| Author |
Message |
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:01 pm
Post subject: You learn something new every day |
|
|
In an article in Wednesday's *St. Paul Pioneer Press,* "Pilots fired for
S.D. landing" by Martin J. Moylan, which can be seen for the next six days
at
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/business/9604039.htm?1c
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest Airlines Air
Line Pilots Association."
An unusual use in my experience, that is. As it happens, while the usage in
question is not in the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* at www.m-w.com ,
it is in MWCD11:
[quote]
Main Entry: *grieve* [...]
Function: _verb_
[...]
_transitive verb_
[...]
*3 :* to submit a formal grievance concerning <_grieve_ a dismissal>
[end quote]
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:01:10 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
| Quote: | In an article in Wednesday's *St. Paul Pioneer Press,* "Pilots fired for
S.D. landing" by Martin J. Moylan, which can be seen for the next six days
at
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/business/9604039.htm?1c
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest Airlines Air
Line Pilots Association."
An unusual use in my experience, that is. As it happens, while the usage in
question is not in the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* at www.m-w.com ,
it is in MWCD11:
Main Entry: *grieve* [...]
Function: _verb_
_transitive verb_
*3 :* to submit a formal grievance concerning <_grieve_ a dismissal
|
I never would have anticipated that meaning. Bureauspeak. I thought
it meant they were mourning their dismissal, which also seemed strange
and over the top..
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MC
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:55 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
In article <f3h2k01uk1bq12peru9g2eid7u6p6r6gvo@4ax.com>,
meirman <meirman@invalid.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Main Entry: *grieve* [...]
Function: _verb_
_transitive verb_
*3 :* to submit a formal grievance concerning <_grieve_ a dismissal
I never would have anticipated that meaning. Bureauspeak. I thought
it meant they were mourning their dismissal, which also seemed strange
and over the top..
|
To me it wasn't so strange. I think that's probably because I've been
exposed to it quite a bit. I work in a field in which such grievances
are frequent between the guild I belong to and the engagers I work for,
and this usage is common in that context.
--
A wide screen just makes a bad film twice as bad.
--Samuel Goldwyn
Proudly killfiling Jai Maharaj since 2003
http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.htm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joanne Marinelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:41 am
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:btadna6vI9Da3tzcRVn-iQ@gbronline.com...
[quote]In an article in Wednesday's *St. Paul Pioneer Press,* "Pilots fired for
S.D. landing" by Martin J. Moylan, which can be seen for the next six days
at
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/business/9604039.htm?1c
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired
Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are
grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest Airlines
Air
Line Pilots Association."
An unusual use in my experience, that is. As it happens, while the usage
in
question is not in the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* at www.m-w.com
,
it is in MWCD11:
| Quote: |
Main Entry: *grieve* [...]
Function: _verb_
[...]
_transitive verb_
[...]
*3 :* to submit a formal grievance concerning <_grieve_ a dismissal
[end quote]
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
|
A synonym for contesting, perhaps.
I, like meirman, misread the use of the verb at first glance, but also like
meirman, then realized it made sense.
Joanne
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Varela
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:22 am
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:01:10 UTC, "Raymond S. Wise"
<mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest Airlines Air
Line Pilots Association."
|
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a "grievance"
when they think they are being treated in a way contrary to the contract. The
jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to grieve".
--
John Varela
(Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.)
I apologize for munging the address but the spam was too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aokay (David G. Bryce)
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:10 am
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:04 GMT, "John Varela"
<OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:01:10 UTC, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest Airlines Air
Line Pilots Association."
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a "grievance"
when they think they are being treated in a way contrary to the contract. The
jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to grieve".
|
Calling these words 'labor-managementspeak' and 'jargon' is,
with respect, wrong. Yes, they are used in the union contract
context but the meaning is hardly rare or ununusal. What does
having a grievance against one's spouse mean? Or are you gents
too happily married ever to have had one?
aokay
\
Use your name (or almost anything else) @ treveneth.com for email.
This will work unless you or somebody else who has done the same
thing has put me on spammers' lists. Ain't redirection marvellous? [g] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 1:06 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:10:23 -0400 "Aokay (David
G. Bryce)" <U.Name.It@spammers.com> posted:
| Quote: | On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:04 GMT, "John Varela"
OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:01:10 UTC, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest Airlines Air
Line Pilots Association."
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a "grievance"
when they think they are being treated in a way contrary to the contract. The
jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to grieve".
Calling these words 'labor-managementspeak' and 'jargon' is,
with respect, wrong. Yes, they are used in the union contract
context but the meaning is hardly rare or ununusal. What does
having a grievance against one's spouse mean?
|
Having a grievance is not what I called bureauspeak, nor what I think
John was talking about. It's turning "have a grievance" into
"grieve".
| Quote: | Or are you gents
too happily married ever to have had one?
aokay
\
Use your name (or almost anything else) @ treveneth.com for email.
