Court of Peeves back in session for a 'while'

The Court of Peeves, Crotchets and Irks resumes its summer assizes with a petition from Anne Howard of somewhere near Tucson, Ariz. She asks for an order defining a "while."

The court respectfully declines the invitation. Every commentator on English usage has had a shot at "while" and "awhile," and none of them has bagged no more than a flutter of feathers. There is the noun "while," uniformly defined as "a period of time, especially when short." Thus, "Our guests stayed for a while." There is also the adverb "awhile," dating from the 12th century. The sages of Merriam- Webster helpfully define "awhile" as "for a while."

Reader Howard will find no succor in the Stylebook of The Associated Press. The best help comes from the American Heritage college dictionary: "Each of the following is acceptable: stay awhile, stay for a while, and stay a while (but not stay for awhile)." Once again the court chooses to stand indifferent in the cause. Be consistent! That is the rule for writers and copy editors.

While you ponder, the court will move along to a motion from Jonathan Siegle of Springfield, Ore. He asks for an order defining the number of "number." In evidence he offers a sentence from political columnist David Brooks in The New York Times: "The number of people who could credibly claim to have had a meeting like that with McCain ... are vanishingly small."

In this instance the court will first rule unequivocally for the plaintiff: "The number of people who could credibly claim ... IS vanishingly small." All the same, we should note that when the subject shifts from "THE number of" to "A number of," the verb can undergo a sea change. Thus, "a number of people are devoted to malt liquor" states a premise of undeniable truth.

Somewhere in Reader Siegle's motion is a pleasant visit to "synesis," a mysterious realm in which the usual rules of grammatical agreement get suspended. Such "nouns of multitude," to quote semanticist Bryan Garner, include bulk, bunch, flood, handful, host, majority, minority, mass, multitude, percentage, proportion and the court's favorite, "variety." They are lovely nouns, these chameleons, and they're all wards of this court.

Sara Jenkins, who lives in the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C., moves for an injunction against what she terms "the cavalier use of 'to replace.' " In evidence she offers an item two weeks ago in The Washington Post. Following a special election in Maryland, "Democrat Donna F. Edwards will replace eight-term Rep. Albert R. Wynn ..."

Her motion will be granted. Some persons in public office may be figuratively irreplaceable —it's a judgment call — but eventually the whole lot of them surely will be quite literally replaceable. They will be "succeeded by."

Catherine Lyle of Seattle asks the court to banish "till" as a contraction of "until." Her motion is prompted by publication last month of William Shatner's autobiographical "Up Till Now." The plaintiff argues vigorously that the only acceptable contraction of "until" is " 'til."

Regretfully her motion must be denied.

There's nothing at all amiss in drafting "till" to serve as preposition or conjunction. In the very first chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew (King James Version), we learn of Joseph and Mary that he knew her not "till she had brought forth her firstborn son."

And there's that immortal ballad that begged Nellie to "Wait till the sun shines."

On that melodious note, the court takes a recess.

James J. Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at kilpatjj@aol.com.