natural phrasing." 

But there remains that thousandth instance in which peoples is a noun plural in form and plural in meaning: "a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship though not necessarily by consanguinity or by racial or political ties and that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs" (thank you, Merriam-Webster). The United Nations is a place where the peoples of the planet are represented, and it is only in that context that you are ever likely to see the plural possessive peoples' used correctly. 

And the people said ... 

In the Kentucky Diaspora

The locust trees burst into bloom in Baltimore today, and I know that on the other side of the Appalachians they are perfuming the countryside. It is the smell of home. 

I left home, Elizaville, the crossroads town in Fleming County where I grew up, in 1973 to go to graduate school in Syracuse, and from there to newspapering in Cincinnati and Baltimore. But, after nearly four decades in Maryland, I am neither a Marylander or a Baltimorean. I am a Kentuckian in self-chosen exile. 

People are mildly taken aback when they learn that. They see that I wear shoes and am not a gallus-snapping pappy, and they usually limit themselves to saying, "You don't sound like someone from Kentucky." And I don't, though my wife observed that my accent broadened slightly in the summers when we visited my mother. "Why, John Early, you sound just like somebody from up North," the mother of a classmate once told me. 

My people were there for a long time. My father's father, who died before I was born, ran a general store in Elizaville. His people were from Hilltop, a suburb of Elizaville. My father took over management, but he was soft-hearted and gave credit to impoverished farmers who were never able to pay him back. Ultimately, his mother and brother, who inherited equal shares of the store, turned him out into the street. It's a complicated heritage. In time he became an engineer with the state highway department, and I have driven on roads he helped make. 

My mother was postmaster in Elizaville for twenty-four years and from her vantage point at the crossroads observed everybody's comings and goings. When someone drove through town, she knew where he was going, what he would do there, and when he would be back. And if she didn't know that, she worked the phones until she did. The Soviet Union did not have surveillance to match that of a small town in Kentucky. 

My mother's father owned a farm that had been in the Early family since the middle of the nineteenth century. I have a property tax receipt indicating what my great-great-grandfather paid for his two hundred acres, his four horses or mules, and his six human beings. As I said, it's complicated. 

I don't know whether they realize the complication when those well-fed gentlemen in their ice-cream suits and their ladies with the architectural millinery rise at the Derby to sing "My Old Kentucky Home" -- a song about the sadness of  Black family in the Kentucky Diaspora after having been sold down the river. 

My parents and grandparents were honest, generous, unassuming people, and they were good progressive Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy Democrats. If they were with us today, they would like what Andy Beshear has done as governor.  (And I raised two Democrats, having done my duty.) My teachers were dedicated people who saw something promising in me and encouraged it. In high school, Lowell and Jean Denton, who operated a local newspaper, the Flemingsburg Gazette, hired me for what proved to be six summers of a practical education in local journalism. These people shaped who I am, or at least the better part of me. 

 The old Kentucky home has been sold, but I keep a canister of dirt from the farm on my desk, which I suppose makes me a landowner. Though it is far, far away, I am still, at seventy-four, part of it. 

The arc of decline

I recently posted that I would sooner endure another bout of Covid than subscribe to The Baltimore Sun, which despises the city in which it publishes, to the gratification of racist white suburbanites. A longtime reader commented, "Sun was in decline long before Smith and Williams." 

That is true. I was there to witness it. The Sun's copy desk was a prime spot for viewing the fate of the paper. We were not in charge; we did not make the big decisions. But we saw what everyone else was doing, and I was present to see it. 

In September 1986 when I came to the copy desk, the paper was still essentially the one the A.S. Abell company had run for generations. Recently acquired by Times Mirror, the paper was essentially still the A.S. Abell staff, with some bright spots but overall a little stodgy. That was about to change.

