A note on usage

May I digress? Yesterday, as I jogged along on the treadmill, I listened to Lou Dobbs (he helps the adrenaline, I find). He used the word "coronate"--as in, McCain wants the Republican party to coronate him. Whatever next, I thought? So now the great bloviator is making up his own words. Or perhaps it was a slip of the tongue. Anyway, I laughed and moved on--or not, you understand, since I was on a treadmill.

Just now I was reading Margaret Carlson on Bloomberg, and I saw this:

[Clinton's] Lazarus-like win [in New Hampshire] kept her from looking any further into why she lost so badly in Iowa. It put off any move to change her insular staff and validated her original strategy in which the primaries were a mere formality. Voters would coronate her partly because she had been first lady, because she was a Clinton, and because it was her turn after all she had been through.

Maybe I owe Lou an apology. Is this recognized American usage? Is there something wrong with "crown"--an objection, I mean, that does not apply to the idea of a coronation? The American Oxford Dictionary does not offer a definition of coronate; it helpfully (in its Mac version) asks whether I meant "coronet". But the Columbia Guide to Standard American Usage has anticipated Dobbspeak. It says:

A nonstandard back-formation from the noun coronation, perhaps coined first as a jocular nonce word. The Standard verb is to crown or to be crowned, and the usual idiom is to have a coronation.

Nonce? "Made up for one occasion and not likely to be encountered again." Deep waters. But let's not make a habit of coronate. If crown won't work, there's always anoint. "Smear or rub with oil, typically as part of a religious ceremony."

Comments

Why oh why can't more people notice things like this? Coronate is an ABOMINATION! Well remarked.

Posted by alex | February 14, 2008 10:04 PM

Nice catch, as we say in the copyediting department. It's true that polymorphously perverse English allows this sort of thing and that it happens all the time; but it didn't use to happen in people in opinion leadership positions for whom education and literacy were the primary and sine qua non qualifications for their jobs. O tempora, O Walter Lippman!

It is not, though, a coincidence that the usage should be found in two of the most egregious morons on the airwaves--a title that they have secured in so many more ways than just this; this new solecism only serves as the coronating glory of their longstanding record of subidiotic punditry. Congratulations, Margaret and Lou!

Posted by Kevin E. | February 15, 2008 12:11 AM

Coronate is also a word that's been used as a verb for over 3 centuries. The earliest usage that the OED gives for "coronate" as a verb is 1657: "Instead of Coronating your deserved Worth." (Note: The OED is not free to the public, you need a costly subscription, or a network that has a subscription) Now, it is marked as "rare," but to say that it's a new "nonce" word is a fallacy.
A language is living, and we can create, or find new uses for words all the time. So, two problems:
1) The idea that English can never invent new words. "e-mail," anyone? We find new words and new uses of words to fit new situations. And a coronation of a winner of an election is different from a coronation of a king, so why must we be forced to use the same word(s) to describe two significantly different things?
2) "Coronate" isn't a new word. Rare, perhaps, but not brand new.

Posted by Mike | February 15, 2008 12:40 AM

As Humpty Dumpty said: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean. No more, and no less."

Posted by Rob | February 15, 2008 7:10 AM

Maybe it really is a bit much to expect people who write about language to have opened a linguistics textbook at some point in their lives. But a dictionary?

Posted by jamessal | February 15, 2008 9:14 AM

To Mike's earnest expostulations, I can only reply that 1) Mr. Crook appears to be far from making a broad argument about whether language can invent new words in this modest blog post, but thank you for setting the record straight anyway, and 2) that the word coronate might have been uttered in the past has, it is safe to say, no bearing on whether it's advisable to say it today. Matters of language being matters of preference, crown remains the better choice.

Posted by alex | February 15, 2008 11:01 AM

"Matters of language being matters of preference, crown remains the better choice."

Actually I think coronate has a nice ring to it. I also think beef is better than lamb, but who cares?

Posted by jamessal | February 15, 2008 11:12 AM

i want to pick up on Kevin E's comment.

i often wonder what it is that media "pundits" do all day in lieu of actually informing themselves (because it's quite evident that most of them don't know as much about policy as many people who have actual jobs and simply post blog comments).

and here's a clue to the answer: they listen to each other.

i don't have access to lexis, but i'd be curious, clive, if you could do a lexis search and see if "coronate" has been used previously by margaret carlson. i'm betting not....

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 5:09 PM

Coronate is the better word. Good for (the usually dreary and tiresom) Mr. Dobbs! Coronate carries with it (obviously) the idea of "coronation" - that is, a ceremony. A grand ceremony attended by the nation's great and good. It's a more colorful, evocative verb, and we can more easily imagine the regal Hillary Clinton having the crown placed upon her head, while her subjects bow to do homage.

Posted by Jasper | February 16, 2008 12:48 AM

i jes luv spectatin' and conversatin' 'bout all dis.

Posted by lurker | February 16, 2008 1:27 PM

I knew what Lou meant, which is the important thing I guess.

Of course, If I said, "Lou Dobbs pineappled your dog's toothbrush," well that would just be nonce ants.

Posted by Herb | February 18, 2008 1:30 AM

To add to Jaspers comments, I also like coronate. Crowning is blatantly about a king who wears a crown. No one is suggesting that any president would wear a crown. The coronation ceremony is about more than a crown, however. It is about divine right, and presumably hubris. Using a verb to link a president to the coronation but not the crown is my take on why it is used, and the reason I like it. We are Americans, with old colonial rebel blood. Using the verb crown would be like hitting below the belt.

Posted by Keith | February 18, 2008 8:29 PM

Mr. Crook,

So sorry that this is the first I've noticed your good work for the Atlantic. You deserve a great following comparable to your colleagues.

If you have recently arrived, you may have noticed that we dont really speak English here.

Cheers!

Posted by Kim | February 20, 2008 1:34 PM

It's just awful that Dobb's would utilize (utilitize? utilitiliticize?) such language...

'Crown' as a verb should be familiar enough to native English speakers on either side of the Atlantic. For instance, consider the familiar hymn 'Crown him with many crowns', which features the word as both noun and verb.

Posted by hw | February 20, 2008 2:55 PM