Pedant's Revolt Updates Page

Reader’s Letters - Notes and Queries

On 21 September 2005, Professor K Jones of York wrote:

I write to congratulate you on a very useful publication…. but I must take issue with you on the matter of George Washington’s teeth. I have seen the wooden set, which is in The Museum of History in Washington, D. C.

The Pedant disputes this:

Michelle Werts, Public Affairs Assistant of the American Museum of History in Washington consulted the Medical and Science Department Curator and advised me that they had indeed displayed a set of Washington’s false teeth during the 1970s (on loan from the Dental Museum in Baltimore). The teeth in question turned out to be ‘made from walrus tusk’.

The search continues for George Washington’s mythical wooden teeth.

Pedant has added the following clarification to subsequent editions:

Allan A. Metcalf writing in Presidential Voices is certain that George Washington never had wooden teeth. He explains that Washington’s dentist John Greenwood ‘made four of the six sets of false teeth Washington wore during his lifetime.’ These included ‘a lower plate with eight human teeth set in hippopotamus bone’ followed by ‘a thin gold plate holding ivory teeth at the top... and teeth carved from elephant ivory at the bottom.’ Metcalf adds that ‘false teeth never have been made of wood. The saliva in the mouth would soon turn them too mush.’

*****

On 30 December 2005, Mr K Hosking of London Road wrote:

A short note to say how much I enjoyed your book The Pedant's Revolt... I was intrigued that you attributed the saying about 'shooting oneself in the foot' to the potential for accidentally firing a six-shooter while in its holster. Is the popular idea that it came from First World War soldiers deliberately wounding themselves in order to get respite from the war yet another wrong one?

The Pedant is on a slightly sticky wicket here:

‘Shooting oneself in the foot’ is a phrase which fascinates me -- I'm not obsessing about it, you understand but, as you say, many people do associate it with deliberate wounding during wartime. However, I have always understood the phrase to mean ‘doing oneself an accidental disservice’ which has quite a different meaning from ‘deliberately injuring oneself to attain a particular end’. It seems odd that the phrase should begin life meaning ‘I took matters into my own hands for my own ends’ and end up meaning ‘I have accidentally scuppered my own chances’. I have been unable to find (even in the longer OED) a definitive origin for the phrase but, to me, accidentally shooting oneself in the foot by failing to take due care of one’s firearm, seems a more likely origin. But, to be honest, I have not been able to fully substantiate this. (Although I shall continue to try.)

And:

I thought the steam engine was invented (though not seen as having any useful purpose) by Heron of Alexandria, sometime BC: wrong again?

The Pedant concedes:

Indeed, Heron of Alexandria did invent a prototype steam engine. In fact, when I started researching I discovered that a prototype of every conceivable contrivance was invented by the inhabitants of the ancient world (generally the Romans or the Chinese). It's difficult when apportioning credit, to decide which inventor gets it. Is it to go to the inventor of the prototype? Is it to go to the inventor of the first working model? Is it to go to the inventor of the first useful model? Or is it to go to the inventor who pinches someone's idea, improves it a bit, and makes loads of money from it? I did start out drafting ‘the very first toilet was invented by the Romans’ copy but decided, rightly or wrongly, to completely ignore the contribution of the ancients and concentrate on more recent inventors whom I could see pictures of in books, working away in their labs.

*****

On 3 February 2006, Mr B Ellis of Wigan, Lancashire wrote with a veritable cornucopia of observations:

I was given a copy of ‘A Pedant's Revolt’ at Christmas and have read it with great interest. In fact I actually found several things which I didn't know! However, I trust you will not be insulted if I point out one or two little errors:

(Of course not, Mr Ellis)

P34 ‘Science has proven’ – the past participle of to prove’ is ’proved’.

‘Proven‘ is an adjectival use, as in the legal term ‘not proven’. Similarly: ‘drunken’ ‘sunken’.

The Pedant disputes this:

‘Sunken’ and ‘drunken’ are adjectives and in no respect verb parts. One would never say ‘the wine was drunken’ or ‘the ship was sunken’. However, ‘Science has proven’ is perfectly acceptable -- if a little old-fashioned, I admit.

Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary states that both ‘proved’ and ‘proven’ are equally correct past participles of ‘to prove’. It goes on to state that ‘proved’ should never be used in an adjectival sense: that is, one should not say ‘he had proved skills’. So I would assert the contrary: that ‘proven’ can be used as an adjective and a verb whereas ‘proved’ is only to be used as a verb.

P45 ‘Limbo’ -- the Pope has recently denied the existence of ‘Limbo’

The Pedant disputes:

As far as I'm aware, Pope Benedict XVI is still deliberating upon the matter.

N.B. A BBC headline on Friday 6 October read: ‘The Pope may be about to abolish the notion of limbo, the halfway house between heaven and hell, inhabited by unbaptised infants.‘ (Note the BBC’s incorrect definition of the term – which is also why the entry defining the term will continue be included, even if the concept is officially abolished.)

P116 ‘To beg the question’ is not the same as a circular argument

The Pedant agrees to a point:

There is a fine distinction between petitio principii and circulus in probando. It is, as I understand it, connected with the length of the question. Petitio principii being a single point in question and circulus in probando being a whole argument. However, I did not say they were synonymous I said that petitio principii was like presenting a circular argument and I think you'll agree that the two are similar.

P44 ‘ Easter’ is derived from the Frisian, the name of a goddess whose feast was celebrated at the vernal equinox, and ultimately from the word for 'dawn', which arises in the east.

The Pedant agrees to a point:

There are, of course, several plausible derivations for the word ‘Easter’ but I thought the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s dismissal of Bede’s pagan origin was well worth including since it is generally believed to be correct. I was taught it at school.

Page 122 Lemmings -- I was told this at school in the 1930s.

The Pedant is grateful for the tip-off:

I was interested to learn that this fallacy dates back to before the 1950s. However, I have yet to find any written proof of this but I shall continue the search since it is that mentioning subject.

P149 Forlorn hope may come from the Dutch Verloren hoop, but ‘hoop’ in Dutch does mean ‘hope’; the Dutch for ‘troop’ is ‘troep’.

The Pedant disputes this:

Verloren hoop in modern Dutch can be translated as ‘lost hope’ or ‘lost troop’ since hoop is a homograph and can mean either crowd or hope, as in the phrase hoop lopen ‘to gather in a crowd’. In 16th century Dutch the word ‘hoop’ (according to Fowler's) equated to the Old Saxon ‘heap’. So, in 16th century Dutch verloren hoop would have translated as ‘lost heap’ or ‘lost crowd’ and in modern parlance ‘lost troop’.

*****

On Page 34, line 5 there is a typographical error.

The line should read: ‘been online he tells us that...’

However, Mr B. Ellis was kind enough to quote Lewis Carol: ‘Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves.’

*****

On 6 May 2006, D Hughes, Newport, South Wales wrote:

I had just finished reading your book The Pedant's Revolt which I very much enjoyed...With reference to page 33 (Praying Mantis entry which implied that the male brain is not functioning at the time of orgasm.) I would like to draw your attention to recent research in the Netherlands which I read in a female's blog in August of last year. I quote:

‘It's official girls! The scientists have proved it: when we have an orgasm, parts of our brain shut down (excerpt goes on to elucidate upon this claim at some length).

The Pedant is momentarily fazed but quickly recovers:

Imagine my horror upon reading your communication when I learned that, according to a ‘female’s blog’ some scientists in Holland have photographed people’s brains at the moment of climax and discovered parts of them are still working at that juncture. Oh no, wait: that doesn’t seem too disastrous. However, I still thank my lucky stars that I had the foresight to include the qualifier ‘perhaps’ at the end of the assertion you took exception to. Phew! (I should also mention that I always take research of an intimate nature emanating from Holland with a pinch of salt – for reasons I’m sure you are only too well aware of.)

*****

On 20 July 2006, S Hawker (by email) wrote:

Thank you so much for writing the book which has become one of my favourite ‘Velvet Underground’ books (think lead singer...)