Times Mirror, run out of Los Angeles, was prosperous, and so were all its newspapers, so it operated with a loose rein. Times Mirror brought in John S. Carroll as editor of The Sun, and he immediately began to enliven the paper. He brought in new talent (some of it from the Philadelphia Inquirer, which got certain local noses out of joint), he fostered enterprise reporting, and he encouraged me to hire the smartest people I could find for the copy desk. The '90s were a glorious decade for the paper. 

But in 2000 the Chicago Tribune acquired the Times Mirror papers, and a generation of decline began. 

It was not entirely the Tribune's fault. Newspapering was undergoing an upheaval and readership and advertising began to drop, slowly, then sharply. Having no vision, Tribune management reacted as other newspapers did, gradually reducing the staff by buyouts and cutting back on content in a doomed effort to maintain the stock price for the shareholders. (Tribune also wasted time and resources in an internecine battle with the Los Angeles Times, a larger, more prosperous, and better newspaper than the Tribune.) 

Even with diminished content and reduced staffing and resources, we continued to struggle to do the kind of journalism that Baltimore expected of The Sun. We won a Pulitzer Prize five years ago for exposing Mayor Catherine Pugh's corruption. But the decline was irreversible. 

In 2021 The Sun was acquired from Tribune Publishing by Alden Global Capital, a notorious hedge fund known for acquiring newspapers and scraping off the cash flow. (That was the point at which I took a buyout after 34 years as a Sun editor.) 

But Alden Global turns out not to have been the worst possible owner. Alden cared nothing about journalism. If you published quality journalism and met your revenue target, Alden was happy. If you published trash and met your revenue target, Alden was happy. 

But a year ago The Sun was acquired by David Smith and Armstrong Williams, whose Sinclair-influenced journalism has led subscribers to flee by the tens of thousands. There is not much left of what once was there. 

Harold Williams's 1987 history of The Baltimore Sun includes a passage in which Baltimoreans of the 1880s referred to The Sun as "a once-great newspaper." It is common for readers to express both affection and derision for their local newspaper; that comes with the territory.

But it is true that The Baltimore Sun is a once-great newspaper. I had the privilege of being there as a witness and a participant in its greatness. Now what has been lost cannot be recovered. 

For all the saints

 At 74, I carry quite a roster of the dead along with me, as must be the case with other septuagenarians. So many are gone: family, classmates, teachers, mentors, colleagues, neighbors, fellow parishioners. 

In the daily walks in which I review my list of gratitudes, I try to include at least some of those whom I no longer see. After all, it is because they saw something in me, something to foster and encourage despite my faults and limitations, that I became who I now am.

Though they are no longer in the world, their persistence in memory means that they are not completely gone, not so long as my memory still holds and honors them. 

That, I think, is where we live best, not in our occupations and accomplishments or other transitory things, but in what we do to uphold one another that leaves us still present in someone's grateful memory. 

What prompted this reflection was coming across an online post of the Lux aeterna, set to the "Nimrod" section of Elgar's Enigma Variations. I invite you to listen to it and think about the people for whose lives you remain most grateful. Whatever you may think about this life or a next life, they remain in the light so long as we remember them. 

Processed prose

 Somehow things that occur are not enough in themselves but must be identified as a process. A little dip into the corpora show how common this has become. It is part of the writing process in which a noun is made more impressive by appending an abstract noun that adds nothing to the meaning.

Some examples:

If you are injured or ill, you go through the recovery process.

If you are building a house, there is the construction process.

If you are applying for a job, you endure the interview process. That would be a component of the hiring process. 

If you are turning ore into metal, you are involved in the smelting process. 

If you are making an album of your singing, you go through the recording process.

If you are proposing legislation, it will go through the review process, and perhaps the public hearing process as well. 

If you are looking to add a child (or pet) to your family, you may pursue the adoption process.

If someone dear to you dies, you experience the progressive stages of the grieving process. 

Should you be engaged in the editing process, let me suggest to you that words like recovery, construction, interview, smelting, recording, review, public hearing, adoption, and grieving may be perfectly adequate to indicate what is going on, and you might then profitably engage in the pruning process. 

