|
[Previous entry: "Agonism and antagonism"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Revising the scores"] 10 June 2003: "In media res"
Via Colby Cosh, I came upon a piece of correspondence sent to Virginia Postrel. Her correspondent, Linda Seebach, contends that the use of the word "media" as a plural constitutes a grammatical irregularity, and one which will sort itself out. I have to admit I'm not too familiar with English grammar per se, but I had a classical education, and as a result I would like to think I know something about grammar in general, and the idea of construing "media" as singular makes me wince.
One is its frequent use as an adjective, e.g., "media bashing." English adjuectives (sic) don't inflect, so when a noun is used in an adjective slot, it is used in the singular. We say, "most journalists are college graduates" rather then (sic) "most journalists are colleges graduates" even though there are obviously multiple colleges involved.Unfortunately for Seebach, the example of "media bashing" doesn't work. The term may be a participial phrase (if used as an adjective) or a gerund phrase (if used as a noun), but in both instances, the word "media" is a complement; to be precise, it is the direct object. If Seebach's characterisation were correct, one would be left unable to distinguish between an English speaker (i.e. a person from England delivering a speech) and an English-speaker (i.e. a person who speaks English, regardless of where he's from). So people are constantly hearing "media" in a slot they know (not consciously) is reserved for singular words, and after a while it starts to sound singular.I'm sure most people are familiar with the term "cattle rustling," and yet it remains commonly accepted that "cattle" is plural. I don't believe I've yet seen "medias" (as an English plural, not the Latin word) but I could see it happening, first as a neologism in a context where many different kinds of media were being discussed (as with fish and fishes). "To win an election, you must master all the different medias"This is the passage which truly evoked a shudder. Oddly, it is at this point that I find myself grateful to Howard Stern for claiming to be "King of All Media"; this claim is based on the fact that Stern has—supposedly—produced material in every one of what are commonly referred to as "the media." He has worked in radio, written for and appeared on television, written a couple of books, written, produced and appeared in motion pictures, received coverage (and probably written some articles himself) in newspapers and magazines, and I'm sure he's got a website somewhere. With this association planted firmly in the mind of the American public, I can only hope Seebach's projected neologism can be kept at bay. In conclusion, I will leave you with the relevant entry from The Economist Style Guide: MEDIA: prefer press and television or, if the context allows it, just press. If you have to use the media, remember the word is plural.Enough said. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
