Languagehat has let loose the dogs of grammar on the following sentence:
Stephenson, who is sixty, is tall and deprecating.
It seems to me that to write that somebody is deprecating, rather than self-deprecating, is to redirect the belittlement of this transitive verb from Stephenson himself (a sought-after quality) to others under- or unspecified (a grumpy habit). It's made it all the way over to Crooked Timber where Brian Weatherson replaces deprecating with charming, but that's exactly my point. Saying that somebody is charming, i.e., that he charms others, is not the same as saying that somebody is self-charming. It seems a silly, little mistake that should've been caught by the editor if in fact there was one.
[Addendum 11/04/03: Now I'm confused. It seems I misunderstood the argument. Deprecating is not a word? Others have suggested deprecative and deprecatory, but if you look up these words in the august OED you see the word deprecating in both definitions. So, I guess the question is: when is a word a word?]
Posted by jim at November 3, 2003 09:11 AM | TrackBackGood lord, so it is! From the OED:
deprecating ('dEprIkeItIN), ppl. a. [f. deprecate v. + -ing2.] That deprecates or expresses disapproval or disavowal; deprecatory.
OK, time to eat crow. Just because I've never heard or seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Posted by: language hat on November 4, 2003 10:31 AMYup. I find whenever I don't bother to look a word up I usually say something silly about it. And, in fact, I say even sillier things after I've looked it up.
Posted by: jim on November 6, 2003 07:48 PM