He Went Astray When He Used <i> Errant </i> Instead of <i> Arrant</i>

I am chagrined, to say the least. I boast that I allow myself only two errors a year, and now, according to a few astute readers, I have used up my quota for 1993 in a single column.

One of my transgressions occurred in my retelling of the old anecdote about Winston Churchill’s rebuke of an underling who presumed to correct him for ending a sentence with a preposition, the ill-advised rule against which Winston obviously despised.

I quoted the old curmudgeon as saying, in a penned note, “This is errant nonsense up with which I will not put.”

Three readers have written to point out that Churchill undoubtedly said arrant rather than errant .

“I hope it was the L. A. Times and not you that garbled the Churchill quote,” writes Fred F. Mautner of Encino. “ Errant means wandering, while Churchill correctly used arrant, which can be defined as notorious, infamous, vile.”

George Stavros of Pomona asks, “Has your source or your copy editor erred? Isn’t the phrase ‘arrant nonsense?’ The American Heritage Dictionary defines arrant as follows: ‘thoroughgoing, an arrant fool.’ Errant seems something else, having to do with wandering or straying: ‘knights-errant; but arrant youngsters.’ ”

Mike Ferguson says, “I suspect some ignorant copyreader changed your arrant to errant in the Churchill quote.”

I cannot blame an errant copyreader. I was asleep at the switch. I wrote errant. Neither can I blame my “source.” I had no source. I repeated the quote from memory. I don’t know whether the anecdote comes from some primal written source or not, or whether it has simply been handed down by word of mouth.

In fact, a case can be made for errant. American Heritage notes that arrant is “a variant of errant.” It also defines errant as meaning “wandering outside the established limits.” I myself think of arrant as meaning arrogant, which Churchill indeed might have meant.

Frank H. Ruffa of Torrance says what Churchill wrote was: “This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put,” using neither arrant nor errant. “This has been documented,” he adds, but he does not give the source. I’d like to see it.

Harder to squirm out of is a second complaint by Ferguson. After blaming an editor for my use of errant , he adds: “However, that dangling introductory modifier on the jump page is all yours, I’m afraid.”

The dangling modifier Ferguson refers to was in this reference to Churchill’s alleged use of the terminal preposition. “Until proven innocent, I will hold him guilty.”

It is I who am guilty. I doubt that I have dangled a modifier in 10 years, but that is indeed the genuine article. What I’m saying, of course, is that I will hold Churchill guilty until I am proven innocent. That was indeed errant.

According to “Modern English” (Lazarus, MacLeish and Smith) this form of dangling modifier is called a dangling elliptical clause because subject and verb (he is) are missing. They call “danglers” the most notorious of sentence structure faults.

My only defense, admittedly a weak one, is that good writers often dangle modifiers. For example, I am now reading “Legends of the Fall,” by Jim Harrison, who is described as “one of the finest American writers of his generation” on the book jacket. In his novella “Revenge,” Harrison writes as follows:

“Nearing the airport the sky over Tucson looked bloated and filthy.” Evidently Harrison meant to say, “As the airplane neared the airport, the sky over Tucson looked bloated and filthy.” Oh, well, we know what he means, just as we knew to whom I was referring when I wrote, “Until proven innocent, I will hold him guilty.”

Far less disreputable is an alleged sin attributed to me by Bob Rasmussen of Arcadia, who questions my use of “whether or not,” as in, “I don’t know whether or not it’s OK to say whether or not.”

“I have noted in other columns your willingness to use ‘whether or not.’ Although practically everyone uses ‘whether or not’ in conversation, most writers avoid the or not phrase with whether in the written word. I would like to know if you consider the avoidance of this phrase as too small a point to deal with or whether you feel a sentence is stronger or more effective with the or not addition.”

Obviously, no point is too small for me to deal with. I have written repeatedly about the alleged sin of ending a sentence with a preposition. I can only note that the sainted H. W. Fowler indicates, in “Modern English Usage,” that “whether or not” and “whether or no” are accepted English idioms.

I don’t know whether that will satisfy Rasmussen. Or not.