This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/29/trove-of-old-and-new-definitions-style-guide

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The readers’ editor on… a trove of old and new definitions in the style guide The readers’ editor on… a trove of old and new definitions in the style guide
(about 17 hours later)
When to give up the ghost and when to battle on resisting change is the question. Sorry about the mixed metaphor, but my colleagues and I are grown weary of holding the line on some entries within the Guardian’s style guide and seek advice. When to give up the ghost and when to battle on resisting change is the question. Sorry about the mixed metaphor, but my colleagues and I are grown weary of holding the line on some entries within the Guardian’s style guide and seek advice.
For instance, it is a breach of the guide to use the word “trove” alone. The guide says “treasure trove … the noun comprises both words – there is no such thing as a ‘trove’; if you don’t want to call it a treasure trove, the word hoard may be useful”. For instance, it is a breach of the guide to use the word “trove” alone. The guide says “treasure trove … the noun comprises both words – there is no such thing as a ‘trove’; if you don’t want to call it a treasure trove, the word hoard may be useful”.
A reader fighting the good fight pointed out that we had done it again “on page 15 of Tuesday 24th edition, towards the top right-hand corner, under the heading ‘Cables reveal Israeli spies at odds with Netanyahu’ … ‘While the Snowdon trove revealed the scale of technological surveillance…’ A reader fighting the good fight pointed out that we had done it again “on page 15 of Tuesday 24th edition, towards the top right-hand corner, under the heading ‘Cables reveal Israeli spies at odds with Netanyahu’ … ‘While the Snowden trove revealed the scale of technological surveillance…’
“Surely the word ‘trove’ is derived from the French ‘trouvé’ – found. Treasure trove is treasure that had been found – maybe only one gem, or a small ring. ‘Trove’ does not, I think, mean ‘cache’ or ‘hoard’.”“Surely the word ‘trove’ is derived from the French ‘trouvé’ – found. Treasure trove is treasure that had been found – maybe only one gem, or a small ring. ‘Trove’ does not, I think, mean ‘cache’ or ‘hoard’.”
However, we believe in this case that the battle may be lost and won, and as a result we published this correction in the print edition of 2 March: “An article about a cache of hundreds of dossiers, files and cables from the world’s major intelligence services that were leaked to the al-Jazeera investigative unit and shared with the Guardian (Secret cables reveal Israel’s spies at odds with Netanyahu on Iran, 24 February, page 1) referred to the earlier leak of tens of thousands of NSA and GCHQ documents by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden as ‘the Snowden trove’. That upset some linguistic purists who – like our style guide– insist that ‘trove’ should only be used as part of the noun phrase ‘treasure trove’, and that there is no such thing as a ‘trove’. But perhaps we should now accept that it’s a useful word on its own.” However, we believe in this case that the battle may be lost and won, and as a result we published this correction in the print edition of 2 March: “An article about a cache of hundreds of dossiers, files and cables from the world’s major intelligence services that were leaked to the al-Jazeera investigative unit and shared with the Guardian (Secret cables reveal Israel’s spies at odds with Netanyahu on Iran, 24 February, page 1) referred to the earlier leak of tens of thousands of NSA and GCHQ documents by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden as ‘the Snowden trove’. That upset some linguistic purists who – like our style guide– insist that ‘trove’ should only be used as part of the noun phrase ‘treasure trove’, and that there is no such thing as a ‘trove’. But perhaps we should now accept that it’s a useful word on its own.”
This was written by my colleague Rory Foster, who received support from Michael Quinion, a British etymologist, whose website WorldWideWords is devoted to linguistics.This was written by my colleague Rory Foster, who received support from Michael Quinion, a British etymologist, whose website WorldWideWords is devoted to linguistics.
Quinion noted that in fact trove had been used by itself to “mean a hoard or a valuable find” since the 1880s. He gave several examples, including this usage from Rudyard Kipling: “The value of her trove struck her, and she cast about for the best method of using it.” Quinion noted that in fact trove had been used by itself to “mean a hoard or a valuable find” since the 1880s. He gave several examples, including this usage from Rudyard Kipling: “The value of her trove struck her, and she cast about for the best method of using it.”
Other words that may be lost (or losing) causes include bored with/by/of, enormity, who/whom, and swath/swatheOther words that may be lost (or losing) causes include bored with/by/of, enormity, who/whom, and swath/swathe
He concluded: “Language has moved on. Trove is now too widely used to be dismissed as bad English. Dictionaries include it (the Oxford English Dictionary has had an entry for it since 1989), though some refer the enquirer to treasure-trove. American ones are readier than British to accept that trove is now a noun and a valid abbreviated form of treasure-trove. The Guardian itself acknowledges this in its Corrections and Clarifications item: ‘Perhaps we should now accept that it’s a useful word on its own.’ Indeed.”He concluded: “Language has moved on. Trove is now too widely used to be dismissed as bad English. Dictionaries include it (the Oxford English Dictionary has had an entry for it since 1989), though some refer the enquirer to treasure-trove. American ones are readier than British to accept that trove is now a noun and a valid abbreviated form of treasure-trove. The Guardian itself acknowledges this in its Corrections and Clarifications item: ‘Perhaps we should now accept that it’s a useful word on its own.’ Indeed.”
He and my colleague make a good case for a sensible change, and I don’t think it is one that most readers will lose much sleep over, even though they may disagree. David Marsh, the keeper of the Guardian’s style guide, also agrees: “We do change our style to reflect changes in language use. For example, we used to insist on ‘railway station’ but no one under about 50 says that any more so ‘train station’ is fine. He and my colleague make a good case for a sensible change, and I don’t think it is one that most readers will lose much sleep over, even though they may disagree. David Marsh, the keeper of the Guardian’s style guide, also agrees: “We do change our style to reflect changes in language use. For example, we used to insist on ‘railway station’ but no one under about 50 says that any more so ‘train station’ is fine.
“I think ‘trove’ falls into a similar category. Most native English users would be most surprised at our style guide’s assertion that ‘there is no such thing as a “trove”’, and yes I will be changing that entry.”“I think ‘trove’ falls into a similar category. Most native English users would be most surprised at our style guide’s assertion that ‘there is no such thing as a “trove”’, and yes I will be changing that entry.”
However, there are other battles. Other words that may fall into the category of lost (or losing) causes include bored with/by/of, enormity, who/whom, and swath/swathe (our style guide insists on swath for the word meaning a broad strip of land but many writers – and readers – prefer swathe).However, there are other battles. Other words that may fall into the category of lost (or losing) causes include bored with/by/of, enormity, who/whom, and swath/swathe (our style guide insists on swath for the word meaning a broad strip of land but many writers – and readers – prefer swathe).
And then there are the causes that we thought we’d won and still think we should stick to, but on which the Guardian is backsliding. The phrase “dialogue of the deaf” is prohibited in our style guide (for good reason), but appeared in an editorial last week. On this last crop at least I think we should regroup and sally forth once more, but what do the readers think?And then there are the causes that we thought we’d won and still think we should stick to, but on which the Guardian is backsliding. The phrase “dialogue of the deaf” is prohibited in our style guide (for good reason), but appeared in an editorial last week. On this last crop at least I think we should regroup and sally forth once more, but what do the readers think?