THERE IS

            This phrase is linked to my very pettest of peeves, the misuse of the word “they.” What both errors boil down to is a lack of understanding of, or downright rejection of, the concept of “number.”

            “There is many pitfalls on the road to financial recovery.” I hear such constructions every day, from people of all walks of life, from people who should know better.

            How many pitfalls? More than one? Then it should be: “There are…”

            All I can conceive of to explain this obvious error is that people are not even thinking a whole sentence ahead in their speech. If they knew when they started that they would refer to more than one thing, perhaps they would say it correctly. Or, perhaps, they are forgetting how they started a sentence before they finish it.

            Words are like tools. If they are well cared for, oiled occasionally, and kept sharp, they can produce true works of art. They can explicate complex meaning and differentiate between similar but not identical objects, events, and feelings. On the other hand, as is so often repeated these days, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

            Sloppy speech makes for sloppy communication, and that leads to the “dumbing down” of everyone.

            The classical arts of language are grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Grammar is a system of word meanings and the rules of their interaction. Logic is a method of weeding out inconsistencies and assumptions that lead to incorrect conclusions. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. If grammar is ignored or atrophies, it becomes more difficult to produce logical thoughts, and when rhetoric is unfettered by logic, people can be convinced of just about anything.

            Is our language deteriorating accidentally, or are there those who are working to dismember it? Look at those who wish to convince us for the answer. That’s why precise speech is important and worth preserving. Don’t let them dumb us down!

CONGRESSMAN

            There is very little need for this word. It is imprecise, gender-specific, and confusing.

            Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins as follows: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The proper terms for members of Congress are, therefore, “senator” and “representative.” A “congressman,” if such a word had any utility, would be a male senator or representative.

            “Congress” includes both houses, but the ubiquitous use of the word “congressman” as synonymous with “representative” confuses many people, who think there are two legislative bodies, the Senate and the Congress.

            As for the gender-specific problem, it results in such unnecessary constructions as “congresswoman” and “congressperson” to specify, respectively, a female representative or a non-gender-specific representative.

            Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, refers to herself in her official correspondence as “Congressman Blackburn.” I can see doing that with a word such as “chairman,” which is a title for a presiding officer, or “airman,” which is a military rank, but in this case it is simply unnecessary.

            “Representative” has two more syllables than does “congressman,” and as such might take a bit more energy to utter, but it is far preferable. If a catch-all term is needed to describe someone elected to Congress, try “federal legislator” or “member of Congress.”