This will work unless you or somebody else who has done the same
thing has put me on spammers' lists. Ain't redirection marvellous? [g]
|
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:13 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
Aokay (David G. Bryce) wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:04 GMT, "John Varela"
OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:01:10 UTC, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired
Northwest pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would
identify, are grieving their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman
for the Northwest Airlines Air Line Pilots Association."
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a
"grievance" when they think they are being treated in a way contrary
to the contract. The jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to
grieve".
Calling these words 'labor-managementspeak' and 'jargon' is,
with respect, wrong. Yes, they are used in the union contract
context but the meaning is hardly rare or ununusal. What does
having a grievance against one's spouse mean? Or are you gents
too happily married ever to have had one?
|
This usage of "grieve" was utterly unknown to me until I read the article in
question. It is also a recent term, since it is not listed in the
*Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* at www.m-w.com , which is based upon
MWCD10, but is present in MWCD11.
So I certainly found it to be unusual, and the definition in MWCD11
indicates that it is used in the context of filing a *formal* grievance,
which is hardly relevant to the sort of everyday disputes which married
people might have with one another.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:55 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:13:13 -0500, "Raymond S. Wise"
<mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> said:
| Quote: | Aokay (David G. Bryce) wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:04 GMT, "John Varela"
OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:01:10 UTC, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired
Northwest pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would
identify, are grieving their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman
for the Northwest Airlines Air Line Pilots Association."
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a
"grievance" when they think they are being treated in a way contrary
to the contract. The jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to
grieve".
Calling these words 'labor-managementspeak' and 'jargon' is,
with respect, wrong. Yes, they are used in the union contract
context but the meaning is hardly rare or ununusal. What does
having a grievance against one's spouse mean? Or are you gents
too happily married ever to have had one?
This usage of "grieve" was utterly unknown to me until I read the article in
question. It is also a recent term, since it is not listed in the
*Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* at www.m-w.com , which is based upon
MWCD10, but is present in MWCD11.
So I certainly found it to be unusual, and the definition in MWCD11
indicates that it is used in the context of filing a *formal* grievance,
which is hardly relevant to the sort of everyday disputes which married
people might have with one another.
|
Before I redd the above comments, it wouldn't have occurred
to me that "grieve" might be used as a transitive verb. I
would have said it was only used with a preposition, as in
"grieve about" or "grieve over". I now find that "grieve"
has been used transitively for a few hundred years. The
online _Oxford English Dictionary_ has the following
examples:
1725 POPE Odyss. VII. 297 Howe'er the noble,
suff'ring mind, may grieve Its load of anguish, and
disdain to live.
1871 BROWNING Balaustion 530 Nor any clipt locks
strew the vestibule, Though surely these drop when
we grieve the dead.
Yes, I know those quotations don't fit the transitive sense
of "grieve" that this thread has dealt with. However, like
most coined words that are greeted with scorn, I can see
that the labor-union-related meaning can be quite useful and
hard to replace with as concise and specific a term.
I'm reminded of intransitive "seize", which came as a
considerable surprise to me in AUE a few years ago. (For
example, medical staff say of a patient who has had a
seizure "He has seized".) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:20 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:99t7k098dsbu9mbspj2sm6s2cpokv01vsu@4ax.com...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:10:23 -0400 "Aokay (David
G. Bryce)" <U.Name.It@spammers.com> posted:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:04 GMT, "John Varela"
OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:01:10 UTC, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired
Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are
grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest
Airlines Air
Line Pilots Association."
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a
"grievance"
when they think they are being treated in a way contrary to the
contract. The
jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to grieve".
Calling these words 'labor-managementspeak' and 'jargon' is,
with respect, wrong. Yes, they are used in the union contract
context but the meaning is hardly rare or ununusal. What does
having a grievance against one's spouse mean?
Having a grievance is not what I called bureauspeak, nor what I think
John was talking about. It's turning "have a grievance" into
"grieve".
|
Your general point is correct, but as to the specifics: The word "grieve"
which I have been discussing does not mean "have a grievance," which sense
would require "grieve" to be an intransitive verb, but "to submit a formal
grievance concerning [a matter]," which sense requires "grieve" to be a
transitive verb.
I would call it "bureaucratese," rather than "bureauspeak."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:24 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:20:29 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
| Quote: | "meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:99t7k098dsbu9mbspj2sm6s2cpokv01vsu@4ax.com...
In alt.english.usage on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:10:23 -0400 "Aokay (David
G. Bryce)" <U.Name.It@spammers.com> posted:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:22:04 GMT, "John Varela"
OLDlamps@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:01:10 UTC, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired
Northwest
pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would identify, are
grieving
their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman for the Northwest
Airlines Air
Line Pilots Association."
