On Writing Well: Chapter 7 Summary & Analysis

Zinsser asks when it’s appropriate for writers to use new words. He approves of useful new words like “hassle” and “freak,” but not useless ones like “notables” and “upcoming.” Why? There’s no definitive answer, because language is constantly changing. In the 1960s, the editors of The American Heritage Dictionary surveyed a panel of 104 experts, including Zinsser, to come up with “usage notes” for new words.

The panel rejected sloppy phrases like “healthwise” and “rather unique,” while approving new words like “dropout,” “rambunctious,” and “trek.” It tried to evaluate whether each word met a “real need” in the language. Still, there was always some disagreement, which shows that there are no objective laws of usage. Some writers rejected “O.K.” and “regime,” while others embraced them. They rejected words that now clearly do meet a need, like “TV personality.” They deemed some words, like “ain’t,” acceptable in speech but not in writing, and they ruled that other words are only acceptable in sarcastic writing.

In general, the panel leaned toward admitting new words but preserving traditional grammar rules. The language needs new words for technology, business, and social change. But there’s no reason to overturn traditional grammar rules (like “fewer” versus “less”) or accept common usage errors (like confusing “flaunt” with “flout”).

New words continue to spread, so debates about usage are ongoing. In general, Zinsser favors accepting new usages while rejecting new jargon. For instance, “bottom line” and “printout” are helpful new usages that refer to specific things. But “prioritize” and “input” are jargon, because they’re used to replace perfectly good words that already exist.