Two news stories last week (21 November 2025) that appeared together on my news feed, drew attention to a bit of writing that, on one hand, makes me laugh, but on the other, demonstrates how writers can just ruin our language.
The Canberra police were seeking two men “allegedly involved in a Braddon altercation” in which one man “suffered a serious head injury”.
The Times of India, covering the first day of the Ashes (you might have missed it if you blinked) described English player, Brydon Carse and Australian player, Marnus Labuschagne as having a “heated altercation” in Perth.
The contrast of meaning is extreme—one sanitises a violent assault in Canberra while the other is a pompous description of a bit of sporting banter between players.
Origin and meaning of altercation
To “altercate” is defined by some dictionaries as to loudly argue or disagree; and by my old Oxford as to “dispute vehemently or angrily; to contend in words; to wrangle”.
For most of its history in English, an altercation referred to a verbal dispute, often in scholarly or legal contexts. It meant disagreement, not physical contact.
“Altercation” comes from Latin “altercārī” from “alter” meaning “the other person” plus “cari” meaning “to quarrel or dispute” (an element which survives only in this compound word).
Police and journalists seem to employ “altercation” because it creates an air of seriousness. It is intended to provide a level of non-judgemental formality but in reality just avoids clear language.
A participant in the Canberra “incident” receives a head injury. I am not going to come to any other conclusion than this was a violent fight between a couple of brawlers which in no way resembles a disagreement, so why describe it as an “altercation”?
The use of “altercation” to describe what can be imagined as an exchange of insults is more appropriate but still a little pompous. The exchange, starting, no doubt, with a comment by the Englishman about Lambuschagne’s reluctance to hit a difficult pitching cricket ball and his return insult regarding Carse’s inaccurate bowling is not going to require police intervention.
The interaction is further described, using a lot of syllables, as a “verbal altercation” Using “verbal” to clarify this altercation to me is a bit of a tautology (i.e. saying the same thing twice).
I would argue …
In both these cases, the result is imprecise use of language. For the writer to appear clever they have reduced the clarity of their writing. There are simpler words to describe a “violent altercation”—fight, brawl, assault, attack, punch-up; just as there are simpler words to describe a “verbal altercation”—row, dispute, exchange, argument.
“Altercation”, then, I think, is a pompous euphemism, and a poor substitute for plain English. However, if you disagree, I am willing to discuss, debate, or argue but I certainly will not altercate with you, my dear reader!