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a
"grievance"
when they think they are being treated in a way contrary to the
contract. The
jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to grieve".
Calling these words 'labor-managementspeak' and 'jargon' is,
with respect, wrong. Yes, they are used in the union contract
context but the meaning is hardly rare or ununusal. What does
having a grievance against one's spouse mean?
Having a grievance is not what I called bureauspeak, nor what I think
John was talking about. It's turning "have a grievance" into
"grieve".
Your general point is correct, but as to the specifics: The word "grieve"
which I have been discussing does not mean "have a grievance," which sense
would require "grieve" to be an intransitive verb, but "to submit a formal
grievance concerning [a matter]," which sense requires "grieve" to be a
transitive verb.
|
You're right. I was distracted by his analogy with spouses complaining
about each other.
| Quote: |
I would call it "bureaucratese," rather than "bureauspeak."
|
My dresser speaks a lot, but you're probably right here too.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Barratt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:20 pm
Post subject: Read and read (was: You learn something new every day) |
|
|
(context irrelevant, and therefore omitted)
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: | Before I redd the above comments,
|
and in an earlier post (<http://tinyurl.com/5xhuw>):
| Quote: | ...> I read (reed) very few of Riggs's postings, but I've
read (redd) enough <...
|
Now, it's all very public-spirited, I'm sure, this mini spelling
reform campaign of Bob's, but is it, I ask myself, all that rational?
The observant may have noted that whilst Bob's reform is sufficient
to distinguish the base form of the word "read" from the
identically-spelled but differently pronounced second and third
forms, it fails to distinguish between the latter. In fact, Bob's
two uses of "redd", above, demonstrate this undisambiguated problem.
In fact, there is a large class of English verbs (laughably known as
"regular" verbs) which exhibit this 'paste tense' / 'past
participle' ambivalence.
Furthermore, is it sufficient to isolate the base form? The
respelling "reed" is fairly clear to anyone who's used to English -
most would read it as /ri:d/ - but what does that tell us about the
sense? If the reader would like to count back 20 words they will see
an instance of the word "read" which is not in the present simple
tense. Isn't the identical form of these different verb senses also
a problem which should be addressed?
--
Regards,
Mark Barratt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:51 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
"MC" <copespaz@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:copespaz-44C308.06551010092004@news.snafu.de...
| Quote: | In article <f3h2k01uk1bq12peru9g2eid7u6p6r6gvo@4ax.com>,
meirman <meirman@invalid.com> wrote:
Main Entry: *grieve* [...]
Function: _verb_
_transitive verb_
*3 :* to submit a formal grievance concerning <_grieve_ a dismissal
I never would have anticipated that meaning. Bureauspeak. I thought
it meant they were mourning their dismissal, which also seemed strange
and over the top..
To me it wasn't so strange. I think that's probably because I've been
exposed to it quite a bit. I work in a field in which such grievances
are frequent between the guild I belong to and the engagers I work for,
and this usage is common in that context.
|
I've not seen it in BrE, even in newspaper reports of trade union matters.
The grammar (pace Pope et al, already cited by Bob Cunningham) seems
LeftPondian, on the analogy of "protest his dismissal" where current BrE
requires "protest against his dismissal". Our intransitive use of "protest"
is almost entirely confined to "The accused man protested his innocence"
i.e. proclaimed or insisted that he was innocent.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Read and read (was: You learn something new every day) |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:20:43 +0200, Mark Barratt
<mark.barratt@enternet.hu> said:
| Quote: | (context irrelevant, and therefore omitted)
Bob Cunningham wrote:
Before I redd the above comments,
and in an earlier post (<http://tinyurl.com/5xhuw>):
...> I read (reed) very few of Riggs's postings, but I've
read (redd) enough <...
Now, it's all very public-spirited, I'm sure, this mini spelling
reform campaign of Bob's, but is it, I ask myself, all that rational?
|
I'm not motivated by a desire for spelling reform, but a
need for prevention of undisamgibuatable ambiguity.
| Quote: | The observant may have noted that whilst Bob's reform is sufficient
to distinguish the base form of the word "read" from the
identically-spelled but differently pronounced second and third
forms, it fails to distinguish between the latter. In fact, Bob's
two uses of "redd", above, demonstrate this undisambiguated problem.
|
Sentences occur in which it's impossible to know if the
writer intended "read" to be present or simple past. For
example
I read lots of books.
Does that mean I customarily reed lots of books, or does it
mean I redd lots of books at some time in the past?
Note that in the previous paragraph, with the conventional
spelling, the first clause would resist any attempt to tell
whether "I customarily read nowadays" or "I customarily read
at some time in the past". The second clause has it's
ambiguity removed starting with "at some time in the past",
but up to that point the conventional spelling could mean
now or yesterday. It's not good to make the reader
backtrack to figure out what has been said.
