What, you may wonder, is a double-izzer? For one, it’s a term made up by Paul (though he may not be the only one to have thought of it, he’s the only one I know who uses it), a recent acquaintance who requested this posting, and who brought the whole matter to my attention.
But what IS a double-izzer you ask.
Well, before I tell you, try saying the word again without looking at the spelling and you may just guess: the thing IS, IS we say often these two same words together, sometimes pausing (and using a comma) and sometimes just running them together (sans comma), without even realizing how it sounds.
Have you ever heard, or said yourself, “The thing is, is that …” or “What the problem is is that …” For more double-izzer options, you can substitute “thing” or “problem” with “point” or “reason.”
Paul googled and printed out a Linguist blog from January 1992, a Disc entitled, “Is, is” – so this is not a new issue. Different bloggers on that early Internet file pointed to studies dating to the 1970’s, and to hearing/using the construction as far back as the 1950’s. Paul himself said he currently notices double-izzers all the time, particularly on TV interviews with politicians … which brings to mind the most famous (or infamous) double-izzer of them all:
The one from Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial when he said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Of course, that context and usage is entirely different from the run-of-the-mill doubler-izzers but it’s still up there for sheer originality and quest for precision.
So the question is: Is this “is, is” construction “correct?” That depends on the meaning of the word, “correct.” One of the university linguists from January 1992 refers to a 1989 paper whose author, David Tuggy, says that “is, is” is (hey—a triple izzer!) an example of an ungrammatical construction becoming technically grammatical: that by making “What the problem is” the subject, and the double “is” the verb, the sentence is technically all right. (I think that’s the gist of it). But whether or not it’s a GOOD sentence is another question.
I think the problem is that using double-izzers is along the lines of adding “um” and “uh” to give you more time to think. Consider: “The problem is, (count: one, two) is that …” It could even be related to the “like-you know” stalling-for-time structure: “The problem is like, you know, that I …”
Paul and others would probably be less bothered by clean, orderly, and clear-thinking single-izzers as in, “The answer is that (for example) you don’t have to say, ‘WHAT the answer is, is;’ you can simply delete the “what” and de-glom the initial “is” and instead just head right for the point.
The thing is, is that that’s sometimes easier said than done.
4 comments:
I liked your double-izzer treatement. (I don't like to think about step issues.)
Here's one related to the double izzer issue. What is meant when someone says, "The thing is, ...." ?
Is that informative? Does the speaker mean "The problem is . . ."? Or, rather, "The virtue of the situation is . . ."?
Really, the speakers means, "Here's something else . . ." but surely there's a more informative way of introducing the thought.
Lotsa fun! Sent it on to my listserv of writers and teachers of the slippery thing called English.
On the double-izzers, there's another way to analyze the construction. The word "what" is equivalent to "that which." For example: "The lack of a good five-cent cigar is what's wrong with this country" could be restated thus: "The lack of a good five-cent cigar is that which is wrong with this country.
So, "What the problem is, is that..." can be recast as "That which is the problem is that...," and it would make perfect grammatical sense. The defect is not so much that it's wrong as that's it's inelegant. In written English, at least, the extra "is" is altogether unnecessary.
However, in spoken English, sometimes the rhythm of the sentence trumps all other considerations. (For those of us who simply wish to be entertaining, rhythm sometimes even trumps meaning. Time and again I find myself saying something I don't really mean, simply because it sounds good.) In such cases, "is-is" would be as godly as Isis.
Thanks for the blog. I feel like a secret celebrity! The other night during the Yankees post-game show, Derek Jeter said, "The thing is, is every at-bat means something." David Justice said, "One of the things about Johnny Damon is, is his disposition." I can't help but notice these double-izzers more and more. Hopefully, your blog will bring about an awareness of this assault on the English language. Keep up the effort!
Post a Comment