WHETHER TO USE "THE SAME THAT" OR "THE SAME AS"
WHETHER TO USE FOREGO OR FORGO
WHETHER TO USE "COMPARE TO" OR "COMPARE WITH"
USING A SINGULAR OR PLURAL VERB WITH THE WORD NUMBER
WHETHER TO USE ALTERNATELY OR ALTERNATIVELY
ENDING SENTENCES WITH PREPOSITIONS
WHETHER TO USE "A VARIETY OF" VS. "VARIOUS"
WHETHER TO USE ABILITY OR CAPABILITY
CORRECTING THE USE OF "CENTER AROUND"
CORRECTING THE USE OF "A PERSON WHO NEEDS NO INTRODUCTION"
WHETHER TO USE HEALTHY OR HEALTHFUL
WHETHER TO USE BETWEEN OR AMONG
HOW TO AVOID FREE-FLOATING PHRASES
THINGS AREN'T ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM
USING PUNCTUATION WITH QUOTATION MARKS
WHETHER TO USE PARAMETER OR PERIMETER
DECLINE OF THE PROMISCUOUS COMMA
USING COMMAS WITH THE WORD "THAT"
SUPERFLUOUS COMMAS IN COMPOUND SENTENCES
WHAT'S WRONG WITH "BEGGING THE QUESTION"
DEFINING AN UNQUALIFIED QUALITY
USING HAVE GOT, GOTTA, AND HAVE GOTTEN
WHETHER TO USE CONTINUAL OR CONTINUOUS
WHETHER TO USE PROVEN OR PROVED
WHETHER TO USE "NONE IS" OR "NONE ARE"
WHETHER TO USE "PRINCIPLE" OR "PRINCIPAL"
USING "IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING"
WHETHER TO USE FOREGO OR FORGO
BAD SPLIT INFINITIVES AND THEIR AVOIDANCE
HOW TO USE THE WORD ALSO: A POSITION-SENSITIVE WORD
WHETHER TO USE ALRIGHT OR ALL RIGHT
WHETHER TO USE IMPORT OR EXPORT
SAME THAT AND SAME AS--PART 2 OF 2
We saw yesterday that ""samethat"" contains a built-in redundancy. But what about ""sameas""? When is it correct? The answer is, whenever the things being equated in a sentence are (at least nominally) distinct: ""Autumn is the same season as fall."" ""The cubic root of 64 is the same mathematically as the square of 2."" ""Life is the same now as it ever was."" The first example equates two names for the same season; the second establishes a mathematical equivalence; and the third matches two time periods and pronounces them identical. Notice, however, that ""sameas"" does not work with comparisons of actions: Wrong: ""I am doing the same things as you are doing."" Right: ""I am doing all the things that you are doing."" Right: ""I am doing exactly what you are doing.""
The placement of an adverb can affect the meaning of your sentence. Be sure you're saying what you intend: ""Runty is my only dog."" (I have no other.) ""Runty is only my dog."" (He isn't very important.) ""Runty is my dog only."" (I don't share ownership.) ""Only Runty is my dog."" (That other dog belongs to someone else.)
""Compare to"" occurs in metaphorical or general comparisons and usually implies a resemblance: ""Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"" ""Compare with"" is more precise. It means to examine for specific resemblance or difference: ""Responsible shoppers will compare prices at the mall with prices for the same figurine online.""
If ""number"" is preceded by ""the,"" it takes a singular verb; if it's preceded by ""a,"" make the verb plural. ""The number of green jellybeans in each box is decreasing."" ""A number of jellybean aficionados are picketing the theater.""
""Alternate"" arose in English as a verb, meaning to occur or to switch between possibilities or choices by turns: ""I alternate having cigarettes and beer so I won't get sick of either."" Much later, ""alternate"" came into the language as a noun meaning a deputized substitute, first in the sense of political representative and later in a quasi-metaphorical sense: ""The regular bus route will be unavailable while Main Street is being repaved, so we need to devise an alternate."" Unfortunately, as this second example shows, ""alternate"" as a noun encroaches on the territory of ""alternative""--a course of action that can be chosen in place of another. This becomes most problematic in sentences involving adverbial forms of the two words.
