You're probably using the word ‘revert' incorrectly

Yes, I’m sure.

‘Revert’ is not a synonym for ‘get back to’. It’s also not another word for ‘set of changes’. So when you type, “I’ll check with client and revert.” or “How many reverts does this quote include?” you’re bastardising an innocent verb.

To clarify, if something ‘reverts’, it is undone, changed to the way it was before, or (in software) rolled back. It goes back to a previous state, condition or practice: “He reverted to his native language.” Note: There is already a ‘back’ implied there, so ‘revert back’ is like saying ‘chai tea’ (i.e. redundant).

And yet… The widespread mis-use of this verb for nefarious purposes infuriates me more than those who use ‘loose’ when they mean ‘lose’.

So many people use ‘revert’ incorrectly that those, like me, who have sleepless nights about misplaced apostrophes, are marginalised. We become ‘grammar Nazis’, consigned to the realm of puritanical spelling-correcters.

The problem is that languages change with use and it’s not the fittest of the language that survives. In this respect, evolution does not always mean progress, so I believe that, eventually, the incorrect use of ‘revert’ will become standard (like ‘literally’), unless we change how we use it now.

So, please, for the continued peace of my editorial soul and, more importantly, for the future of the English language, I beg you: Use ‘revert’ properly.