Biologist Jerry Coyne, author of the best selling book Why Evolution is True, has a blog going by the same name in which he shares his thoughts on a wide range of subjects.
One of the recurring topics is language. Thus it was that he recently railed against the use of free reign instead of the correct free rein.
Not only is free reign wrong, said Coyne, it also makes no sense.
In posting the article, Coyne threw in his lot with a large and passionate group of people who seek to defend the language against carelessness and ignorance.
In the process, however, he makes statements that are either wrong or based on a view of language that I think is hard to justify.
Let’s deal with the wrong statement first. Early in the article, Coyne says free reign makes no sense. That’s simply not so. Free reign can be easily interpreted metaphorically as unbridled power (itself a metaphor) or the ability to act without limits or constraints. I’m puzzled by Coyne’s assertion and can’t find any reasonable way to agree with it.
In fact, the plausibility of free reign to modern eyes is likely to be one of the reasons people are using it. Many other “wrong” sayings have arisen in this way, including chomping at the bit (should be champing at the bit), nerve-wrecking (nerve wracking) and play on one’s mind (prey on one’s mind). In each case, the original word began falling into disuse, leaving an opening for a more familiar - and plausible - usurper.
(I hasten to add that not all mangled idioms work. The proof is in the pudding makes sense but is silly. The original, the proof [ie, test] of the pudding is in the eating, is worth maintaining. Change tact really does make no sense. It should be change tack, a sailing term.)
Coyne alludes to the plausibility of free reign when, quoting Merriam-Webster, he concedes that the mistake is understandable in these horse-diminished, Royal Family-obsessed times.
That concession aside, the tone of the article is didactic. Coyne (and Merriam-Webster) knows the correct phrase and would like others to adhere to it. This is nowhere better illustrated than when Merriam-Webster says, somewhat snootily, “Free reign might sound impressive to you but not to your editor or teacher”. (Besides being snooty, the statement is careless in its word choice. Free reign sounds identical to free rein. Merriam-Webster should have said “Free reign might look impressive to you…”).
I’d like to offer an alternative view. Despite Coyne’s admonition to not “bother to tell me that this is just another example of language changing”, in this instance that’s very possibly what we’re seeing.
Standard English, like dress codes, is subject to ongoing review by all who use it, not just opinionated souls like me and Coyne. While Ken the Editor wouldn’t dream of tolerating free reign, that’s because the widely accepted spelling is free rein. Should that change, I would bow to my fellow English speakers and writers - in this case.
And, to take a leaf out of Coyne’s book, don’t tell me this is just another example of slipshod attitudes to literacy. That fight will be won or lost over such matters as brevity, elegance, the ability to use analogies for illumination, and a host of other elements unrelated to the correct use of idioms.
One reason for that is that idioms tend to be arbitrary in their meanings and frequently make little, if any, sense on face value. Imagine learning English as an adult and hearing, “Fred quit smoking cold turkey just before he kicked the goddam bucket, pardon my French”.
I love that the language is so malleable and that much of what we say today without batting an eyelid came into existence because someone in the past misheard something and began mangling that little corner of the language.
Free reign may be a mangling, but unlike many manglings it’s also a defensible alternative for current times.
I can’t finish without making one other point. Merriam-Webster states that free reign is grammatically wrong, which is a surprising claim. Grammar relates to the structure of a language - how its components interact with one another, and the ways in which a speaker may or may not combine them. A sentence (or idiom) can be meaningless as a statement about the world, yet still be grammatically sound. Noam Chomsky demonstrated this when he came up with “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.
To reinforce the point, Chomsky also coined “Furiously sleep ideas green colorless”, which uses the same words in a combination that is clearly non-grammatical. That’s why, despite its meaninglessness, you recognise the first sentence as English, but not the second.
Free reign conforms to that most familiar of English constructions, adjective followed by noun. Any error is not grammatical, surely, but semantic.
You can find Coyne’s blog article here.
Bits and specious
Great news for at least some of my readers. Alcohol helps you speak a foreign language better. (With thanks to Rebecca Ericson from Everybody Talks.)
We’re having a multilingual booze up at my place this Friday.
On the subject of swearing, it is a belief commonly held that words with plosives (k, p, t) make the best expletives, regardless of language. Turns out that’s not so. But what is, is that l, r, w, and y (as a consonant) are sounds to avoid if you want your expletives to carry the requisite charge.
Quote of the week
A horse is dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle.
Ian Fleming