New Scientist 2 Nov 02 p.5 Editorial
"Pumping in gas may well have been the least worst option available to the
Russian authorities......"
Surely the Editor of a British magazine should do better than that. I'm not quite sure how to
name the mistakes involved. Worst is a superlative, though a negative one, and so shouldn't
be compared.
How would you have said it?
We talk about the lesser of two evils.
How would we speak of three evils? The least of three evils?
And, if the least of three evils, why not the least worst of three evils?
Edit: And, if the least worst of three evils, why not the least worst option? I don't have a problem with the least worst option.
Dear WW: You just qualified for a remedial course in fundamental English. Superlatives
cannot be modified, I think is the term. Nonthing is bigger than the biggest, or smaller
than the smallest. Unless your a goddam philosopher trickster.
Yeah, I see your point.
And I'll admit I erred here.
You can have something that is the worst, but you can't have three equivalent things that each qualify as the worst.
Sorry. I got caught up in my knots of my own making.
Lesser of two evils.
Least of three evils.
But not "least worst" of three evils.
I'm straight again.
Dear WW: you're something special.
Unless your a goddam philosopher trickster.
Or an ad agency copywriter.
Well, if they're talking about options that are available, and they're all bad (worst), wouldn't it follow that the least of those bad options is the best?
Dear JazzO:"they're all bad (worst)," There can be only one worst.
There can be only one worst.
I agree.
But you could have the least worst of the three worst evils. Which would make it the best of the three worst. Or the lesser of three evils. See, you have worse, worst, and worser...so the least worst would be the worse one, to say the least. But I dunno what's worse, being the least of the worst or the worst of the least. However, the least of the worst is pretty mediocre when you think about it...like liverwurst without mustard and onions--that would be liverworst or liverworse, at the very best. Not the least of which would be the absence of rye bread, which would make it liverworstest. But I dunno which is liverworster, do you? Which is the least worse of the liverworst..sans onions, sans mustard, or sans rye bread? So, you see, least qualifying worst is, at worst, pretty simple, when you take a look at it in application at least.
Now, if you'd wanna get into the declension of least, leaster, and leastest...well, that's the worst least discussion you can into, believe me.
>But you could have the least worst of the three worst evils.
No you couldn't. Dr. Bill is correct, a superlative is the end of the line. If something is not as bad, less horrible, less evil, or whatever, it is, by definition, not the worst. This one is so simple even I can get it. Something is either the worst, or it isn't. Or are you suggesting it's possible for someone to be a little bit dead?
Scenario:
I am pulling together a cast for a play. For one character I have a choice of three actors. One is worst at remembering his lines, another is worst at speaking clearly while the third is worst at understanding the character. Which do I pick?
Which do I pick?
The one whose worstness is least important.
EDIT: Actually, you should re-advertise the job!
Dearr WO'N: You could have done worse, but I don't know how.
I was curious as to whether this phrase was more prevalent in the US or U.K., but it looks like 6100 or so google hits are pretty well split, and there are 48 hits at news.bbc.co alone.
>But you could have the least worst of the three worst evils.
Well...you have murder, rape, and armed robbery as the three worst on a listing of crimes. Say murder is the worst (though some may put rape as the worst), but armed robbery would definitely be the least worst of the three. It's definitely not the best, there is no best crime.
who would you pick for the play?
Well, dxb, from my experience there's some excellent actors who have trouble memorizing their lines, but who always seem to pull through in the end (and you can always cover for a dropped line or two along the way). OTOH, an inability to speak clearly or understand character makes for a weak or disastrous performance and is destructive to the entire production and unfair to the other cast members...so I'd have to opt for the one who has trouble getting their lines down. So that would be the least worst of the three for me.
But you could say it's the best option or the best bet.
Might I suggest that "least worst" is a perfectly suitable formation if it is meant to tweak the mind's ear?
Similarly (in a story involving Yogi Berra though even he admits he never said half the things he's credited with saying) a person who was known for his chronic tardiness once arrived at a meeting just two minutes behind schedule. His comment: "This is the earliest I've ever been late!"
Makes sense t' me!
I never sausage a strange discussion!
Uh...once it is agreed that "worse" can be modified by number then it semantically sound to modify that grouping by degrees of "worse". As in...
The three worst teams in the NFL are the Bears, the Giants, and the Jets. And the worst of these are the Jets.(Of course they are not. But it is linguistically correct to say so.)
Dear Milo: "The three worst " Go way back and sit down.
Of course, if a group of sports writers each picked the team they thought was the worst,
they might well choose three different teams. Then you would have three "worst" teams.
But only one choice could be correct.
"This is worst of all worst worsts! that hell could have devis'd." - Ben Jonson, Epicoene: or the silent woman
So you're saying that it would be incorrect to say: "That's one of the worst books I've ever read."?
"But what is worst of worsts, (Lord) often I Have cry'd to Thee, a stranger to my cry." - Francis Quarles, Job Militant
..three actors. One is worst at remembering his lines, another is worst at speaking clearly while the third is worst at understanding the character...You can't compare apples and oranges and have a valid comparison. If one actor is worst in one dimension and the others are deficient in other ways, which you should choose depends on your relative weighting of the parameters.
Going back to the original query: when all three choices are bad, one takes the
least bad, acknowleging it perhaps to be the best of a sorry lot. "Least worst" could be given in mock innocence: humorous and childlike language used to emphasize a point with cuteness. But not grammatically accurate, as Bill was the first to point out.