ALTERNATELY AND ALTERNATIVELY--PART 2 OF 2
An instruction sheet reads: ""Turn on your computer and follow the prompts for installing the new software. Alternately click 'no' in response to the prompts and set up a custom configuration."" If we understand ""alternately"" literally, the instructions say to click 'no' in response to one prompt and then to switch and click 'yes' in response to the next prompt, and so on in successive switches. By alternating between clicking 'no' and clicking 'yes,' the user will successfully set up a custom configuration. But it is somewhat more likely that the word the instructions' author intended was ""alternatively"": Instead of following the prompts, a user can click 'no' in response to them and then set up a custom configuration. The key is to say ""alternately"" when you mean ""back and forth"" and ""alternatively"" when you mean ""or instead.""
It's often tempting to let ""this"" and ""that""
go off to print without a specific antecedent. Resist. Great joy often
comes from pinning down that specific term and establishing clarity. ""The
three former classmates remain close today. This [enduring friendship]
holds our only hope for improved international relations."" ""The doctor
attributed Carla's tinnitus to her recent consumption of lobster. According
to recent studies, that [type of reaction] is not uncommon among vegetarians
who eat flesh.""
Wynnskis Note - ref·er·ent n. Something that refers, especially a linguistic item in its capacity of referring to a meaning.
Feeling inclined to wax wordy? Suffering from word bloat? Here's the latest blab report and the results after liposuction. Flab/blab sighting: ""isn't without"" The trim: ""has"" Flab/blab sighting: ""possible scenario"" The trim: ""scenario"" Flab/blab sighting: ""potential hazard"" The trim: ""hazard"" Flab/blab sighting: ""advance warning"" The trim: ""warning"" Flab/blab sighting: ""preparation beforehand"" The trim: ""preparation"" Flab/blab sighting: ""gain access to"" The trim: ""reach"" Flab/blab sighting: ""give a boost to"" The trim: ""boost""
In midcentury English classes, students were taught to excise end-of-sentence prepositions ruthlessly. The preferred method was to lop them off and bury them somewhere in the middle of the sentence with the help of a stodgily avuncular ""which"" or ""whom"": Natural: ""Would you mind telling me which dictionary you found 'widdershins' in?"" Stilted: ""Would you mind telling me in which dictionary you found 'widdershins'?"" Natural: ""That's the insane whistler I was telling you about."" Stilted: ""That's the insane whistler about whom I was telling you."" In spoken English, almost no one uses the artificial approach except under compulsion in secondary school and college. As the preceding examples show, the natural formulations don't suffer from incoherence or ambiguity--indeed, they're easier to follow than the stilted versions. Good writing delivers the ideas you want to convey without forcing your reader to think about the vehicle you transported them in.
We frequently encounter sentences like this one: ""If you have any questions, please direct them to myself, Fred, or Ethel."" The correct wording is ""to Fred, Ethel, or me."" Think of it this way: I'm the only person who can direct things to myself because no one else is myself. Lacking that intimate association, everyone else in the world has to deal with me, not with myself.
A reader inquires why the first sentence below (quoted from a previous tip) uses a comma after the prepositional phrase while the second does not: ""The behaviorist said that with a little training, the puppy could be convinced not to eat the shag carpeting."" ""She believes that in three weeks he will be cured of his destructive ways."" Says the percipient reader, ""Could you please explain what the difference is? It would be helpful if in your tips you could explain the rule of grammar that the tip is based on."" Agreed, and thanks for the reminder. We myopically focused on the propriety of omitting a comma after ""that,"" blithely neglecting to discuss the prepositional phrase that follows. Here's our rationale for the inconsistent treatment in these two specific cases: The first sentence runs on and becomes graceless in the absence of punctuation (""with a little training the puppy""). In contrast, the second reads smoothly and coherently without interior punctuation. Decision making in this syntactic terrain is determined not by a hard-and-fast rule of grammar but rather by intuition and empathy for your reader. Sometimes the phrase calls for a comma, sometimes not. In such a discretionary situation, trust your ear.
A sports columnist writes: ""I wouldn't be at all surprised if Stanford didn't go down to Tucson next month and beat Arizona on its home court."" We, on the contrary, would be very surprised if Stanford could beat any team on the latter's home court without going to the town where that court is located. The problem with the sentence above is that the author is so intent on making clear his lack of surprise at a certain prospective turn of events that he has doubled the number of negatives he needs to express the idea. Change ""didn't go"" to ""went"" and you have the sentence as our journalist meant it.
