Forum: Author Hangout

Usage: Nerve-Racking vs Nerve-Wracking?

Vincent Berg 🚫

Just saw a NYTimes comment on the two terms, where they emphatically stated that "nerve-racking" is the only legitimate usage and that nerve-wracking is an utterly illegitimate usage—which is what you typically hear from British sources concerning any American spelling.

So, which sounds more natural to SOL authors?

Again, "racking" derives from the old Catholic torture of non-believers to force them to beg forgiveness—the same way they treated the ancient Vikings, by pouring boiling oil down down their throats until they 'accepted' Christ, at which point it was already too late.

That said, "racked" with pain makes more sense than "wracked" with pain does.

However, usage patterns how a different story, as "racking" is the traditional use (first used in 1882, while nerve-writing was only first used in 1900 and has been steading climbing every since.

The biggest argument though, is that the two are now common usage (despite what British dictionaries insist) but that nerve-wracking is viewed as being less commonly mistaken and less commonly misunderstood as well. Which seems pretty convincing for me.

Though the bigger concern, is how are readers likely to respond to the two spellings? Hence the usage question.

So, any visceral reaction to one spelling over the other?

Replies: tendertouch Bondi Beach Michael Loucks awnlee jawking Diamond Porter EricR moretea greencorsair

tendertouch 🚫

@Vincent Berg

Not really. You're 'biggest argument' is the key for me — if they're both in common usage then they should both convey the idea that the author is trying to get across. Communication happens, it's all good.

Interesting to see that wrack derives from the same source as wreak and wreck so seems equally fitting for nerve-(w)racking.

Replies: Vincent Berg

Vincent Berg 🚫

@tendertouch

My biggest concern is that often, my British English readers will interpret a particular sentence differently than was intended, so I like to compare the usages to see which is more appropriate in each case.

It may seem trivial, but not when it impedes someone's reading of the story, then it's a door-stopper.

But if no one gives a rat's furry ass about it, then it ain't worth sweating over. But I have been burned by those issues before.

That said, neither of those terms show up regularly in ANY on my stories, as those are more of a rarity than a commonality.

Replies: tendertouch solreader50

tendertouch 🚫

@Vincent Berg

My biggest concern is that often, my British English readers will interpret a particular sentence differently than was intended, so I like to compare the usages to see which is more appropriate in each case.

I mostly don't worry about this. I don't expect British authors to care whether I know that what they call football is what we call soccer, or that public school has a vastly different meaning for them than for us — understanding the differences is a learning experience for me (and public school still catches me out frequently) so understanding the differences with what I write can be a learning experience for them.

solreader50 🚫

@Vincent Berg

My biggest concern is that often, my British English readers will interpret a particular sentence differently than was intended, so I like to compare the usages to see which is more appropriate in each case.

That's not really going to be as problem with "Nerve-Racking vs Nerve-Wracking". It could be in other contexts but generally we British-English readers know that you Americans don't know how to spell properly :-)

There are a few words or grammatical constructs which are less easy to follow, and wouldn't you know none pop in to my mind right now - more the case with Western US dialects.
"Going postal" is one I had to look up. Nah. Can't find examples of what I want to say here. I may come back later.

All the web pages I looked at on differences are so obvious and well-known that I would why people bother.

Bondi Beach 🚫

@Vincent Berg

So, any visceral reaction to one spelling over the other?

I think the big problem is they are both clichés.

~ JBB

Replies: Vincent Berg

Vincent Berg 🚫

@Bondi Beach

It's a term, so in that case, "baseball player" is also a cliché, yet it's still the most apt term.

Besides, in dialogue, clichés are more apropos, while it's not in the narrative portions. Still, I tend to use common reference alongside original content, to help the reader rather than holding them back. Again, it's frequently a question of balance, as no Literary masterpiece ever earns more than an average potboiler or romance story will.

Replies: solitude

solitude 🚫

@Vincent Berg

in dialogue

In dialogue, how do you tell the difference between wracking and racking? ;-)

Michael Loucks 🚫

@Vincent Berg

Just saw a NYTimes comment on the two terms, where they emphatically stated that "nerve-racking" is the only legitimate usage and that nerve-wracking is an utterly illegitimate usage—which is what you typically hear from British sources concerning any American spelling.

There are many, many words in common use that were, at one time, 'illegitimate' in their usage. Nobody is in control of English, so it does what it wants, with no guardrails. And which English? US? International (aka British)? SubContinent? Oceaniac?

Not to mention, spelling is a complete mess due to the confluence of the Great Vowel Shift, the tail end of the Norman Conquest, and the advent of the printing press. Add in the Anglo/American divide on removing 'u' and 'z' versus 's'.

Consider the common usage of 'literally' to mean 'figuratively'. Or, 'chomping at the bit' replacing the older 'champing at the bit'. Or any of a host of other changes. I reject both, but that and $5 will get you a cup of (bad) coffee at Starbucks.

Replies: Switch Blayde tendertouch

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Michael Loucks

spelling is a complete mess due to the confluence of the Great Vowel Shift, the tail end of the Norman Conquest, and the advent of the printing press

And Webster.