Edit: Guess I should have read to the end of the thread before replying ! My points have already been expressed.
armed robbery would definitely be the least worst of the three
But you wouldn't describe it in those terms, would you? You'd use a term that could be qualified:
Armed robbery is the least heinous of the three.
Then there's Jazzo's question about "That's one of the worst books I've ever read." I reckon that's all right, because in that sentence, you're talking about a grouping; the book to which you refer is one of a group of the worst. Within the group of books which you consider to be the worst you've ever read, there must be one that is more, ahem, heinous than the rest. That would be the worst book you'd ever read, because it was worse than all the bad ones. It would also be one of the worst books you'd ever read.
Within the group of books which I consider to be the worst I've ever read, there is a pessimal one.
(just to introduce a new word - from L. pessimus (worst), after optimal)
Only because worstly hasn't been mentioned, and it seems to need to be here...worstly speaking.
And, worstly, we have the worst of the three worse...which is a lot more worse than the other two. So the other two
have to be least worst..or, at least, least
worse.
(Why do I suddenly feel like I'm caught up in R. D. Laing's
Knots here?
)
Ah ha Mister Bill! Now we are cooking. This is your grand chance. Find that bunch of God appointed authorities that make up the rules for the usage of the English language. These faceless cowards have hidden in their towers for far too long, while we, the common speakers, argue back and forth in our ignorance. Ferret them out, Brother Bill, bring them before us by name. No more will we be uncertain of the words we say. Their time of secrecy has caused us much grief. Find that secret URL site. They are unique. They are the best. They are all things superlative.
(And I bet they are all prissy Frenchmen.)
Dear milum: of course I know that language will never be controlled by the logicians. However,
I think that editors are obligated to find ways of avoiding such egregious errors. Luckily, I am
not an editor and so don't have to know what he/she should have said.
It sounds funny.
The hell with it.
Dear Faldage: Safire seems to have promulgated more than one Law. To which of them
do you refer?
To which of them do you refer?
If it sounds funny, the hell with it.
Regrettably all my improvements sounded worse than the phrase I found fault with.
Me too. I think the sound of "least worst" is bad and the meaning is obfuscated. Maybe "least worst" is the "badest" misuse of a superlative I've ever heard. Or maybe "badest" is.
Which do you think is the least worst?
"badest"Of course you do mean "baddest" do you not? If we're making up words, the *least we can do is spell them correctly!
Leased wurst would be rented sausage, right?
If we're making up words
Of course "we" didn't make this one up did "we"? I know, because, I've met the baddest dude around and I know he was the baddest because he told me he was. Seemed proud of it, too, he did.
Leased wurst would be rented sausage, right?Has it come to this Whit, stealing Ted's lines. And one of his besttest ones too.And dear Faldage, please go tell that egofart (pronounced EGO-fert) dude that you know who thinks he's the baddest, that we "we's" of the world think that he's the worstest, and, for the moment, our numbers are legion.
However,I think that editors are obligated to find ways of avoiding such egregious errors. Luckily, I am not an editor and so don't have to know what he/she should have said.Sigh. We are so under appreciated.... until the sloppy reporter/writer needs someone to blame.
I think I'd opt for : "of the options available the best of a bad lot was chosen " or sumpin like that...the whole things needs re-casting.
Oh pooh. Safire's right. The hell with it!
One of the prime rules for any type of writing is : "Don't confuse the reader."
Now, today's question is : does "least worst," used in this context, confuse the reader?
At least nobody misunderstood it.
Sigh. We are so under appreciated.... until the sloppy reporter/writer needs someone to blame.And so, wow, who are we to blame for rewriting those sloppy leads that often appear to the embarrassing detriment of an otherwise brilliant story?
jes' because an editor thinks they have to do that...ego prattle.Has it come to this Whit, stealing Ted's lines. And one of his besttest ones too.Thanks, milum...that's quite a compliment.
But I'm not even close to TEd's league as a punnist.
however, I did surprise even meownself with that one I did"It's just the
bestest band,
what'am, honey lamb."
--
Alexander's Ragtime Band, Irving Berlin, nigh 1920
(see, this bastardizing or evolutionizing
of the language 'tain't nothin' new folks...and that's the least worst of it!)
One of the prime rules for any type of writing is : "Don't confuse the reader."
But it's not the onliest rule. Maintaining certain standards of style oughta be in there somewhere.
not even close to TEd's league as a punnist
Fortunately, that's not your only redeeming social value.
If we're making up words, the *least we can do is spell them correctly!That's spellt "kerrektly".
One of the prime rules for any type of writing is : "Don't confuse the reader."
...Maintaining certain standards of style oughta be in there somewhere.Except for mystery writers and most of what I *pen.
That crack about "standards of style" makes me feels like I'm being taunted here ...and I think it's one of my legs.
Nothing personal, of course...
That crack about "standards of style"
Course it all depends on the pub you're writing for. If you're writing for the Journal of Obfuscatory Knowledge Educators it's one thing; if you're writing for the National Organization of Regular Minds it's a whole nother.
This seems to lead to: in order for us to "all get along" we have to be speaking the same language: doesn't it? [not that there's anything wrong with that].
in order for us to "all get along" we have to be speaking the same language: H**l, no, dude!
All that is required is that you should comprehend the true meaning of what is being said, even if you are incapable of replicating the utterance.
(
and of course, for the other person[s] to recoprocate!)
Within the group of books which I consider to be the worst I've ever read, there is a pessimal one.
Sooo...that is absolutely the pessimal worst!
oh, boy...I'm gonna get it now
( and of course, for the other person[s] to re
coprocate!)
You're s*itting us, right?