While the book The Pedant s Revolt does indeed provide a forum to look at how things really are, the subtitle "Why most things you think are right are wrong" is not, strictly speaking, correct. To answer this question of why most things you think are right are wrong the book would have to either talk about the reason why most things are wrong or list over 50% of fallacies.

A more pedantic sub title would be, "Examples of some things commonly held as truth", though this does not take away from gift it gives the reader to examine commonly held fallacies and how we base our view of the world (and many heated arguments) on things that simply are not real.

The Pedant agrees - kind of:

I agree with your finding that the subtitle of the book is not, pedantically speaking correct. My own thinking on the matter is that, since the book does not contain ‘most things people think they know’ -- only a small proportion of them -- it isn't correct in that respect, either.

I would suggest that your title suggestion ‘Examples of some things commonly held as true’ would need to be expanded to: ‘Examples of some things commonly held as true but which are in fact erroneous’ to really get the point across. It ends up as quite a mouthful, though. Actually, I quite like it...

*****

5 October 2006, Unicorn expert, Mr Roy Humphrey O.B.E of Wooler, Northumberland wrote:

I have just finished your book which I enjoyed very much... on page 17 (Puff the Magic Dragon entry) why is the illustration not of a Dragon that of a Wyvern, quite a different fabulous monster. I may say that I feel that a wyvern, having only two legs and a long tail with a sting on the end, would have difficulty in frolicking in the autumn mist or elsewhere. In this, I write as a member of the College of Dracology for the Study of Fabulous Beasts, a serious but fairly light-hearted organisation, which publishes a regular magazine 'Dragon Lore' already up to the issue number 76.

The Pedant concedes (and makes a pedantic point about political correctness with regard to wyverns):

I was interested to learn that the picture I had assumed was a dragon was in fact a wyvern. Indeed, I do vaguely recollect hearing of such a creature. This has been corrected and a proper dragon with a full convent of limbs will be appearing in the next reprint of The Pedant's Revolt.

However, as the pedant, I feel I need to take issue with you over your assertion that a wyvern could not frolic in the autumn mist as equally effectively as a dragon. In your capacity as a Member of the College of Dracology for the Study of Fabulous Beasts I do feel you are being rather prejudiced assuming they would not perform frolicking in midst simply because they are down a couple of limbs. I should not like to see you in the dock defending your rather rash assumption against a mob of angry wyverns. Granted, they couldn't throw things but they could give you a nasty sting. Fortunately, as wyverns do not exist I think you are probably fairly safe from this eventuality.

*****

On 5 October 2006, S White (By email) wrote:

I just got your book, and found interesting the part about being able

to eat pork 'Pink' or rare. Doesn't pork contain parasites, which

means it has to be thoroughly cooked.

The Pedant regrets that she has been let down by the Food Standards Agency which she FORMERLY held in high regard and has come to regard this matter as 'Porkgate':

The aforementioned agency stated on their website on 25 January 2004 'this means you can eat whole cuts of beef, lamb and pork when they are pink or rare, if you would like to' which is quoted on page 55 of The Pedant's Revolt.

When she received the above e-mail, she contacted the agency to confirm this was indeed correct and it turns out that it's completely wrong.

Louise Farmer, Food Hazards and Consumer Protection Branch replied on 6 November 2006 thus ‘The Food Standards Agency advises that pork should not be served rare and should be cooked until no red meat remains and the juices run clear. This applies to pork joints and rolled pork joints.’

The pedant is currently in correspondence with The Food Standards Agency to ascertain whether this is a new directive or was simply an error on their part.

*****

Most ‘popular’ correction to date, being cited by three correspondents.

K Barham of Thorpe Bay, Essex (My father-in-law),

J Titterington of Canada

R Humphrey of Wooler Northumberland all wrote:

In Chapter 3, "Of Biblical Matters", you discuss the belief that Jesus said "It's better to give than to receive." The Biblical reference given is to Acts 20:35, in which Paul quotes Jesus as having said that very thing.

This reference contradicts the conclusion that "...it appears that there is no reference to him ever having said this in the Bible."

The Pedant concedes. Oops!