The Copy Editor's Code

 Our domain is factual accuracy, spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, and house style, making all of them clean and correct. 

We hold that all human beings, ourselves included, are born with an innate propensity to error. 

We are skeptics, approaching each text with the suspicion that something in it is faulty, and that we will find it. 

We stand in the place of the readers, asking the readers' questions and experiencing the readers' puzzlement, seeking to make the text clear and meaningful for them. 

If you don't know, look it up; if you're not sure, look it up; if you're sure, look it up anyway.

We cut the wordy and the infelicitous, healing, like surgeons, with the knife. 

We assist the writer in achieving their purpose.

Sometimes the most we can accomplish is to take the defective and leave it merely mediocre.

We protect the publisher from embarrassment and damage. 

We know to take our hands off the keyboard when something is good.

We leave the work better than when we took it up. 

We can talk among ourselves about writers' frailties and foibles, but not publicly. 

We work anonymously, free from vulgar desire for public recognition. 

Thirteen ways of looking at an editor

 I

Comma jockey, fault-finder, rule-follower, drone

II

"Copy editors are a necessary evil."

III

They make it read as if they had written it.

IV

"Most editors are failed writers, but so are most writers."

V

Texas chainsaw editor

VI

"I became an editor for the money and the glamor."

VII

Who let that through?

VIII

"Reading other people's raw copy is like looking at your grandmother naked."

IX

Take out the dumbest stuff first.

X

An ink-stained wretch's ink-stained wretch

XI

"Your manuscript is both good and original, but what is good is not original, and what is original is not good."

XII

Write drunk; edit sober.

XIII

"He made it say what I meant better than I did myself."

When you speak, are you wearing brown shoes with a blue suit?

 I have been a working editor for forty-five years, and throughout that time, to gauge from letters to publications and public diatribes, the English language has undergone a calamitous decline. There are no standards, grammar is a smoking ruin, the Young People are barbaric, and Civilization As We Knew It is gone. Just gone. Ask anyone. 

Let me suggest, if you are among those shouting, "The End is near!" at the front door, you have misunderstood fashion. 

You know, and understand, that the music of the 2020s, like it or not, is unlike the music of the 1920s. You have seen how fashions in clothes have shifted over the years, even though you might regret that it has become commonplace for men to wear light brown shoes with dark blue suits. Baltimore used to have a complement of German restaurants, but our tastes these days prefer Italian. Language is no different.

It has ever been so. Here's a passage from Jack Lynch's The Lexicographer's Dilemma: " 'It is not the business of grammar,' wrote the clergyman and educator George Campbell in 1776, 'as some critics seem preposterously to imagine, to give laws to the fashions which regulate our speech. On the contrary, from its conformity to these, and from that alone, it derives all its authority and value.' " Conformity to common use determines grammar.

David Crystal, writing in The Stories of English to urge respect for all the dialects in our Englishes, uses a wardrobe metaphor: "With clothing, a diverse wardrobe enables us to dress to suit the occasion; and so it is with language."

Even the grumbling purists dimly perceive this. Spelling (yes, it's not grammar, but ...) varies. We used to write "to-day" and "to-morrow," and now we don't. We realise/realize that British and U.S. spellings vary, without impairing our ability to comprehend. 

Punctuation, too (also not grammar), changes as it suits us. In the eighteenth century we liked to put a comma between the subject and verb of a sentence: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. ..." We don't do that any longer. We don't care for it. Oxford comma partisans bleat that its use is essential, anti-Oxfordians bray that it is useless, and readers consume both species without blinking. 

Our very words themselves go in and out of favor. The nineteenth century liked to identify a widow as a "relict," as if she were the residual property of her deceased husband. Try that today. Jonathan Swift's "Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue" deplored the use of the vulgar term "mob," but here in Baltimore we take a perverse pleasure in having been known as "Mobtown." 

In the prefatory note to the 1980 anthology The State of the Language, Christopher Ricks writes that the meaning of a word is not a matter of fact or opinion, but "a human agreement, created within society but incapable of having meaning except to and through individuals."

