beamish: Normally, we use ‘lately’ for that sense now.

Or we may use ‘of late’.

tomhynes: How does he feel about the ambiguity of a “bi-weekly” column?

Come now, it’s not ambiguous at all. “Bi” means two, “semi” means half, and they both modify the period of time in question rather than the activity performed during that time.

Language Maven: It had been my impression that all or almost all careful writers followed that instruction, and that the only people who didn’t were people either ignorant of the general rule or exceptionally aggressive about defending the way people “actually” write as opposed to the way they are “taught in school” to write.

I’ll assume you meant persons rather than people .

Or did it mean “dead” before it was ever used on tombstones?

beamish: Originally ‘late’ meant ‘slow’, from which it came to mean ‘after the appropriate time’ (which it mostly means now, of course). From there, it came to mean ‘recently’, since looking back from the present point of view, the late is recent and the early is farther back. (Normally, we use ‘lately’ for that sense now.) After ‘late’ came to mean ‘recently,’ it moved on to ‘recently, but not now,’ and then on to ‘dead.’

Thanks, beamish, for both understanding and answering my question.

Herb Spencer: Not to quibble, PFL, but we know HOW it’s used, it’s WHY it’s used so we inquiring minds want to know.

Roger asked for “how we arrived at” the usage. Which is a valid question considering that the most common meanings of “late” these days are “not on time” (“late for school”) and “toward the end of a given period of time” (“late in the evening”), which might lead one to assume that the phrase is idiomatic. It’s actually quite literal based on that older sense of “late,” and generally used only of the fairly recently deceased. They’re “recently, but no longer” because they’re not around anymore. William Safire recently was, but now he isn’t, so he’s “the late William Safire.”

If the question is why the phrase is so commonly used, I’d say it has caught on because 1) explicit references to death are mildly taboo in such contexts, which rules out “the dead William Safire” and the like, and 2) the phrase is much shorter and more wieldy than any alternative I can think of (mostly parenthetical statements like “who recently passed away”).

At the same time, the instruction to put a comma before a nonrestrictive clause is not unique to Strunk & White but can be found in many writing texts. It had been my impression that all or almost all careful writers followed that instruction, and that the only people who didn’t were people either ignorant of the general rule or exceptionally aggressive about defending the way people “actually” write as opposed to the way they are “taught in school” to write. Perhaps I’ll learn more about why some people don’t use a comma in that situation.

Herb Spencer: Not to quibble, PFL, but we know HOW it’s used, it’s WHY it’s used so we inquiring minds want to know.

Originally ‘late’ meant ‘slow’, from which it came to mean ‘after the appropriate time’ (which it mostly means now, of course). From there, it came to mean ‘recently’, since looking back from the present point of view, the late is recent and the early is farther back. (Normally, we use ‘lately’ for that sense now.) After ‘late’ came to mean ‘recently,’ it moved on to ‘recently, but not now,’ and then on to ‘dead.’

I think flaunting Strunk & White’s advice is a completely appropriate way of marking the occasion.

Or even flouting it.

Language Maven: Was the press release written and reviewed only by people who have never read pages 3 and 4 of Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style? Or was someone indicating in a subtle way that descriptivism is replacing prescriptivism in the “On Language” column?

Considering that Language Log’s founder referred to The Elements of Style as “a bunch of trivial don’t-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can’t even tell when they’ve broken their own misbegotten rules,” I think flaunting Strunk & White’s advice is a completely appropriate way of marking the occasion.

Roger the Shrubber: Speaking of things language, so to speak — does anyone know why we refer to dead people as “the late”? It’s certainly useful to have a phrase for that purpose, but I can’t figure out how we arrived at “the late.”

“Late” here is used in the sense of “recently, but no longer.” Same sense of “late” is sometimes used of living persons when referring to a former residence or position. As in “Harold Ford, late of Tennessee, briefly considered running for U.S. Senate in his new state of New York.”

Good luck to Mr. Zimmer. He has some big shoes to fill.

Roger the Shrubber:
Speaking of things language, so to speak — does anyone know why we refer to dead people as “the late”?It’s certainly useful to have a phrase for that purpose, but I can’t figure out how we arrived at “the late.”

I don’t know, but I can contribute a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy quote:

“Come,” called the old man, “come now or you will be late.”

“Late, as in the late Dentarthurdent,” said the old man, sternly. “It’s a sort of threat you see.” Another wistful look came into his tired old eyes. “I’ve never been very good at them myself, but I’m told they can be very effective.”

I’m pleased to say that Ben Zimmer, a contributor to one of my favorite blogs — Language Log — will be the New York Times Magazine’s new On Language columnist, replacing the late William Safire.

Speaking of things language, so to speak — does anyone know why we refer to dead people as “the late”? It’s certainly useful to have a phrase for that purpose, but I can’t figure out how we arrived at “the late.”

But good luck to the new person in his old job.