Comments on: The Difference Between "Candidate" and "Incumbent" http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/ Joey deVilla's Personal Blog Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:06:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1-alpha-10188 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/comment-page-1/#comment-8449 Anonymous Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:54:57 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/#comment-8449 The first and third commenters are, in a word, wrong. Incumbent just can't be used in a non-specific future tense like that. It is a very specific word: the CURRENT office-holder. It does not refer to any past office-holder, nor to any future office-holder. There may or may not be an incumbent for any office, but there is never more than one. There's no such thing as a future incumbent. The incumbent is the current office-holder, as of the time period of the sentence. "GWB, the incumbent, will remain in office until January 2009." Okay. Time period of sentence = now, incumbent = current office-holder. "We're creating a new job opening today - no one currently has the job. The incumbent will be a black male between age 45 and 60." No. There is no incumbent, and future past-looking is not correct grammar. Time period of sentence = now, incumbent = no one. "In 2009, we're phasing this job out. Whoever the incumbent is at that time will have to get a new job." Okay. Time period of sentence = 2009, incumbent = office holder at that time. "The successful incumbent will have the challenging opportunity...." No. Time period = now, incumbent = no one. If you cannot replace "incumbent" with "current office-holder" in your sentence, you are not using "incumbent" correctly. The first and third commenters are, in a word, wrong. Incumbent just can’t be used in a non-specific future tense like that. It is a very specific word: the CURRENT office-holder. It does not refer to any past office-holder, nor to any future office-holder. There may or may not be an incumbent for any office, but there is never more than one. There’s no such thing as a future incumbent. The incumbent is the current office-holder, as of the time period of the sentence.

“GWB, the incumbent, will remain in office until January 2009.” Okay. Time period of sentence = now, incumbent = current office-holder.

“We’re creating a new job opening today - no one currently has the job. The incumbent will be a black male between age 45 and 60.” No. There is no incumbent, and future past-looking is not correct grammar. Time period of sentence = now, incumbent = no one.

“In 2009, we’re phasing this job out. Whoever the incumbent is at that time will have to get a new job.” Okay. Time period of sentence = 2009, incumbent = office holder at that time.

“The successful incumbent will have the challenging opportunity….” No. Time period = now, incumbent = no one.

If you cannot replace “incumbent” with “current office-holder” in your sentence, you are not using “incumbent” correctly.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/comment-page-1/#comment-8448 Anonymous Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:52:20 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/#comment-8448 If the job ad reads "The incumbent will fill out TPS forms" it would be OK. That's the future tense, when the position will be filled. Your ad copy can be interpreted like that. My pet grammarial peeve: Less vs. fewer. See http://spccard.ca/ for an egregious counter-example. This is a site for school kids. For shame. --Bob. If the job ad reads “The incumbent will fill out TPS forms” it would be OK. That’s the future tense, when the position will be filled. Your ad copy can be interpreted like that.

My pet grammarial peeve: Less vs. fewer. See http://spccard.ca/ for an egregious counter-example. This is a site for school kids. For shame.

–Bob.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/comment-page-1/#comment-8447 Anonymous Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:40:43 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/#comment-8447 While I don't think of myself as grammatically anal, I do expect a certain level of proficiency and competence in grammar for those in professional positions, for sending out announcements, etc. One example, incorrect usage of a fancy word to sound smart, was covered in your post. Another that drives me up the wall, using "I" after a preposition, instead of the required object "me". For example, "Thank you for sharing this special day with Bobo and I". It's supposed to be "with Bobo and ME", ME is the object of the preposition WITH. Using "I" as an object of a preposition just sounds like an attempt to look "smart", but instead exposes the person for the pleb that he/she is. OK, I admit it, I am a grammar snob. Even if I do make mistakes. While I don’t think of myself as grammatically anal, I do expect a certain level of proficiency and competence in grammar for those in professional positions, for sending out announcements, etc. One example, incorrect usage of a fancy word to sound smart, was covered in your post. Another that drives me up the wall, using “I” after a preposition, instead of the required object “me”. For example, “Thank you for sharing this special day with Bobo and I”. It’s supposed to be “with Bobo and ME”, ME is the object of the preposition WITH. Using “I” as an object of a preposition just sounds like an attempt to look “smart”, but instead exposes the person for the pleb that he/she is. OK, I admit it, I am a grammar snob. Even if I do make mistakes.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/comment-page-1/#comment-8446 Anonymous Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:56:23 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2006/11/03/the-difference-between-candidate-and-incumbent/#comment-8446 While I think the use of "incumbent" in job postings is pedantic (and therefore a bad thing), I don't think it's always incorrect. Say I apply for a job and get it. Then I <strong>will</strong> be the incumbent. I <strong>will</strong> be responsible for the creation of a wide range of publications and other materials to support the University of Lethbridge’s fund-raising initiatives. So some job ads use the term correctly, and others don't. Anyway, I applaud your drive to get rid of this term in job postings. All we need now is a global-replace mechanism that operates across the entire Web. While I think the use of “incumbent” in job postings is pedantic (and therefore a bad thing), I don’t think it’s always incorrect.

Say I apply for a job and get it. Then I will be the incumbent. I will be responsible for the creation of a wide range of publications and other materials to support the University of Lethbridge’s fund-raising initiatives.

So some job ads use the term correctly, and others don’t.

Anyway, I applaud your drive to get rid of this term in job postings. All we need now is a global-replace mechanism that operates across the entire Web.

]]>