Keep your eye out for inequities of construction, where items in a series receive different treatment. The following headline crossed our desk recently: ""It's luscious, it's lucrative, and surprisingly low-risk."" What's wrong here? Two of the adjectives are preceded by a subject and verb, but the third is not. Either EACH adjective needs its own subject and verb, or all three adjectives may share one subject and verb. But two haves and one have-not add up to an ungrammatical construction. Both of the following solutions are correct: ""It's luscious, it's lucrative, and it's surprisingly low-risk."" ""It's luscious, lucrative, and surprisingly low-risk."" In the second case, the pronoun ""It's"" serves as subject and verb for all three adjectives.
SINS OF OMISSION--PART 2 OF 3
Here's another type of malconstruction that blew into town recently: ""As a house pet, the lobster is as friendly or even friendlier than the hyrax."" Be careful not to ask one word (""than"") to serve in two capacities, one of which is not grammatical. ""As friendly"" must be followed by another ""as."" Once again, two cures are available. ""As a house pet, the lobster is as friendly as or even friendlier than the hyrax."" To make the sentence less stilted, try transposing the object so it follows the first comparison: ""As a house pet, the lobster is as friendly as the hyrax or even friendlier.""
SINS OF OMISSION--PART 3 OF 3
One locution popular among reporters is the unspecified ""some"" and ""others,"" as in ""Some enjoy a life outdoors, while others prefer the safety and security of a roof and four walls."" Some what--nematodes? giraffes? Writers have no excuse for making statements that leave their subjects unidentified and (except in the vaguest possible terms) unidentifiable. If the person or thing has any distinguishing characteristics, help your reader out by passing them along. Meanwhile readers are advised to make the following interpolation wherever an omission of this type occurs: ""But this may only be a public relations gesture, some [cynical cronies of the reporter who hang around in a bar together and share the same opinions on just about everything] say.""
""On our trip to the Seychelles we saw a variety of fish found nowhere else in the world."" Clear writing seeks to avoid needless ambiguity. Here, the reader has no way of telling whether the writer saw one particular variety of fish found nowhere else in the world or many different (that is, ""various"") fish found nowhere else in the world. A similar though less extreme problem arises when the sentence involves objects less numerically inscrutable than, say, fish or sheep: ""The factory had a variety of machines we had never seen before."" ""The factory had a variety of machine we had never seen before."" The key to correctly interpreting these two sentences lies in the number of the object (""machines"" versus ""machine"" in this case). But since you gain nothing in style or substance by using the pause-inducing ""a variety of"" when you could use ""various,"" we recommend saving it for situations where a single type of thing is intended.
Be alert for constructions like the following, which bulk up your word count without expanding your meaning: - By their very nature - For one thing - Be sure to - You'll also want to - In other words - Incidentally - As a matter of fact - Not to belabor the point You can probably perform liposuction on all these phrases and still keep your meaning intact.
FLAB AND BLAB SIGHTINGS--PART 2 OF 2
Train your eye to spot bloated constructions like those listed below. You can deftly convert them to lean and rippling muscle. Bloated: help mitigate Lean: mitigate Bloated: a large number of Lean: many Bloated: a veritable plethora of Lean: numerous Bloated: the drive features a handy exchange capacity that Lean: the drive's handy exchange feature Writers have been known to mistake wordiness for charm. Is your intention to beguile or to inform?
An aptitude, skill, or power to do something is an ability. A potentiality for development or deployment is a capability. Thus: ""Hortense has the ability to drive men wild by imitating a fulvous tree duck."" ""Saudi Arabia's oil reserves have the capability to fuel 100 million SUVs for another 50 years."" In many instances, the territories of ""power to do something"" and ""potentiality to do something"" overlap. In such cases, it may be worth observing that ""ability"" is three letters (and one syllable) shorter than ""capability""; whether that makes it more attractive or less attractive to your ear will probably determine which of the two words you choose.
ABILITY VS. CAPABILITY--PART 2 OF 2
Some commentators have argued that only living things have abilities and that capabilities are properly limited to mechanical contrivances. But this distinction strikes us as artificial: A working watch has the ability (that is, the inherent power, not merely the potentiality) to count seconds accurately. And conversely, people have the capability to make mistakes (that is, they are susceptible to erring, not possessed of a special power to blunder).
The phrase ""needless to say"" has become so familiar, one can easily overlook its propensity to be silly. If it really doesn't need to be said, don't say it. If it needs to be said, don't say ""needless to say."" Wrong: ""Needless to say, we will all miss Arnold's friendly way with the honeybees."" Right: ""We will all miss Arnold's friendly way with the honeybees.""
