Editor's Choice: I'll stick to first definition of 'reticent'

By: Richard Creed | Winston-Salem Journal
Published: November 22, 2009

J.L. McInnes of Winston-Salem has asked about the difference between two words, a difference worth preserving. He wrote:

"Recently I have heard people using the words reticent and hesitant as if they were synonymous. Then … I saw this on the front page of The Wall Street Journal: ‘Employers' reticence to hire may prove problematic for the recovery as joblessness restrains consumer spending.'

"My dictionary defines reticence as ‘the quality of observing studied and continued silence; a refraining from talking; the keeping of one's counsel.' Do I need a new dictionary?"

No, that definition serves well. I am surprised that your dictionary does not contain a secondary definition that makes reticent synonymous with hesitant or reluctant, as my dictionaries do. That is the sense in which The Wall Street Journal used reticence. Some speakers and writers approve of that usage, some don't.

Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines reticent as "1. disposed to be silent or not to speak freely; reserved" and "2. reluctant or restrained."

I am among those who restrict reticent to the first definition. My reason parallels that of a reader who wrote some five years ago:

"Given the glut of permissive/descriptive dictionaries and the scarcity of prescriptive ones, almost any misuse of a word can be justified if it has been abused by enough people for enough time. Modern lexicographers simply include popular incorrect definitions along with the legitimate ones. Nevertheless, I still smile when I hear of … a coach who was ‘reticent' to call a time-out. I never knew many reticent coaches."

From a Winston-Salem reader: "Love your column. I especially appreciate your discussion of (sometimes) subtle differences, such as rebut vs. refute. I hope your column is required reading in all high school English classes."

The reader is referring to an item here two weeks ago in which I wrote that definitions of rebut and refute in today's dictionaries remove the once-useful distinction between the words. For that and other reasons, the two words have become all but useless in common parlance.

I am not sure that my column is required reading in any English classes, but I am certain that it is not required reading in all. I have been pleased and flattered to learn, however, that some English teachers use the column in their classrooms.

The reader also referred me to a recent NPR commentary by Frank Deford about a common misuse of the word bye in sports. Deford commented about those who say that a team that did not play during a particular week "enjoyed what football persists in calling a bye week."

As he pointed out, and as the definition of the word bye confirms, in a tournament a bye is the preferential status of a player or team not paired with a competitor in an early round and thus automatically advanced to play in the next round.

Just having a day or a week off does not constitute a bye.

Jack Hutchins of Winston-Salem has commented on a peculiar pronunciation that he has been hearing. He wrote: "I don't know how many others have noticed this, but I have recently noticed that more and more TV reporters (news and sports) are putting a ‘ch' in words that begin with the letter s.

"An example is sting, which they pronounce ‘schting,' or started would be ‘schtarted.' Is this something being taught in communication classes these days? It really irritates me to hear words being so mispronounced."

It would irritate me too if I heard it. I haven't yet. I don't know how these speakers came by such pronunciations. Maybe they are being overly influenced by the comic Mutts, in which the animal characters say such things as "yesh" for yes, "shtinky" for stinky and "shtuff" for stuff.

Richard Creed is a retired Journal editor. He can be reached at richcreed@triad.rr.com .