The word columnist offers a mea culpa

I have been writing “In a Word” for almost two years, and I have made mistakes. To the readers who have written in when I have erred: This is for you.

Staff

When newspapers get things wrong, they publish corrections. These are sometimes quite funny, as many top 10 lists of newspaper corrections attest.

The Wall Street Journal, for example, once alerted its readers that it had mistakenly referred to pop star Britney Spears as “Briney Spear.” Brazilian newsmagazine Veja emended its profile of a politician: “The candidate likes to spend his free time reading Tolstoy, and not watching ‘Toy Story,’ as originally reported.”

The Washington Post had to announce “An earlier version of this story incorrectly located Brooklyn in the Canadian province of Quebec. It is in New York.”

I have been writing “In a Word” for almost two years, and I have made mistakes of my own, though none of them are quite so entertaining. To all the readers who have written in when I have erred in my grammar, misspelled something, or expressed myself badly, this is for you.

First of all, it is clear that I cannot spell complimentary. In my Dec. 16, 2019, column on fulsome, I explained (twice!) that the predominant meaning of the word today is “excessively complementary.” Several people wrote in pointing out that “complementary” is not correct, with one very kind reader wondering whether I had slipped it in as a test to see who was paying attention.

I wish that were true, but no, I was just wrong.

Nor was it just a momentary lapse of concentration. I have done it before, in my Oct. 25, 2018, column, “Borrowed words spice up English.”

To set the record straight, complementary actually means “serving to fill out or complete” or “mutually supplying each other’s lack,” as in: “The oboe and the violin have complementary tones.” The word I seem to be always looking for is complimentary, “expressing praise or admiration,” or “given free as a courtesy.”

Fowler’s Modern English Usage provides a helpful mnemonic to avoid confusion like mine: “a complement completes something, and completes is spelled with an e. If you pay someone a compliment, you are being kind, with an i, to them.”

In my column in the Dec. 30, 2019 & Jan. 6, 2020 issue, “What should we call the decade that just ended?,” I upset some readers by claiming that “The 2000s and 2010s ... are too recent for us to be able to discern what, if any, their defining events were.” I should have differentiated the 2010s from the 2000s, which were indelibly marked in 2001 by 9/11, and might come to be known as the “post-9/11 era.” I certainly did not mean to sound dismissive of 9/11, and I apologize.

While my corrections won’t make anyone’s top 10 list, I am still glad to get them off my chest!

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.