Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

You were admonished because the word "inure" is jargon. That means that
it is used only by a certain group of people, lawyers in this case, and
is practically unknown to anyone who is not familiar with how lawyers
write. I, for example, had never seen the word until you used it, in
spite of the fact that I am an English teacher and professional
translator with degrees in Classical languages and Germanic languages
and eleven years of university education. I also a pretty darn avid
reader. So if I don't now a word, it almost always means that the word
is not "normal", and is usually slang, regional, jargon or obsolete.

You seem to be making a common mistake that many learners of the
English language make. You probably looked up the word you wanted to
use in a dictionary, and found that "inure" was a possible translation.
What the dictionary didn't tell you was that this word is jargon.Don't
feel bad. All language learners do this, including me. I often say and
write things in Polish that raise eyebrows, or even get a laugh,
because they are overly formal or archaic.

Language learners are naturally eager to acquire and use more new
words. They often pick up bizarre or made-up words from films or songs
and assume they are normally used by native speakers. They also get a
lot of words from bilingual dictionaries. What they don't understand is
that even the largest bi-lingual dictionaries only provide minimal,
imperfect information about what words mean and how they are used. Even
the largest mono-lingual dictionaries are far from exhaustive. The same
goes for course textbooks and language guides such as Fowler or Strunk
and White.

I advise my students not to use a word that they haven't seen "in the
wild" at least ten times. By "in the wild", I mean in normal, popular
literature such as Michael Crichton, Stephen King, Clive Cussler and
the like. Be aware, though, that all of these authors also use
regionalisms and jargon at times. Older classics are often written in
English that is now dated or obsolete. On the other hand, films and
songs often use slang and in-language that does not mean anything to
anyone outside of the target demographic group.

Your English is very good, but extremely artificial. You're trying to
use a register that you think is "formal", but is actually stiff,
stilted and a little odd. For example, in your post, you use words that
few native speakers would have used in a message of this type: offbeat,
avatar, embrace, detain, apposite, credence, rampant, and embrace.
They're all fine words if used correctly by experienced, proficient
speakers, but sound wrong when you use them. In some cases, the meaning
is not quite what you think it is. In other cases, the register of the
word is inappropriate. Sometimes, you use words that do not collate,
that is, they are not usually used together.

My advice is to give up trying to affect an artificial "formal" style
and work on developing a normal style. You do this by reading, reading
and more reading. And by talking to as many native speakers as you can.
Newspapers, magazines, films and radio are very useful, too.

If you want to learn normal academic-level English, listen to All
Things Considered on National Public Radio. Go to
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2. Clicking on
ARCHIVES lets you listen to previous shows. The language used on this
program is an absolutely pleasure to listen to. It's scholarly without
being stilted. The BBC also has similar programming. Perhaps someone
from the other side of the Pond will be kind enough to help you with
that.

It's a good idea to listen to and read both American and British
English, and Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Irish, Scottish, Welsh,
and other varieties as well. At the standard academic level, the
differences between them are very, very small. I myself am rarely aware
of the nationality of the writer when I read academic prose.

Good luck with improving your English. If you need any further help,
please feel free to contact me at dominationboy@onet.eu. And good luck
with your new spam-free group (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Dominic Bojarski

[...]

You are certainly free to use "inured" as you wish to use it, and most
educated native anglophones will be able to figure out what you mean,
but it's not everyday spoken or written American English. I can't say
anything about about its acceptance in British English, which is
apparently your preference.

I would advise against the use of "inured" in all three sentences. It
would be clearer to say whether the engineering technique and the word
(#1 & #3) have simply survived (because they are used occasionally by
some engineers and speakers/writers, respectively) or "have become the
standard" or "are the norm". To say that "a bad habit has inured"
sounds stilted to me. You will have to put it into a real sentence,
e.g., "In America, the bad habit of suing everyone even remotely
connected to a product that is alleged to be the source of a personal
injury has inured", is not commendable style. If you Google "has
inured" [with the quotation marks], you'll find that the intransitive
is overwhelmingly legal language and that almost all the other
non-legal usages are transitive. That, I suggest, is the norm in
American English and, probably, in British English.

I don't understand your desire to use "a single intransitive verb"
instead of a passive form. The point of using any language to
communicate is to use it the way others use it so that one will be
readily understood, not so that one will use fewer words because
economy of language is laudable or to use the active voice because the
passive has been condemned as less desirable -- both sometimes true and
sometimes false, depending on context. Except for the established set
phrases in English, it's not a good idea to restrict yourself to words
and phrases that have all the endearing qualities of reinforced
concrete.

--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"I once asked a senior staffer of a brilliant Senator why the Senator
didn't take a stronger position in favor of Net Neutrality. 'No
Senator remains a Senator opposing an industry with that much money'
was his answer." Lawrence Lessig, Lessig Blog, December 24, 2006
http://www.lessig.org/blog/