Deciding Winners and Losers Is Often a Matter of Language

Just the other night, a colleague mentioned that his sports team had won a game over the weekend even though it had been "losing at halftime."

That is a misconception that Mose never allows to pass.

You see, that guy's team was really winning throughout the game; it was never losing. The other team just happened to be leading at certain points – including halftime – during the contest.

It all goes back to those present participles, those -ing verbs. They are what an editor once described to Mose as "in the process" verbs.

That's why it's redundant to use "in the process" with a present participle. But it is not uncommon to read something like, "The government is in the process of hiring workers for the 2010 census."

The "in the process" is unnecessary; "hiring" alone implies the act is "in the process."

And so it is with winning and losing.

To say a team is losing is to say it is "in the process" of being defeated. But if it turns out the team wins, it was never losing. It was always "in the process of" winning, even though it trailed in the score during the game.

So when people enter the room while you're watching a game on TV, and they ask, "Who's winning?", you have every right – even if you know the score – to say: "I have no idea. We'll have to wait until the game is over to find out."

Try that one on your sports buddies!

Of course, it will require some explanation.

But then, if the score is 100-6, and only 6 seconds remain in the game, you can go out on a limb and project the winner.

Assuming the other team cannot pull off a 95-point play in the closing seconds.

Conditions. Always, conditions.