The choice of words in some news reports about the helicopter crash on Kauai at the end of December prompted objections from a longtime journalist.
Erika Engle, a familiar face in both print and broadcast journalism (radio and tv) and now communications director for Honolulu City Councilmember Kymberly Pine, vented via Facebook, saying the proper usage of “collision” is an event between two moving objects.
In order for an aircraft to “collide” with a ridge, the ridge also would have to have been moving. A collision is between two or more moving objects. Come on broadcasters. You should be WRITERS FIRST.
As of today, her January 2, 2020 FB post had drawn 52 comments, most in support of her criticism.
I recalled the FB discussion when I saw a brief news item this week about an accident in which a car struck and killed a pedestrian in what was described in a news brief as a “collision.”
I’m no grammar expert, so I turned to Google.
The first entry returned in a Google search supported the view that a collision involves two moving objects.
Collision…an instance of one moving object or person striking violently against another.
“a midair collision between two aircraft.”Phrases
on collision course — going in a direction that will lead to a collision with another moving object or person.
And the Lexico online dictionary by Oxford agrees.
Collision. An instance of one moving object or person striking violently against another.
‘a mid-air collision between two aircraft’
But….
Mirriam Webster’s online dictionary defined “collision” as “an act or instance of colliding.”
And jumping over to the definition of “collide” served up this reference that included example phrases that seemed ignore the need for both objects to be in motion.
intransitive verb
1 : to come together with solid or direct impact
The car collided with a tree.
Two helicopters collided.
The Macmillan Dictionary Blog addresses the dispute in a post titled “Colliding with common sense and usage.”
Macmillan dismisses the “two moving objects” position as “arbitrary and unnecessary,” and provides its journalistic history.
Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage says it’s a tradition among newspaper editors, and finds it in Hyde’s 1920s Handbook for Newspaper Workers: “Only moving objects collide, and with each other. A car does not collide with a fence.” Collided also appears in the 1877 Index Expurgatorius’s banned list, but without explanation.
Later, Bill Bryson and Theodore Bernstein, among other commentators, adopted the rule. In his Dictionary for Writers and Editors, Bryson insists that collisions “can occur only when two or more moving objects come together. If a car runs into a stationary object, it is not a collision.” He says the same in his Dictionary of Troublesome Words. But in this case it’s the bogus usage rule that is troublesome: it imposes a confusing and unnecessary constraint on writers.
Experts who have researched the restriction dismiss it promptly. Robert Burchfield, in his revised edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage, says there is “no basis for such a belief” (Fowler’s original work made no mention of it). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English says the proscription is “not true” and that the unrestricted use is standard.
Any comments from other writers, editors, and journalists?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m but a simple country boy, I’d like to offer a couple of observations.
1) As Ian stated, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “collide” as an intransitive verb meaning “to come together with solid or direct impact”, and they give the example: “The car collided with a tree.” An odd definition that! Doesn’t the phrase “to come together” strongly imply an impact resulting from converging movement among two or more objects? I cannot imagine a newspaper reporting a car accident as “a tree and a car coming together with a solid impact” and just leaving it at that.
2) Burchfield in his edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage allows that cars can collide with fixed objects, but he goes on to say, “…there is a lot to be said for using “hit”. “[Two young men] died when their car hit a tree.”
3) Ian cites the Macmillan Dictionary Blog about this dispute. It’s very tasty reading and puts the whole matter into perspective. It’s one of those prescriptive versus descriptive disputes, you see.
In the maritime industry, a collision is between two moving objects (usually vessels). An allision is when a moving object (violently) hits a stationary one, e.g., a bridge, a berthed vessel, etc.
You wrote “as if today” instead of “as of today”.
😉
Thanks for catching that. I’ve got an old friend in Hilo who usually is the first to report my various typos.
In the maritime industry, a “collision” is an impact between two moving objects, like vessels under power.
An “allision” is an impact between a moving object and a stationary one, a vessel and bridge, or a moving vessel and a berthed vessel, for example.
Only important to grammarians and the insurance industry, where it’s a legal definition and apportions blame to the parties.
It’s a bit sad when journalist become “ PRists”. I wondered what happened to Erika.
Motion is relative. It is relative to a point of reference.
If your point of reference is the helicopter, it’s the ridge that’s moving, and the ridge hit the helicopter.
Sure, the point of reference is assumed, but we all know what happens when you assume (if you don’t, google Tony Randall assume).
Language usage changes and most changes are not worth fighting over. Distinctions that might be important in technical or legal situations are often not significant in ordinary communication.
The following examples are common now but were incorrect usage 30 years ago. “We surfaced issues.” “The product is releasing next week. “
I’m always a little surprised to read in the Star-Advertiser that someone was
—killed or injured after an accident,
—killed or injured after an altercation, or
—died after drowning.
Who’s killing and injuring people after accidents and fights?
If this stuff bothers Erica, I can just imagine her going apoplectic listening to Rob DeMello.
I hate to be “that guy,” but, technically, everything is in motion at all times. Maybe not at a noticeable speed, but the Earth is constantly rotating, so there’s my 4-years late smart@ss rebuttal to Erika’s attempt at a grammatical correction ????