So many strange things have happened in education that it is no longer possible to say with certainty that everyone over the age of 12 knows that 'Fowler's Modern English Usage' is the bible of the writing biz. Those who weren't so taught will have to take my word for it. It is the best book on English, because it does what it does so well that it is alone in its class. The rest, good though some of them may be, are runners in a less demanding race.

It's not that H W Fowler (Henry Watson, though he seems not to have liked people to know) was infallible. But he came close, and he delivered his opinions with such good sense, with such good humour and with such obvious authority that he inspires complete and unquestioning loyalty among his followers. Here's an extract - Fowler on the subject of Genteelism:

"By genteelism is here to be understood the rejecting of the ordinary natural word that first suggests itself to the mind, and the substitution of a synonym that is thought to be less soiled by the lips of the common herd, less familiar, less plebeian, less vulgar, less improper, less apt to come unhandsomely betwixt the wind and our nobility. The truly genteel do not ask, but enquire, invite one to step, not to come this way, may detect an unpleasant odour but not a nasty smell, never help, but assist each other to potatoes, of which they may have sufficient, but never enough, do not go to bed but retire for the night:.."

A forthright man, was our Mr. Fowler.

I would be surprised to hear those unnecessarily grand words called genteelisms, these days, but the sin Fowler ascribed to their selectors is still very much in business. There are plenty of words in common use today that are selected for. well, a devious purpose, most often to make you think the person who uses them is a more substantial individual than you might otherwise conclude. Fowler's advice to anyone who wanted to be a good writer, and therefore a good communicator, was that he or she "should endeavour, before he allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid".

Good readers and listeners, he said, wanted words used that were capable of delivering meaning with precision.

Instead, unless we watch out for ourselves, we can become victims of a kind of word con game, designed to separate the reader or listener from his common sense - if nothing else. Take proactive, for example. The country-side is absolutely littered with public figures and businessmen who are busying themselves with calls for proactive approaches to problems or otherwise vaulting about, themselves behaving proactively. It's a made-up word that appeared for the first time, as nearly as I can make out, in the 1970s. The pro- prefix suggests action taken by sensible people to prevent a problem occurring, as distinct from simply reacting to a problem when it does occur. In the business boardroom, real men are proactive. Sissies merely react.

In real life, of course, it isn't that way at all. Problems that can be foreseen are tackled with pre-emptive or preventive action. For those that are unforeseen, there is only reaction. however unfair that may seem to real men. Proactive is a nonsense word that is often used, in truth, to divert attention from deficiencies that lie elsewhere. Did the CEO fail to anticipate a business drop-off? It's a great deal less painful for him to accuse his marketing department of a failure to be proactive than it is to admit his mistake. Are the press asking embarrassing questions about the company's hiring policies? It is easier to accuse the PR department of failing to be proactive than it is to formulate some answers.

These days, no one in business or in public life can make a move without consulting the stakeholders. Who are these people, and why are they so important? One must presume they are not people already involved in whatever plans for the move exist, because their involvement would constitute de facto consultation. So they are people not directly involved, but who play a role on the periphery. With a consumer product, then, the stakeholders would be the consumers, presumably, and we mustn't forget the potential consumers. Who's left? Anyone?

With a government policy. again, is there anyone who isn't affected? In truth, we are all stakeholders in almost everything. Some believe the word is used because it sounds like stockholders, who are people who play a really important role in a company - on the periphery in a sense, perhaps, but in another sense, substantial and important enough to be described accurately as the company's raison d'?tre. If those who believe in this explanation are correct, then, the word is used as a kind of vague and, in the end, meaningless flattery. People who don't like being flannelled, though, need to be alert to this word's use as a delaying tactic. "I need to consult my stakeholders before I show my hand," is often another way of saying "Wait, wait, give me time to pull my pants up."

How about empowerment? Isn't that an infuriating word? If you want to establish your credentials with the poor, the unfortunate or the downtrodden, you better get this one into your vocabulary quickly. In truth, it means the process of investing someone formally with the power to do something - Cabinet Ministers, for example, are empowered when they are sworn in at Government House. But if you use the word in the way many people do nowadays, its meaning drains away in a hurry. You can stretch it to cover giving people money, registering them to vote, setting up a hotline, showing them how to register a complaint, building public toilets. get the picture?

Empowerment has such a wonderful ring to it, though, that if you're looking for funds or support for your campaign, it gives you a dandy little inside track. On the other hand, those who find themselves on the receiving end of the word are advised to get a good grip on their wallets and hang on for dear life.

How about synergy. Good word, isn't it? Sounds Greek, and if it's Greek. well, it's quite the thing, these days. It has a kind of mystical, visionary tone to it. It's meant to describe a relationship that is greater than the sum of its parts, a kind of extra-powerful fusion (that is possible only with the folks who know how to use the word, of course).

The word does exist. In medicine and physiology, it has the meaning of something - a muscle, perhaps - that works with something else - another muscle, perhaps. Then, in a religious sense, according to my Oxford Dictionary, "synergism is the doctrine that human will cooperates with Divine grace in the work of re-generation". That sentence is not going to give up its meaning to me without a fight I don't have time for, but of this I am instantly certain: If there is a context in which that process is important, it isn't this one. The final verdict on synergy is that it has about as much meaning where relationships are concerned as "extra strength" does with snake oil.

Entrepreneur is another word that is, as they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle. It's French, so it has a certain innate sexiness. It was meant to describe a swash-buckling capitalist willing to stake everything on a single roll of the dice. But it has been used and overused to such a degree that we are now asked to believe that it applies to almost anyone in business - bankers, retailers, vacuum cleaner salesmen, newspaper delivery boys - anyone, in short, who works on or near a profit margin. It's surprising, to me, that businessmen don't object to the use of the word more than they do. You'd have thought that someone using stockholders' money would, under no circumstances whatever, want to be likened to a dice-rolling swashbuckler. If I were a stockholder, I'd be banging on that businessman's door first thing, looking to get my money back and leave him with lots of time to luxuriate alone in his sexiness.

While we're thinking about hats and cattle, how about investigations? Have you ever heard of one that wasn't in-depth? Boy, it makes me sleep better at night to know that all those investigators aren't just poking around on the surface, they're getting right down into the deep bits. Stands to reason that they may even be getting down somewhere near the bottom of things in some cases. Maybe.

Persons, how does that one take you? Catches me right on the elbow, I'm bound to report. This is a genteelism in all its cheap, slithery glory. In truth, the plural of person is people, but that's just too simple for some. If a person is important, two of them have to be better than just people. In truth, persons is a word that stands intolerably unhandsomely betwixt the wind and their nobility.

And finally, I cannot leave this topic without mentioning, no matter how briefly, action plans. Such an improvement over the old-fashioned type, don't you think?

Someone run the Fowler flag up the pole, quickly, I feel a salute coming on.

gshortoibl.bm.