""The discussion centered around closed geometrical figures."" Geometry is indeed the source of our objection to ""centered around"": A circle's center can't go around anything because it's a point--an entity with no dimensionality at all. For a more logical image, use ""centered on"" or ""revolved around.""
Here's another oft-used (and oft-misused) phrase that has insinuated itself into our semantic culture. Linguistically illogical, the phrase ""a person who needs no introduction"" is often followed immediately by an introduction: ""I am honored to present to you today a person who needs no introduction: the past president of the Little Daughters of South Brogg, founder of the South Brogg Marionette Club, discoverer of a way to say TOMATO without moving your lips, and supernumerary of the South Brogg Bog Preservation Society. I give you Alice Bettersmith."" Idiom helps us understand that the speaker means, ""I'm going to say some flattering words about someone already well-known to you."" Though you're unlikely to be laughed off the dais if you utter the phrase and then introduce someone, you may prefer to snicker-proof yourself and avoid it.
""This boiled burdock is a tasty, healthy vegetable."" ""If it's so healthy, how come it looks dead?"" The problem in this conversation is that the first speaker uses ""healthy"" to mean ""beneficial to health""--that is, ""healthful."" These days, advertisers characterize everything from dead organic material (""a healthy whole-grain cereal"") to inanimate objects (""a healthy rowing machine"") with a word whose primary meaning is ""enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit: well."" Ever prepared to sabotage useful distinctions between words, Webster's supplies as its third definition of ""healthy"" the brief phrase ""conducive to health."" So if you want to use ""healthy"" to mean ""healthful,"" Webster's will back you all the way; in fact it returns the favor to ""healthful"" by making its second definition ""healthy."" But why would you want to ignore the clear-cut difference between these two words that their respective primary definitions maintain?
Didn't Miss Watson in third grade teach you to use ""between"" with two items and ""among"" with more than two? Clear and simple. ""The fair-minded gangster divided the loot evenly between his two henchmen."" ""The poodle raced among the sunbathers looking for his ball."" Today, life is more complicated, and you can pick your source and diverge from Miss Watson's rule if you wish. That bastion of correctness, Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate Dictionary, refers to the ""persistent but unfounded rumor that BETWEEN can be used only of two items and that AMONG must be used for more than two,"" citing, among other examples, ""between you and me and the lamppost."" The ""Associated Press Stylebook"" generally sides with Miss Watson's view but agrees with Webster's that ""between"" is correct when denoting one-to-one relationships, regardless of the number of items. For example: ""The will apportioned the money evenly between the five brothers."" Advice: You're probably safest sticking with Miss Watson, but don't strain your idiom. When common sense and your ear seem to call for a deviation, deviate--please.
A few months ago, we offered a tip that argued against the expression ""a myriad of"" on grounds that the adjective ""myriad"" doesn't require an ""a"" and an ""of"" around it. A reader objects as follows: ""I looked 'myriad' up in two of my dictionaries, and it was listed as NOUN in both before also [being listed] as an adjective."" The reader is correct that ""myriad"" can be a noun. According to Webster's unabridged Third New International Dictionary, the primary meaning of ""myriad"" as a noun is ""the number of ten thousand: ten thousand persons or things--used esp. in translations from Greek and Latin."" Thus you might read in a translation of Xenophon something like ""The Hellenes divided their hoplites into battle units ranging in number from fifty to myriad."" But as much as we love Xenophon, Herodotus, Suetonius, and Sallust, we suspect that most writers who employ ""myriad"" aren't using it in the course of translating some ancient author and in fact aren't using it to refer to ""the number of ten thousand"" at all. Instead, they mean it in its primary adjectival sense: ""consisting of a very great but indefinite number."" That's why our earlier tip focused on the adjective ""myriad,"" and our central point remains valid: Just as you wouldn't say ""a ten thousand of reasons,"" you shouldn't say ""a myriad of reasons.""
MYRIAD REVISITED--PART 2 OF 3
In our last tip, we reviewed a reader's attempt to justify using ""a myriad of"" on grounds that ""myriad"" is primarily a noun and only secondarily an adjective. Now let's put the shoe on the other foot and ask where the reader would ever find use for ""myriad"" as an adjective after rejecting it in the following natural case: ""There are myriad reasons for doing what you like."" One obvious opportunity would be in this construction: ""The reasons for doing what you like are myriad."" But if you insist on ""There are a myriad of reasons"" in the first example, why would you be inclined to forgo ""the reasons are a myriad"" here? In fact, it's extremely difficult to formulate any example using the adjective ""myriad"" in which the nominative constructions ""a myriad,"" ""a myriad of,"" or ""myriad of"" could not claim squatter's rights under the reader's regime.