You are all quite correct. Indeed, I have amended the second reprint to reflect this glaring error. However, (unlike Jesus who was a completely good egg, in my opinion) a couple of St Paul’s misogynistic observations have rather prejudiced me against his pronouncements (although the one in question is perfectly laudable). Subconsciously, I feel I give him less weight than the gospel writers. I have to confess, I do slightly have it in for St Paul. Mea culpa.

*****

On 18 November 2006, R Coffey wrote: (by email)

First let me say I love The Pedant's Revolt. But then, please let me be pedantic, & mention that a "fallacy" is not the same as a "falsehood". A fallacy is something you have "proved" by faulty logic, eg "Black cats have green eyes; I have green eyes; therefore I am a black cat".

This is along the lines of "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal" (which, of course, is true, & is therefore a correct use of logic). The "true" use of logic in the one above would have to be: "Black cats have green eyes; I am a black cat ; therefore I have green eyes".

The Pedant disputes this:

I was very interested to read your definition of a ‘fallacy’. The terms ‘fallacy’ and ‘falsehood’ appear, at first glance, to be interchangeable but generally speaking there are always fine distinctions between words that are commonly held to be synonyms and that, in my opinion, is one of the most interesting things about the English language.

I imagine the definition you speak of exists within to the world of ‘logic’ which, in itself is a fascinating subject. However, in everyday parlance, I believe it is acceptable to use ‘fallacy’ to mean ‘a mistaken belief’. Indeed, my Pocket Oxford Dictionary (which I always have to hand) renders the first definition of ‘fallacy’ thus:

‘a mistaken belief’

It then goes on to add a second definition:

‘a mistake in reasoning which makes an argument invalid’

After careful consideration, given that I was addressing a non-specific readership, I feel the use of the word ‘fallacy’ to mean ‘a mistaken belief’ was indeed justified on this occasion.

*****

A reader who contacted the publisher wrote:

With reference to page 54: Haggis originated in Scotland. The word 'hagga' which is described as Swedish, is not a Swedish word.

The Pedant clarifies (and confesses to a typo):

The word in question is not modern Swedish but Runic Swedish (thirteenth century). However, the Pedant did miss-type it and it should actually read ‘haggw’. To clarify the following has been added to subsequent editions of The Pedant's Revolt:

The hag- part is Scandinavian, and etymologist Professor Skeat links it to Icelandic hoggva and haggw – to hew.’

*****

A reader who contacted the publisher wrote:

The entry for ‘re means with reference to’ p 145 contradicts itself.

The Pedant agrees.

The entry has been rewritten and will appear thus in subsequent additions:

Re’ is invariably used to mean ‘regarding’, ‘referring to’ or ‘with regard to’. On the strength of this, ‘re’ is understandably thought to be a simple abbreviation for ‘regarding’ or ‘referring to’. However, it isn’t a literal abbreviation for either of these words. Fowler's Modern English Usage explains that ‘re’ comes from the Latin res which simply means ‘thing’. In correspondence, the word is short for the Latin phrase in res, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, originally meant ‘in the matter of’, and which in modern terms means ‘in the legal case of’ or ‘with regard to’. It is simply a coincidence that ‘re’, and the two modern words with which it has come to be most associated: ‘regarding’ and ‘reference’ -- both begin with the same two letters.

*****

Page 134 Shingles rash

The Pedant adds additional information which due to space could not be incorporated into subsequent editions:

Roman natural historian, Pliny the Elder was responsible for starting this fallacious rumour saying of the rash that ‘it kills if it encircles the body.’

Natural History, Book 26: ‘ignis sacri plura sunt genera, inter quae medium hominem ambiens, qui zoster vocatur, et enecat, si cinxit.’

*****

Page 101 Hitler was a teetotal vegetarian

The Pedant clarifies:

I have given the impression that Dione Lucas was Hitler's Cook. The truth is she worked in a Hamburg restaurant at which Hitler used frequently to dine.

*****

Additional information on Frankenstein's Monster, The Garden of Eden Apple, Sitting Too Close to the TV, and Starve a Fever to follow... when I have a minute...