So English, its spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and even grammar, is what we collectively make it over time, and just as our tastes in music, dress, and food mutate, so does language vary to mean what we are trying to say.  

Get over it

Some merry Andrew at the Associated Press Stylebook chose to stir up the animals, in Mencken's felicitous phrase, on Facebook by posting this earlier today: "We announced one of our most-discussed style changes of all time at the ACES conference about a decade ago: Both 'more than' and 'over' are acceptable in all uses to indicate greater numerical value. Salaries went up more than $20 a week. Salaries went up over $20 a week."

The usual suspects commenced to clamor, so let's be clear about it. The people who insist on this invented distinction, which does not exist in English outside the confines of U.S. journalism, are pegging their authority as experts in English usage on a chimera. 

The distinction was invented by nineteenth-century editors and persisted in the journalism curriculum until the present day. In Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblins (1971), Theodore M. Bernstein of The New York Times punctured what he called "a bit of superstitious tinkering," and he had the receipts. He quoted William Cullen Bryant's "Index Expurgatorius" for its disdain for over as more than, with James Gordon Bennet's "Don't List' for The New York Herald, and Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right chiming in. 

The distinction, for civilians who are mystified, is that over may only indicate spatial relationships (higher than), while more than is restricted to greater quantities, because in English a word can mean Only One Thing. And this invented distinction has been drummed into the heads of generations of newspaper reporters and editors who are inherently resistant to correction. 

But the fact is that at the national conference of the American Copy Editors Society in 2014 at which the stylebook editors announced this change, lexicographers from Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary who were present were amazed to learn of a distinction of meaning that had been theretofore invisible to them. 

In fact, any journalists who have access to a dictionary, and consult one, can find that the meanings of over and more than in reference to quantity are interchangeable. American Heritage comments that Bryant provided no rationale for his distinction and that those who followed him did so for reasons that are "dubious at best." Further, "over has been used as a synonym for more than since the 1300s."Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage concurs. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, with British hauteur, says that "there has been a strong tradition in American and some American usage guides of absolute, unconditional, almost maniacal hostility to the use of over with a following numeral to mean 'in excess of,' 'more than.' "

Bryan A. Garner, the dean of informed prescriptivists, says in the fifth edition of Garner's Modern English Usage that "the charge that over is inferior to more than is a baseless crotchet." 

In the interest of full disclosure, I nagged repeatedly the Associated Press Stylebook to drop this entry, and in the fullness of time Paula Froke and her fellow editors were persuaded. 

I am not, of course, dictating to my fellow editors what they should and should not do in the fugitive moments that they are permitted to spend on texts. If they think that their limited time is best spent on maintaining a distinction that is invisible to readers who are not fellow U.S. journalists, who am I to tell them to forbear? 

May I suggest

Three years ago, when The Baltimore Banner was considering taking me on as a freelance copy editor, the editors sent me a series of articles to edit. The articles were in Google Docs, and I made edits as suggestions which the editors could keep or reject. They kept them, and, seeing that they could trust me, they shifted me to the regular editing system. 

Since then, I've corrected lapses in grammar and usage, fixed typos, changed a word to one more precise or appropriate, untangled syntax, tightened wordiness, and redressed factual errors. Of course, when I  identify substantive issues, I address them with the editors or writers. But if there have been complaints about my routine edits, I have not heard any. 

My edits are suggestions. You would be a fool to ignore some of them, but it is your text as the writer, or your text as the publication, and you have the discretion to overrule me. All edits are judgments and thus inherently prescriptive--I tell you should do this. Because judgments can be arbitrary and misguided, the best editorial prescriptivism is tempered with descriptivism. 

My purpose--keep this in mind, please--is to assist you, the writer, in achieving your purpose, not to demonstrate my superiority (though, dammit, if you didn't think that I knew more about some things than you do, why did you hire me?). So when I offer my expertise and experience to suggest how your text might work better, please pay attention.