MYRIAD REVISITED--PART 3 OF 3
As a final way of coming to grips with ""myriad"" the adjective and ""myriad"" the noun, let's consider them in light of ""infinite"" the adjective and ""infinity"" the noun. Because ""infinite"" and ""infinity"" have different spellings, we can be clearer than in the case of ""myriad"" about how we intend to use the word in a sentence. Now consider the following alternatives: ""There are infinite reasons for doing what you like."" ""There are an infinity of reasons for doing what you like."" ""The reasons for doing what you like are infinite."" ""The reasons for doing what you like are an infinity."" In these examples, the first construction in each pair is clearly the better choice--and indeed using the collective noun in these instances is dubious. The same is true if you replace the adjective ""myriad"" for ""infinite"" and the noun ""myriad"" for ""infinity.""
What's wrong with the following sentences? ""The cloak costs just $40, making it a great deal."" ""The dachshund maintains a nonstop smile, landing her in first place."" The participle phrases at the end of the two sentences have no moorings--they don't attach structurally to the first part of their respective sentences. Nothing in the sentences is doing the ""making"" or the ""landing."" You can edit the syntax to eliminate that problem: ""The cloak's $40 price makes it a great deal."" ""The dachshund's nonstop smile lands her in first place."" Watch for such orphan phrases, and incorporate them into the structure of the sentence when you find them.
Whatever the merits of adopting the plural pronoun in connection with a hypothetical individual to avoid gender bias--as in ""Anyone could have seen what was going to happen if they'd just thought about it for a moment""--the extension of this idiom to corporate entities serves no useful purpose: ""Oxtex has closed three plants in the industrial midwest, and they expect to close five more by the end of the year."" Oxtex is an it, not a he, she, or they. If you want to attribute specific actions to people within the company, use a suitable human identifier such as ""executives,"" ""management,"" or ""workers"": ""Oxtex has closed three plants in the industrial midwest, and company executives expect to close five more by the end of the year."" There, now you've humanized it.
In writing, irony arises when something works on two levels simultaneously, in such a way that the submerged meaning is at cross-purposes with the literal meaning: ""Repealing child labor laws and jailing people for debt were two of his libertarian ideas."" When handled deftly, irony draws its power from the perceptiveness of your readers. But if you plan to treat your readers as your confederates, you have to respect their ability to discover irony on their own. In particular, you should avoid the temptation to use embedded cue cards to signal your intention. Putting quotation marks around a word that you intend facetiously or adding a parenthetical ""sic"" afterward overwhelms the delicate observation of irony with a flurry of winks and nudges: ""Repealing child labor laws and jailing people for debt were two of his 'libertarian' ideas."" ""Repealing child labor laws and jailing people for debt were two of his libertarian [sic] ideas."" If you think the word ""libertarian"" sounds ironic in this context, don't use a blunt instrument to call attention to your opinion. Let the irony stand on its own. The readers who matter most to you will see the joke, too.
""Edith said her plane had a near miss with a disk-shaped hovering craft."" If something's a ""near miss,"" then it almost missed, right? And if it almost missed, then it must have hit, right? Shouldn't the term be ""near collision""? Not so fast. ""Near miss"" may have begun life as a misnomer, but by now it enjoys the validity of long use: ""Near miss,"" says Webster's, also means ""near collision,"" a close call. So stifle that righteous derision. Uncurl that upper lip. Suppress that scoff. Congratulate Edith on her narrow escape, and be of good cheer.
When was the former president not former? The answer is ""When he was still the current president, or before he ever became president."" Consequently, ""former"" is correct in only the first of the following three examples: ""Former President Carter served as an unofficial observer at elections in Nicaragua and Indonesia."" ""Former President Ford appointed Justice Stevens to the Supreme Court."" ""Former President Reagan hosted the popular TV show 'Death Valley Days' before turning to politics."" Carter was no longer president at the time of the action described in the first sentence; Ford was in office when he made the appointment mentioned in the second sentence; and Reagan was not yet a politician during the period cited in the third sentence. The correct time frames are reflected by ""former President Carter,"" ""then-President Ford,"" and ""future President Reagan."" Beware of anachronistic language such as ""the breakup of the former Soviet Union""; after all, nobody talks about the decline and fall of the former Roman Empire.
Commas and periods go inside quotation marks: ""Harold has a greenish tinge to his skin,"" his mother explained. Dr. Bleb replied, ""I can see that.""
PUNCTUATION WITH QUOTATION MARKS--PART 2 OF 3
The exclamation point and question mark go inside quotation marks if they're part of the quote; otherwise they go outside: ""Stop talking about me as if I weren't here!"" shouted Harold. In a contrite voice, the haughty surgeon actually said, ""I'm sorry""! ""So you will help us?"" Mrs. Apsted asked. But why had he crossed his fingers when he said ""I'm sorry""?
PUNCTUATION WITH QUOTATION MARKS--PART 3 OF 3
Colons and semicolons go outside quotation marks: Dr. Bleb read aloud from a pamphlet titled ""Greenish Skin"": ""The quality of greenness,"" he intoned, ""is related to navicular hyperefficiency."" He seemed to think Mrs. Apsted would understand ""navicular hyperefficiency""; he used the term repeatedly, waving his hands about.
In his book on the geometrical properties of conic sections, Apollonius of Perga used ""parameter"" to refer to the line segment of arbitrary length that defined the sizes and positions of an associated set of planar entities--circle circumference, ellipse foci, hyperbola magnitudes, etc. Drawing from this and later mathematical meanings of the word, statisticians and social scientists appropriated ""parameter"" to serve as a fancy way of saying ""element,"" ""factor,"" or ""characteristic."" Meantime, ""perimeter"" has a mathematical meaning of its own--the boundary of a closed geometrical figure--and an associated metaphorical meaning of ""outer limits."" Thus, parameter = characteristic perimeter = boundary Confusion arises when people unfamiliar (or imperfectly familiar) with ""parameter"" use it to mean ""perimeter,"" as in: ""That goes outside the parameters of the paradigm we've been tasked with elaborating.""
The role of commas to demarcate separate clauses of a sentence has changed dramatically over the past two centuries. Long ago, commas functioned almost as sentence-diagramming punctuation. Here's an example by James Madison from ""The Federalist Papers"": ""ought not suspicion herself to blush, in pretending that the representatives of the United States, elected FREELY by the WHOLE BODY of the people, every SECOND YEAR, cannot be safely intrusted with the discretion over such appropriations, expressly limited to the short period of TWO YEARS?"" In the next tip, we'll look at the same sentence with modern punctuation in place.
DECLINE OF THE PROMISCUOUS COMMA--PART 2 OF 2
In modern English, commas serve chiefly to identify parallel structures or stress significant natural pauses in a sentence. In long sentences that include significant interruptions in the primary argument, we often use dashes in place of commas to signal the intensity or abruptness of the shift. Thus, we might punctuate Madison's statement (from the previous tip) as follows: ""ought not suspicion herself to blush in pretending that the representatives of the United States--elected FREELY by the WHOLE BODY of the people every SECOND YEAR--cannot be safely intrusted with the discretion over such appropriations, [considering that these are] expressly limited to the short period of TWO YEARS?"" The goal of this punctuation is simply to make the sentence's meaning as clear as possible on first reading.
Do not use a comma before or after the conjunction ""that"" in sentences like this: Wrong: ""The behaviorist said that, with a little training, the puppy could be convinced not to eat the shag carpeting."" Right: ""The behaviorist said that with a little training, the puppy could be convinced not to eat the shag carpeting."" Wrong: ""She believes that, in three weeks, he will be cured of his destructive ways."" Right: ""She believes that in three weeks he will be cured of his destructive ways.""
Do not use a comma after ""and"" in compound sentences like the following: Wrong: ""Dr. Fybish delivered the third triplet, and, as he placed her in the incubator, he saw the baby wink at him."" Right: ""Dr. Fybish delivered the third triplet, and as he placed her in the incubator, he saw the baby wink at him."" Wrong: ""We were paired for the paso doble, and, before the music ended, I knew we would spend the rest of our life together."" Right: ""We were paired for the paso doble, and before the music ended, I knew we would spend the rest of our life together.""
