Bryan Garner is without question one of our preeminent experts on English usage (also on legal usage and lexicography), and his "Usage Tip of the Day" is always welcome in my inbox. Nonetheless, I sometimes wonder if he hasn't made a mistake. Consider today's tip:
|
modern-day, a phrase that spread dramatically after 1950, is invariably inferior to modern—e.g.:
|
It seems to me that "modern" can have either of two distinct meanings. One meaning denotes time — things that are current or contemporary. The other connotation is style or fashion, meaning up-to-date. "Modern" can therefore be ambiguous in some circumstances, with "modern-day" useful as a way of expressing only the first, time-sense meaning.
In Garner's first example, it is clear that "modern-day Manhattan" means Manhattan at the current time in history, or as it is today. "Modern Manhattan," if substituted as Garner recommends, might also refer to the part of the island that is stylish, up to date, or au courant, to be distinguished from neighborhoods that are deemed old fashioned or antiquated. In other words, "modern-day Manhattan" is precise, while "modern Manhattan" is somewhat indefinite.
While I share Garner's preference for shorter phrases and pared down usage, it does seem to me — and I say this with requisite hesitation — that today's tip has missed the usefulness of modern-day.
Good point. I agree.