Replies: Michael Loucks

Michael Loucks 🚫

@Switch Blayde

And Webster.

Him too.

tendertouch 🚫

@Michael Loucks

Consider the common usage of 'literally' to mean 'figuratively'.

I just don't get this one. I see it and wonder if the author simply has no idea what 'literally' means or if it's just hyperbole (hint, folks: they're antonyms.) I've stopped reading stories where this comes up frequently.

Replies: Michael Loucks

Michael Loucks 🚫

@tendertouch

I just don't get this one. I see it and wonder if the author simply has no idea what 'literally' means or if it's just hyperbole (hint, folks: they're antonyms.) I've stopped reading stories where this comes up frequently.

This trend actually began in the 18th century when 'literally' began to be used for emphasis, and eventually morphed into being used to mean/imply 'figuratively'.

Believe it or not, Ambrose Bierce complained about it in the early 20th century. In The Great Gatsby, F Scott Fitzgerald wrote: "He literally glowed." That was in 1925.

So, it's not only not new, it's not 'wrong' in the sense that English is a moving target and never sits still. Don't get me wrong — it grates on me, and I would never use it (except perhaps ironically), but I'm not in charge of English (for which all of you should be grateful).

Replies: tendertouch Vincent Berg

tendertouch 🚫

@Michael Loucks

So, it's not only not new, it's not 'wrong' in the sense that English is a moving target and never sits still. Don't get me wrong — it grates on me

I didn't know it was that old, but I was pretty sure it was being used in the early 20th century. But, yeah, English doesn't sit still, so it will just continue to grate on my nerves.

Vincent Berg 🚫

@Michael Loucks

Just take a look at how France governs additions to the French word. Talk about a colossal disaster, which the French routinely ignore anyway. Every time a new word in coined, like "computer", they put it before a committee who debate for months at a time, then invent a new French word which is so dense and difficult to write, pronounce and use, that even their government workers prefer the original American term. All in an attempt to keep their language 'pure'.

Replies: Michael Loucks moretea

Michael Loucks 🚫

@Vincent Berg

All in an attempt to keep their language 'pure'

How many people actually use "courriel électronique" or "message électronique" instead of email?

Or in another place with similar rules (Québec), use "chien-chaud" instead of 'hot dog'?

moretea 🚫

@Vincent Berg

Iceland does much the same thing, they invent new icelandic words instead of using loanwords from other languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_Icelandic

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Vincent Berg

In British English, according to COD 1976 it should be nerve-wracking (wrack being derived from wreck) with nerve-racking as an acceptable variant.

By COD 1999, nerve-racking etymology unexplained) was the major variant with nerve-wracking as an acceptable variant.

I was brought up to use nerve-wracking but as a proofreader/editor I wouldn't flag nerve-racking.

AJ

Diamond Porter 🚫

@Vincent Berg

If you right it the rong spelling, you must beware the retches who will ring your neck and reek havoc!

EricR 🚫

@Vincent Berg

My preference is wracking, but that's just because I learned to read before racking became more common. My reaction to "nerve-racking" will always be to flag it as a mis-spelling, despite the fact that I know it's common usage now.

moretea 🚫

@Vincent Berg

As a non-native english speaker I prefer nerve-wracking.

When I see nerve-racking my associations turn to racking up billiard balls, the cars made a racket etc and go "huh where do nerves fit in here?".

After that my imagination turns to things like tennis-rackets and wonder what they stringed them with.

Replies: LupusDei Vincent Berg

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@moretea

I will echo this. As someone who doesn't speak English at all (only read and write with zero care about spelling), calling from a ex-Soviet Nordic state, I somehow wasn't aware "nerve-racking" is a thing, and would expect "nerve-wracking" instead.

My Samsung Android phone on-display keyboard offers both as suggestions though.

ETA: said keyboard is set to English(US) currently.

Vincent Berg 🚫

@moretea

In the end, the two words are not equivalent, as it's a question of degree. As nerve-racking is essentially soething which makes you nervous, while nerve-wracking is something deeply disturbing, undermining your confidence and potentially endangering your responses.

In which case, there is no right or wrong answer, as again, it's like "one" vs. "single" (synonyms) or "pop" vs. "explode" (signifying degrees of chemical explosions).

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Vincent Berg

In the end, the two words are not equivalent, as it's a question of degree.

As an editor/proofreader, if an author used both in the same story, I would flag it as an error.

AJ

greencorsair 🚫
Updated:

@Vincent Berg

Again, "racking" derives from the old Catholic torture of non-believers to force them to beg forgiveness—the same way they treated the ancient Vikings, by pouring boiling oil down down their throats until they 'accepted' Christ, at which point it was already too late.
Really? Is this an alternative universe you are describing?
I always thought Racking came from Rack(s)as you find in Amazon.....or maybe Racking your Brain is another possibility?.....Very interesting(question).

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@greencorsair

or maybe Racking your Brain

"(w)racking your brain" falls into the same boat as "nerve (w)racking."

Reply to topic

Home | Forum | All Threads by Date

Forum Rules |

Forum: Author Hangout

Usage: Nerve-Racking vs Nerve-Wracking?

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...