Featured

“Fulsome”

Another instalment in: 

Words that we use incorrectly because they just “sound” better. 

A while back I wrote about the misuse of “penultimate” by people trying to sound erudite and eloquent by using it to convey “more than ultimate,” which is impossible. 

The latest misuse getting under my skin is “fulsome” as an adjective applied to praise, or a discussion or process. This incorrect usage persists despite the existence of perfectly serviceable, more accurate adjectives; but that I suppose just aren’t quite it in the minds of many people writing today.  I have seen this incorrect usage on CBC, the Globe and Mail and many professional documents so often and unconsciously that it’s time to take issue, if only to get it off my mind. 

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

fulsome • \FULL-sum\ • adjective. 1 a : characterized by abundance : copious b : generous in amount, extent, or spirit 2 : aesthetically, morally, or generally offensive 3 : exceeding the bounds of good taste : overdone 4 : excessively complimentary or flattering : effusive.

Take a good look at these definitions. Merriam Webster suggests a lean toward evolving usage with definition no. 1. Termiumplus, the official arbiter of Canadian Government language and usage, also allows for the opposite meaning creeping into common usage; but still describes the usage of “fulsome” in the context of full or abundant as inadvisable. 

If someone, like a politician for instance, says they issued a “fulsome apology,” be on your guard: if they fully (see what I did there) understand English usage, they may be hedging (not that that ever happens). “Fulsome” signifies insincerity, when generally what we desire is a full, complete, or unreserved apology. Similarly, if you read about “fulsome praise” being heaped on a film or book, you should look for an honest second opinion, as by definition they are overdoing it and likely don’t mean it. “Praise” conveys approval succinctly, sincerely, and without hyperbole. 

Most often it is used as an adjective to describe a discussion that supposedly has covered all the angles. That would be a “comprehensive” or a ‘full” discussion; a “fulsome discussion” denotes too much talking. “Fulsome” does not mean “more than full” or “better than full”. “Full” does that by itself. 

I get it: language evolves. Maybe I am the Don Quixote of language, tilting at the inevitable; but I don’t understand the aversion to using the existing, more accurate, adjectives. The only answer I can come up with is that, to the linguistically lazy or uninformed, it just sounds right. Well, it isn’t and, in our rush to seem smarter, we degrade the elegant nuances of the English language. 

Quantitative Precision – Less vs Fewer / Amount vs Number

It’s not so much that people get tripped up by the different terms used to quantify things; speakers and even writers of Canadian English increasingly default to one term, and have either forgotten or do not bother with the precision available in our language. 

Perhaps people just don’t like the way it sounds—“fewer”—sounds like “ewww.” Whatever the reasons, it is becoming rarer to hear “fewer” when denoting numbers of things that can be counted individually. “Less” has become the default, when it should be reserved for indicating quantities that can be measured but not counted individually. Here are a few examples showing the distinction: 

  • Less sugar, fewer calories. 
  • Less snow, fewer snow days. 
  • Fewer letters sent, less mail delivered.

A corollary of this is the default to “amount” when “number” would be more correct. Like “less,” “amount” refers to a quantity of something that we can measure, but not count individually; whereas “number” refers to items we can count. Some examples of correct usage:

  • The amount of snow that fell overnight promised a great day on the slopes.
  • The number of skiers on the hill delighted the owner. 

This is one of those usage issues that makes me sound like a persnickety grammarian; but it is really about precise communication and making full use of our rich English language. 

Using the right words to say exactly what you mean will always help your message. 

Reclaiming Our Words #1 – The Pejorative “Princess”

“He’s a bit of a princess.” 

The owner was describing his slightly neurotic male Weimaraner to a few of us at the dog park. The juxtaposition of these opposing gendered terms stuck in my auditory processing unit as I walked Frida home. I thought about the times I used the same term to describe my own dog whenever she balked at going out in the rain. Or the countless times I heard “princess” used dismissively to describe anyone, male or female, who is posh, pampered, or spoiled. 

I then thought about the times I have heard “prince” used to describe someone. It is inevitably positive and male-oriented. “He is a real prince,” or “He’s a prince among men,” usually describes a stand-up, reliable guy.  It is never used to describe a stand-up reliable woman. You would never hear, “That Helga, eh? She’s a princess among women,” unless someone was trying to emphasize the fact that I was high maintenance. I have heard men use “Princess” to describe other men and it has never been complimentary. 

In fact, I can’t think of any word that is commonly used to describe a stand-up, reliable woman, except maybe “organized,” or “compassionate,” which don’t mean that at all. Perhaps it is because women are not supposed to stand up, or be relied upon.

Which is, of course, anti-diluvian crap.

I have a felt hand-puppet, simply made, vaguely female—it’s the little tinsel earrings that do it—with a royal purple cloak and a crown. I have christened her Princess Arlo, and have dreamed up Princess Arlo puppet stories to entertain her namesake, my granddaughter, during story-time over video.

Princess Arlo kicks ass. In my stories, she is wise and strong and a terrific problem-solver. Like that time she saved the kingdom from the awful dragon, when the bravest soldier in the land (a red-coated Teddy bear) had run away in fear.   

The idea of the noble princess is not new. Robert Munsch expresses it wonderfully in The Paper-Bag Princess, when the princess takes care of business; and realizes that the handsome prince is really a bit of a dweeb and that she doesn’t need him after all.  

Some years ago, the founder of a startup focused on creating math and engineering-friendly toys for girls, described her goal as “turning princesses into engineers.” In the world I am building for my granddaughter, princesses are engineers. And pilots, nurses, hockey players and every other cool thing. 

If I am going to keep using Princess Arlo as an entertaining role model for my granddaughter, I do not want her growing up hearing “princess” in any connotation other than to describe sheer awesomeness. 

We can do this. Let’s think a moment before blurting out that gendered cliché! 

Word of the Day – Penultimate

Word of the Day – Penultimate

We humans, even those who are not Twitter-addicted former US Presidents, love our superlatives. From time to time I hear this word in the context of something being more than ultimate. Some years back, a senior Canadian Army officer, started talking about “the penultimate sacrifice.” I recently heard the word used in a similar context in a report on CBC.

Well guess what? By definition, nothing can be more than ultimate; whereas penultimate actually means “second last,” as in “The murderer’s identity was revealed in the penultimate episode of Season 3.” It’s a fancy word to describe second last, but there it is. Don’t take my word for it, a dictionary definition is just a click away. Always question, always check!