Q.X.T.Rhazmeulen wrote:

Having just left a review wherein I realized too late that I had made the mistake exhibited in the title of this post, I wanted to see if either "rife with" or "ripe with" was acceptable. I was loath to discover, according to the NY Times link below, only the former is condoned by the Gods. Anyhow, the link has some other interesting points for consideration vis a vis such silly mistakes.

Rife is such a ridiculous word, though, isn't it? When the hell else do we use it but in the above cliche?

"Wow! I feel so rife today!"

I think not.

Q

http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/ … e-or-rife/

I'd love to read your review to see if your point wasn't made better with ripe with than rife with.

After reading this in the link you provide:
These similar-sounding words are easily confused. “Rife"  means (among other things) “full of, abounding in,"  and is used with “with."  “Ripe"  does not normally have that sense — it means, essentially, “fully developed, mature."

The uncertainty is understandable, especially since metaphorically “ripe"  may carry an overtone of “fullness."  Often we end up saying “ripe with"  when we mean “rife with."

For me the ripe with possibilities of your title does suggest -- by virtue of the plural of 'possibility'-- an enumeration, but it suggests even more that those possibilities are fully mature and ready to be consumed or used.

To boot, you're on to something when you say when the hell do we ever use rife. I suspect even the readers who know what rife means, not just writers, find very few instances in which rife with draws as vivid a picture as ripe with. For instance, a farmer walking in his orchard in the spring of a good year is more likely to think his trees are ripe with unripe pears than he is to think they are rife with unripe pears.

To me the use of ripe with represents a maturation of communication between writer and reader: A sharper picture. Whether or not it violates an editor's sensitivities and excites his fear that the language may be becoming a method of communicating without his permission.

By virtue of the editor's acumen with the language he knows what is meant by ripe with; by virtue of familiarity with ripe everybody else, down to and including the farmer, understands there are a lot of what's being written about and he sees the picture of unripe pears bending branches low.

So my question is, Who is communicating with the most readers?

Memphis

Last edited by Memphis Trace (07-21-2012 22:05:30)

Good word, rife.

If you want to purge the language of words, start with the pedantic abomination that is 'whom' and leave honest adjectives like 'rife' well alone. You'll be objecting to slantendicular next . . .

Honestly if the 'people don't understand rare words' brigade had their way, English would be reduced to the status of some hopeless fourth-rate, word-deficient language like French, or, god help us, Welsh.

Venator wrote:

Good word, rife.

If you want to purge the language of words, start with the pedantic abomination that is 'whom' and leave honest adjectives like 'rife' well alone. You'll be objecting to slantendicular next . . .

Honestly if the 'people don't understand rare words' brigade had their way, English would be reduced to the status of some hopeless fourth-rate, word-deficient language like French, or, god help us, Welsh.

What's wrong with 'whom?' I use the word every day. I mean, if you have a beef against 'whom,' what about 'him,' 'her,' 'me,' 'us' and 'them?' Shall we just abolish all objective pronouns? Or perhaps dispense with pronouns altogether and speak like cave people.

But . . . 'rife?'

When do you use the word outside of the above-mentioned cliche? Even Jeni, who inexplicably likes the word, admits she only uses it thusly. If you're going to pitch a word, choose one that won't be missed, not one like 'whom' that serves a real purpose.

I mean, imagine a world without 'whom.' To illustrate my point, I give you A Day at the Office, in the Land of Mug-Mug.


"What Mug-Mug Small-Hair Mug-Mug give proposal?"

"I give Big-Hair Mug-Mug."

"Good. Proposal rife with possibilities!"


Is this the kind of world you want to live in Venator? Is it? IS IT?

Q

Rife's actually a word I don't think I've ever said or written as 'rife with possibilities' though (and this is true but a happy coincidence), only the other day I used it conversationally at work when I mentioned that the management was 'rife with imbecility'. What's interesting is that the folk I work with are, in the main, people of low academic achievement (though that does not of course necessarily equate to limited vocabulary or wit). None of them questioned what the word meant as (often the case) it was obvious from context.

