While reading an article on a topic unrelated to the content of this blog post I noticed the author use the phrase "seeped in," as in "Verizon... is seeped in monopolist culture." Having no opinion as to Verizon's monopolist tendencies, instead as I read this line I wondered to myself, "Doesn't he actually mean to say "steeped in"?
For a brief moment I wondered if I should muster up the necessary indignation warranted for a missing letter. But then I continued to the reader comments at the end of the article (an act which my wife has expressly forbidden me from doing because the anonymous comments at the end of articles so quickly drive me into a mindless rage) and saw that one reader--with the clearly ironic moniker "Decorum"--had the audacity to spew this vile, hate-filled rant:
You mean "steeped in", not "seeped in".
Faced with the prospect of agreeing with this anonymous hate-monger, I questioned my original assessment. Perhaps the author of the article had NOT meant to say "steeped in." Perhaps he had indeed meant to say "seeped in."
First I did a Google search for the phrase and what I discovered is that Google really dislikes when you search for "seeped in." If you do, Google instead assumes you're an idiot and shows you the results for "steeped in." If you go so far as to search for "seeped in vs steeped in," with the two phrases quoted, Google instead shows you results for "steeped in vs steeped in." Who's the idiot now, Google?
Let's take a look at Merriam-Webster online.
The third definition of steeped is "to saturate with or subject thoroughly to (some strong or pervading influence)." The example given is "practices steeped in tradition."
The second definition of seeped is "to enter or penetrate slowly, or to become diffused or spread." The examples are: "fear of nuclear war had seeped into the national consciousness" and "a sadness seeped through his being."
First of all, the Merriam-Webster dictionary has some seriously depressing examples for the word "seep."
Second of all, upon reflection the verb "seep" seems both appropriate and problematic.
On the appropriate side, the word seep does indeed connote the slow spread of an idea or concept, such as a monopolist culture seeping through Verizon.
On the problematic side, seeped is an intransitive verb, and--like the above sentence--one assumes the correct usage would have the seeper seeping into the seepee, rather than the seepee seeping in the seeper. Or, less clearly, something seeps, but it is not seeped.
And--on the appropriate side again--what the heck did that last paragraph mean?
The underlying issue here is one of an accepted idiom overwhelming a non-accepted idiom. Simply because the common cliché is to talk about something being "steeped in" something else doesn't mean that to NOT use the cliché is inherently wrong. Now, if the alternative usage is grammatically incorrect then that's a different story altogether. But it is not inherently wrong, it is just wrong.
Recent Comments