Using Italics To Stress Words

job said:

I have to raise a voice in favor of learning as much as you can. We never stop studying our craft.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes. Language is a living thing. I get a little frustrated with those who seem to see it as a static structure and possibly even conquerable.

For instance, here's a line you wrote:
looking at his classmates that had tormented him for so long

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that I actually wrote that, or are you using it as a hypothetical? It doesn't sound like something I'd write, though it's possible. I don't take the same care with forum messages as with other writings. My instinct would be 'who had tormented him.' Even the thought of 'that had tormented him' grates on my inner ear.

For various reasons, I'd go with 'who'. You should have an equally good reason for choosing 'that'. This is why we study the language -- so we make informed choices between 'who' and 'that'.

Click to expand...

Well, OK. But if there was ever a sermon delivered to the choir, you just preached it.

But it's essential to have the fundamentals under control. A couple grammatical bloopers or poor word choices in the first few pages and the acquiring editor will toss the manuscript.

Click to expand...

I'm no grammar expert, but if I don't have the fundamentals under control, it's time to file suit against the university. One of the great disappointments of my life was learning that my linguistics' program offered no further grammar courses. I was bummed for a month and even considered changing universities. Alas, that wasn't possible.

Websters is very much built on usage, rather than historical meaning. You can safely take their definition -- and the order of their definitions -- as standard modern usage.

Click to expand...

I used to enjoy the American Heritage because it had actual usage-panel notes integrated into the definitions. "86% of our experts prefer...."

Websters *cough* is online.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I rarely use dictionaries, but I like the synonym features with hyperlinks. They can be helpful when it comes down to really close composition.

job said:

. . . Websters is very much built on usage, rather than historical meaning. . . .

Click to expand...

Anyone can use "Webster's" in the name of a dictionary. Even among dictionaries using that name, standards vary. Any good (that is, college-level) dictionary includes etymologies (word histories) as well as indications of nonstandard usages.

My father was etymological editor of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, college edition (originally a product of the World Publishing Company, of Cleveland and New York), for 40+ years, so I absorbed a lot about dictionaries over the years.

Staff accumulate usage examples (once upon a time in the form of clipping files, on paper) to use in considering what definitions to include. Changing usage, as reflected in newspapers, books, and magazines (and speech transcripts, presumably), at some point (when enough examples are accumulated) lead to revised or added definitions in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster had a reputation (especially with the arrival of the much-reviled Third New International edition) of lax standards. At least when my father worked with it, the New World was more normative. The American Heritage's usage panel made the process of choosing definitions more public.

--Ken

pegasus said:

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that I actually wrote that, or are you using it as a hypothetical? It doesn't sound like something I'd write, though it's possible. I don't take the same care with forum messages as with other writings. My instinct would be 'who had tormented him.'

Click to expand...

Mine as well.

Sorry, I misattributed the line. I apologize. That was taken from the OP, to be an example of where word choice would vary, but arguments could be made for either usage. A real word usage headache.

pegasus said:

I used to enjoy the American Heritage because it had actual usage-panel notes integrated into the definitions. "86% of our experts prefer...."

Click to expand...

Since I write historical, the OED has always been my dictionary of choice. When I wander into modern times I generally prefer an older usage.

You say, 'used to'. You've moved to on-line sources, then . . . ?

job said:

Sorry, I misattributed the line. I apologize.

Click to expand...

No big deal. One might expect that my memory would extend at least as far back as the OP, but apparently not.

You say, 'used to'. You've moved to on-line sources, then . . . ?

Click to expand...

I'm referring to a time in my life when I was so passionate about language that I would read the dictionary every night. In my early twenties, I read and marked (with three different codes) the words of interest in my large dictionary. At that time, I read virtually all of the usage notes.

Nowadays, I tend to trust my ear for word usage and only refer to a dictionary in rare instances. I always do that online. dictionary.com mostly.

He used the medicine to alleviate his anxiety in social situation. looking at his classmates that had tormented him for so long, those old memories of their torments began to activate his anxieties. His hands began shaking almost violently. He needed that medicine, and he needed it right now.

Click to expand...

To get back to the original question, I would be inclined not to use italics here. To me, the phrase "right now," in that context (as opposed to, "I can't come right now, but I'll be there in an hour."), carries its own emphasis.

Actually, I'd probably use italics, and then take them out on rewrite.

bonitakale said:

Actually, I'd probably use italics, and then take them out on rewrite.

Click to expand...

My take is entirely different.

I would not use italics, but I would add them during my first rewrite.

Only on my final rewrite would I take them out.