Whom, however, unlike most pronouns, is pointless. in every possible case 'who' does not merely do the job, it does it better unless one wishes to sound hopelessly formal.

Take whom outside and shoot it.

Venator wrote:

Take whom outside and shoot it.

Not sure just what it is, but I'm starting to get the sense that you don't like 'whom.' Am I reading that right?

rife with indignities...

rife with insecurity...

rife with corruption...

(My dictionary used this example:  Areas where poverty is rife)

So there! It can be used well. You just have to take the time to do it.

Keep on 'em, Venator. Do not let them besmirch a word that is rife with so many things. But I don't want you shooting whom, either. Every once in a long while, a nice, strong whom is lovely.


(Ven, rife with imbicility is priceless and an example of why I adore you.)

Last edited by Jeni Decker (07-23-2012 04:58:32)

Before I become labelled as a rife detractor, I want to try to remake the point I set out to make.

Notwithstanding the NY Times editor's counsel, I believe saying ripe with possibilities would communicate the intended message to more readers than would rife with possibilities. I'm as titillated as anybody I know of by a precisely used word, but I believe Q's usage of ripe reflects that  the lumpen masses look at rife and see ripe. And it has the added benefit of getting the same intended message to snooty wordsmiths like me, who are prone to smug pedantry when incited. In the blink of an eye, I'd know a better word but I'd know exactly what was meant.

Writing's different for me than wordsmithing: As a writer, the last thing, except in humor, I'd want to do is send an interested reader scurrying to the dictionary because he thinks I misspelled a word. Or for an uppity word. I embrace editors who know how to select words that get my meaning to a reader without causing the reader to pause. I consider such editors as advancing the art of communication.

Between ripe and rife, I think any editor worth his salt in Q's example would opt for ripe as a courtesy to all readers who bought his paper. As for the eager grammarians, linguists, and editors, let them eat cake.

Memphis

Last edited by Memphis Trace (07-23-2012 05:51:17)

Jeni Decker wrote:

I agree with your point, Memphis. Depending on your audience, word choice is important and whenever you can use the more widely known word rather than the one that looks prettier on paper to we who are inclined to be tittilated by a precisely used word, you probably should.

I'm an oddball who loves having to look up a word when I read something. I feel as though the author has given me a gift. But I don't think the average commercial reader feels the same. They don't want to stop and ponder word choice and the beauty of a meticulously executed phrase as we might.

I love learning new words. One of the reasons I love reading John Hamler's work. I particularly like to find a new word and 'know' it by virtue of how carefully it is placed in context. But more and more, I'm demanding of a writer that he do the work of communicating with me. It's his main job to make sure I understand the story he wants to tell me.

Hey Memphis, I see you and your co-writer placed the Faulkner's.

Sharon did some remarkable work on the start of The Principles of Mining and actually throughout. I do believe it was short-listed for finalist under the name Copper for Coffee.

Sharon also entered it in the novels-in-progress category and there it IS a finalist. She also created a novella that was short-listed as a finalist.

¡Felicitaciones y buena suerte! El viento que sopla donde usted necesita estar.
This looks like a congratulations. Thank you. I'll pass it on to Sharon to find out what it means.

Memphis

Last edited by Memphis Trace (07-23-2012 07:45:43)

Whom has outlived its usefulness. Send it to join thee and thou. It would be a merciful release.

Thing is, the management where I work are by no means pregnant with imbecility (which would suppose the imbecility is there but waiting to emerge), nor indeed is it ripe with it (in that it is not in full flower of imbecility), it is in fact rife with it: endemic and prolific both.

Now I'd have no quibble with 'ripe with . . .' as oppsosed to 'rife with . . .' as 'ripe' sets a different context, I can't see 'ripe with possibilities as being necessarily wrong', just not having the same meaning as 'rife with . . .'

Whom, however, is merely who in a tweed jacket (with leather elbow patches).