NOT A WORD!

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

While I was putting Robert Hartwell Fiske's The Dictionary of
Disagreeable English: A Curmudgeon's Compendium of Excruciatingly
Correct Grammar (2005 -- yes, 205, this book is really on the cutting
edge of the time line) onto the shelf, it fell open to a page with an
entry for TREPIDACIOUS, which caught my eye because i am an occasional
(and proud) user of the word TREPIDATIOUS 'tremblingly reluctant' and
took TREPIDACIOUS to be a misspelling of this word, which should have a
T because TREPIDATION does.  (A quick web Google showed ca. 2,150 hits
for TREPIDATIOUS, to 658 for TREPIDACIOUS, and Google asked about the
latter if I meant the former.  The site wordsmith.org notes the latter
spelling and suggests that the word should be spelled with a T "if at
all" -- on which, see below.)

But no.  Fiske's entry declares sternly that *trepidatious* is
"solecistic for *fearful* (and similar words)"; he offers *uneasy* and
*anxious* as well as *fearful*.  A bit of thesaurisizing for the noun
*trepidation* provided the following alternatives to *trepidatious*:
agitated, alarmed, anxious, apprehensive, dismayed, fearful,
frightened, hesitant, reluctant, timid, uneasy.  But none of these
expresses the shade of meaning I want when I use *trepidatious*; I want
the sense of trembling reluctance that *trepidation* conveys.
*Trepidatious* is simply a more vivid adjective than all the
alternatives (though *apprehensive* comes closest to the effect I
want), certainly a better choice than the three blander options that
Fiske provides.  On the general principle that you should use the best
word for your purposes, I choose *trepidatious*.

Ah, but Fiske doesn't allow me this choice.  He asserts, baldly:
"*Trepidacious* is not a word", adding that "*Trepidation*, meaning
fear or apprehension, is a word, as as *trepid* (the antonym of the
more familiar *intrepid*), meaning timid or fearful."  (Yeah, like I'm
going to use "trepid".  Even Fiske doesn't go so far as to advise that
I use "trepid" instead of "trepidatious".)

I've been hearing this "not a word" bullshit since I was a kid, usually
applied to non-standard "ain't" and taboo "fuck" (neither of which
Fiske bothers to inveigh against, undoubtedly because they're so far
beyond the pale).  It mystified me then, and it angers me now.  It's
(literally) superhyperbolic, two steps of exaggeration beyond reality,
and it's insulting.

First, reality (and insult): The admonition that people of taste and
refinement should not use X.    This is an expression of the
admonisher's judgment about linguistic usages, couched as an
injunction.  It's insulting because the admonisher takes himself to be
the arbiter of other people's behavior and brooks no objection that
people of taste and refinement do in fact use X.  The admonisher knows
what's right; it's not a matter for discussion.  Well, I'm a person of
some taste and refinement (in the appropriate circumstances), and I use
"trepidatious".  Stop telling me I'm a clumsy ignoramus.

A side issue here.  I assume that Fiske objects to "trepidatious"
because it's a recent innovation: "Even though people use it (horrible
to hear, ridiculous to read though it is), no major dictionary,
remarkably, has yet included *trepidacious* in its listing."  Give them
time, Fiske, give them time.  The word has a lot going for it, beyond
the fact that some careful writers -- like me -- use it.  It's an
instance of a small but significant pattern in English derivational
morphology: words in "-atious" meaning 'inclined to "-ation" '.
Ostentatious, flirtatious, disputatious, vexatious.  "Trepidatious" is
transparent, easily understood.   It's a good thing to have.
("Trepid", in contrast, is a dead loser.)

But back to superhyperbole.  We start with the admonition that people
of taste and refinement should not use X.  This is exaggerated,
elevated to the admonition that people, in general, should not use X;
what should govern the behavior of the "best" of us (those are genuine
sneer quotes) in certain circumstances should govern the behavior of
all of us, all of the time, in all contexts, for all purposes.  (What a
remarkable lack of nuance!  What a divorcement from the complex
textures of social life!)

As if that weren't enough, it ratchets up, hysterically, one more
notch, to the bald assertion that X simply isn't available for use;
it's just not part of the social repertoire.  My dear, it just isn't
done.

But if it truly isn't done, then there's no need for the admonitions.

Don't tell me there's "no such word".  Parade your idiosyncratic
prejudices, if you wish, and if your mind is open enough we might be
able to talk about the bases of your prejudices (and mine).  But don't
lie to me about the state of the language.

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)