There's no problem with the spelling of the past participle,
because there's an auxiliary verb close by -- usually
contiguous -- to show clearly that's what's meant.
| Quote: | In fact, there is a large class of English verbs (laughably known as
"regular" verbs) which exhibit this 'paste tense' / 'past
participle' ambivalence.
|
Can you construct a sentence -- with any verb -- in which
it's not immediately clear whether past or past participle
is intended? Even if you separate the auxiliary from the
infinitive by lots of words, the auxiliary will have alerted
the reader to be on the watch for the infinitive.
For example,
I have to the best of my knowledge and, I assume, to
the best of the knowledge of my secretary always read
every fan letter.
Compare that with
I to the best of my knowledge and, I assume, to the
best of the knowledge of my secretary always read
every fan letter.
Do I read every fan letter now, or did I read every fan
letter in years gone by?
| Quote: | Furthermore, is it sufficient to isolate the base form? The
respelling "reed" is fairly clear to anyone who's used to English -
most would read it as /ri:d/ - but what does that tell us about the
sense? If the reader would like to count back 20 words they will see
an instance of the word "read" which is not in the present simple
tense. Isn't the identical form of these different verb senses also
a problem which should be addressed?
|
Your twenty-words-back "read" is the infinitive, and the
word "would" removes any chance of ambiguity.
Again, I'm only concerned about cases where it's not
possible to tell from the immediate context which of two
different meanings is intended.
There are other verbs that could present the same problem --
"shed" comes first to mind -- but "read" is a special case
because it would be easy to fix. Probably "shed" would be
more difficult to fix. If we can't fix all the problems,
let's at least fix the easy ones.
About "shed", we might consider using where necessary the
past tense "shedded", which _The New Shorter Oxford_ tags
"archaic, rare", but the reader wouldn't know in general
that we do that, so the bare word "shed" would still be
potentially ambiguous.
There's a Scottish variant "shade" of "shed". We could use
that for the present and "shedded" for the past. That would
involve convincing others the change was necessary and
teaching everyone to understand it. In the case of the two
"read"s the reader needs no prior instruction to read
correctly, and the worst that can happen is that the reader
thinks we don't know how to spell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:37 pm
Post subject: Re: You learn something new every day |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | Aokay (David G. Bryce) wrote:
"John Varela" wrote:
"Raymond S. Wise" wrote:
I found the following unusual use of the verb "grieve": "The fired
Northwest pilots, whom neither the union nor the company would
identify, are grieving their dismissal, said Will Holman, spokesman
for the Northwest Airlines Air Line Pilots Association."
It's labor-managementspeak.
A union contract will include means for union employees to file a
"grievance" when they think they are being treated in a way contrary
to the contract. The jargon term for "to file a grievance" is "to
grieve".
Calling these words 'labor-managementspeak' and 'jargon' is,
with respect, wrong. Yes, they are used in the union contract
context but the meaning is hardly rare or ununusal. What does
having a grievance against one's spouse mean? Or are you gents
too happily married ever to have had one?
This usage of "grieve" was utterly unknown to me until I read the
article in question. It is also a recent term, since it is not listed
in the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* at www.m-w.com , which is
based upon MWCD10, but is present in MWCD11.
So I certainly found it to be unusual, and the definition in MWCD11
indicates that it is used in the context of filing a *formal*
grievance, which is hardly relevant to the sort of everyday disputes
which married people might have with one another.
|
I have been familiar with this usage for decades, as I have worked for a
company whose hourly employees were unionized. I had to avoid being grieved
for doing tasks only they were supposed to do.
Anyway, AHD4 has this (see the Usage note):
grieve
[...]
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To cause to be sorrowful; distress: It grieves me to see
you in such pain. 2. To mourn or sorrow for: We grieved the death of our
pastor. 3. Usage Problem To file an official or formal grievance on account
of (an actual or perceived injustice). 4. Archaic To hurt or harm.
[...]
USAGE NOTE: Traditionally, the transitive verb grieve, meaning "to cause to
be sorrowful; distress," has taken as its direct object the person who is
sorrowful or distressed, as in It grieves me to see so many homeless in the
city. In addition to this use of the word, a newer syntactic pattern has
developed, in which the direct object refers to that which causes one sorrow
or distress. Sixty-two percent of the Usage Panel approves of this use, as
in She took a week off to attend her father's funeral and grieve his loss.
The Panel, however, largely frowns upon extending the semantic domain of the
transitive verb grieve to mean "to file a formal or an official grievance."
Only 14 percent approves of its use in a context in which a coach who was
asked to resign had grieved his dismissal. This strong reaction may be due
to the discomfort of extending a solemn, mournful term into less somber
situations; however, this sense is useful in the context of union-management
labor relations.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in