Saturday, June 26, 2021

Kudo - a singular kudos?

I came across today for the first time the word "kudo" as a singular noun: the context was that a book "deserves every kudo it's received so far".

I was a bit nonplussed, assuming it was just a simple error, even though it appeared in the literature section of the Globe and Mail. But, notwithstanding, I looked it up, and it turns out that it is a word (sort of), and it does merit its own dictionary entry. But mainly it is just an error. 

"Kudos" is a singular noun, in use in English since the 19th century, derived from the Greek singular noun kýdos, meaning praise or renown. It became more commonly used in the 1920s, mainly in journalistic circles, and is still most often encountered there.

Although the -os ending is common in Greek singular nouns, -s is usually a plural ending in English, so some people thought that there must be a singular noun "kudo" as well as the plural "kudos" (with the sense of one accolade among many accolades). This is clearly incorrect, but it came to be accepted - although far from universally - as an example of a linguistic phenomenon called "back formation".

Back formation (or back derivation) is the source of words like "edit" (from "editor"), "escalate" (from "escalator"), "pea" (from "pease"), "burgle" (from "burglar"), "diagnose" (from "diagnosis"), "enthuse" (from "enthusiasm"), "surveil" (from "surveillance"), "sculpt" (from "sculptor"), "orate" (from "orator"), "hawk" (from "hawker"), etc. Although firmly established in the modern English lexicon, many of these were also established out of ignorance and error, which is the worst possible reason for the adoption of a new word. I am not against the evolution of the language, but I would much prefer that it evolve for positive, constructive reasons rather than as a result of officially-sanctioned mistakes.

As for "kudo", I am not going to be adopting it any time soon, and I hope that the journalism profession eschews it too. Dictionary.com notes that, "Some usage guides warn against using them" (i.e. presumably both words).

No comments: