by Keith Goddard
Every Friday when I pick up pizza from my local Toronto pizza chain, I see a sign that tells me it’s fine to park in their parking lot whilst I’m in their restaurant. Whilst? Sounds quaint, but that’s not proper Canadian English, eh? My dictionaries label it as British, and Garner’s Modern English Usage, fourth edition (Garner for short), states that most word forms that end in -st are old-fashioned or archaic in American English.
So, what does one do? My dictionaries of choice—the second edition of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (hereafter referred to as CanOx) and the eleventh edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (hereafter referred to as M-W)—claim whilst is British. Specifically, CanOx labels it as “esp. Brit.” The authors explain that words with this designation are not unacceptable, but “are very infrequent in Canadian practice” (p. xiv). Similarly, M-W labels whilst as being “chiefly British.” Going even further, Garner advises that it’s pretentious to use whilst unless you’re a Brit and that despite its recent resurgence “it has not yet lost its odor of affectation” (p. 963). Does that mean you should automatically change all instances of whilst to while if you’re working with an author who is not British?
While a given word may sound wrong to my ear, as editors we have to do more than consult the relevant dictionary or usage guide when determining what version of that word to use. When editors make decisions about word usage, they also must consider the author’s style and audience. And whatever version we choose, consistency is key. Editing Canadian English, third edition, advises that “an editor should not hesitate to stray from the first-choice variant in the chosen dictionary when doing so will enhance consistency in spelling patterns or will better serve the nature and content of the specific work” (p. 42). This is where the discretion and sensibility of a (human) editor come into play.
Dictionaries: equal and secondary variants
Many years ago, if I was looking for the preferred spelling or version of a particular word, I used to simply go with the one that was listed first in the dictionary; I didn’t know how a dictionary distinguished between equal variants and secondary variants. When I eventually looked at my dictionaries more closely, I realized that M-W connects two equal variants with or, indicating that “either one may be used according to personal inclination” (p. 15). However, if the two versions are joined by also, the second version is a secondary variant and “occurs appreciably less often” (p. 15). CanOx doesn’t explain their system for assigning variants in the same detail as M-W, but one day perhaps a new Canadian dictionary will spell this out more clearly.
Verbs that end in –ed or –t
There are plenty of other words that present problems when it comes to deciding on what’s right for a particular piece of writing. What about spoilt/spoiled or spilt/spilled? While there’s no longer a debate over some verbs ending with –t—meant, dealt, felt, slept, wept, and crept are now the standard for American, Canadian, and British English—there’s still no agreement for leaped/leapt, burned/burnt, learned/learnt, dreamed/dreamt, dwelled/dwelt, spilled/spilt, and kneeled/knelt. If you consult the two dictionaries mentioned above, as well as Garner, you’ll see they aren’t always in agreement as to which version is British, American, or Canadian.
Again, what to do if your American client uses spoilt, which is indicated as British by most sources? Do you automatically change it to spoiled? First, I think you should inform the author of any usage they may not be aware of, but keep in mind their style and intended reader. If you do suggest a change, be able to back up your suggestion. However, choose your dictionary wisely (if it hasn’t been chosen for you), but remember that “the presence of a term in a dictionary does not mean that it will be seen as fully legitimate by all audiences” (Anne Stilman, Grammatically Correct, 2nd ed., p. 16).
Between descriptivism and prescriptivism
After deciding I wouldn’t be using whilst unless I wanted to occasionally sound pretentious, I was curious to see what my sources recommended for amidst, a word I come across fairly often. CanOx states that amidst is a variant of amid, and M-W indicates amidst is a secondary variant. Garner says that either term can usually be replaced with among, amongst, or in the midst of. I won’t choose amongst, since the references I consulted state among is more common, even in British English. What about in the midst of? When I typed that into my version of MS Word, it automatically recommended using amid or during. Word tells me this would be more concise and clearer for my reader (though I’m sure I never told them who my reader was). Garner advises that in the midst of “has always been more common than amid” (p. 45).
This brings up the question of descriptivism and prescriptivism. A prescriptive approach lays out certain rules for how words should be used, whereas a descriptive approach looks at how language is being used. Dictionaries are generally descriptive, not often giving opinions or recommendations, and though Garner does give recommendations, they are based on a staggering amount of data. “Descriptive dictionaries sometimes pander to ignorance, and if enough people are misspelling or misusing a word a certain way, the lexicographers will obligingly record that misuse in their next edition” (Stilman, p. 16). Whether it’s a misuse or a new use is up for debate.
Ultimately, when determining what version of a word to use, we can’t choose or reject one based solely on a dictionary or usage guide. We use that information to help us make an informed choice about what is best for each situation, but we must think hard before making any change, no matter our personal preference. The choice won’t always be cut and dry, and this is where the judgment of a human editor makes all the difference.
Keith Goddard is the editor-in-chief of BoldFace.
This article was copy edited by Alicja Minda.
BoldFace 