A reader writes to ask about the correct usage of the phrase ""begging the question"": ""Many people say that something 'begs the question' when they mean that it 'leads naturally to the question [insert question here].' But that's not how it used to be used. I think it's some kind of rhetorical move that avoids dealing directly with a question, but I'd like to know exactly."" Actually, using ""begs the question"" to mean ""begs for someone to ask the question"" is a recent innovation two steps removed from the original meaning of the phrase. Since it is based on a misunderstanding of the original phrase's meaning, we advise you not to use it in this sense. Look for more on ""begging the question"" in our next tip.
BEGGING THE QUESTION--PART 2 OF 2
Here's what Wilson Follett of ""Modern American Usage"" says about this phrase: ""Begging the question: not to be used when one has a feeling that the other's argument is unfair. It means only: using as an argument some disguised form of the proposition to be proved; e.g., if the issue is the immorality of cannibalism, the argument 'How can such savages be moral when they kill people in order to eat them?' begs the question."" Jim W. Corder of ""Handbook Of Current English"" observes the following: ""Begging the question. This term applies to an argument that assumes the truth of what needs to be proved. A politician who argues 'Our feeble county government, desperately in need of reform, must be placed in new hands on election day' is begging the question unless he PROVES that the present government is feeble and in need of reform."" We think Corder's definition is clearer but Follett's example is stronger.
""What"" should be followed by a singular verb unless it has a compellingly plural antecedent, as in the third example below. ""What fascinates him is people who double-park."" ""The twins are what is known in my family as Nosy Parkers."" ""My students play a lot of what are called reindeer games.""
""We sell only quality pre-owned cars!"" ""Hydrogen-Powered Dirigibles--the first name in quality!"" ""If you've got the quantity, we've got the quality!"" Yes, but exactly what ""quality"" is that? The joyously vague promise of these sales pitches quickly sours if we attach specific attributes to them. The precise quality of the used cars may be ""barely running."" The key quality of the blimps may be ""high combustibility."" The fundamental quality of the sellers in the third sentence may be ""unmitigated gall."" If you mean ""high-quality,"" say it; otherwise, we encourage readers to fill in the implicit blank before ""quality"" with ""wretched.""
Can you name the only three English words that end in ""ceed""? How about the only English word that ends in ""sede""? (Thank you, ""Words Into Type""!) exceed proceed succeed supersede Other words pronounced the same way end in ""cede"": accede antecede concede precede intercede recede secede
Noted grammarian Hank Williams sang, ""If you've got the money, honey, I've got the time."" Noted Animal Eric Burden sang, ""We gotta get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do."" And noted artiste Leonard Cohen intoned, ""and I hear from the nurse that he's gotten much worse, and his practice is all in a ruin."" All three lyrics sound natural to the ear, but on paper Hank's invitation runs two ""gots"" too long: ""have got"" means the same thing as ""have."" Eric's plaint, meanwhile, separates into ""We got to get out of this place""--which means we were permitted to get out of this place. What he intends is ""We have got to get out"" or more simply, ""We have to get out."" Leonard does it the right way. Webster's notes tersely that ""gotten"" is the past participle of ""get,"" and that's precisely how the original sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll poet uses the word here.
""Continual"" implies a prolonged succession or repetition. ""Continuous"" refers to an uninterrupted flow. ""The continual round of late-night parties took its toll on Edward's disposition. Eventually, the continuous happy chatter from the kitchen drove him insane.""
Webster's observes that ""proven"" sidled into English from Scotland centuries ago as a variant of ""proved"" favored by lawyers and metrical poets. As recently as the 1950s, ""proven"" was three or four times less common than ""proved."" Times have changed. Today, few people object to ""a proven remedy"" or ""a proven method,"" though a fastidious few demand to know ""who proven it?"" Obviously, ""proven"" doesn't work--yet--as a simple past tense. It also remains on somewhat shaky ground in certain verb combinations like these two: ""I have just proven that you can trisect the angles of an inscribed pentagon."" ""North's guilt was clearly proven, but the appeals court ruled that some evidence used in the proof may have been improperly obtained."" Webster's notes that ""proven"" is rapidly taking market share away from ""proved"": ""As a past participle 'proven' is now about as common as 'proved' in all contexts. As an attributive adjective 'proven' is much more common than 'proved.'"" Our judgment: As an adjective, ""proven"" is a proven success; as a verb, it's no improvement on ""proved.""
Contrary to what many of us learned in school, ""none"" doesn't always take a singular verb and doesn't always mean ""not one."" More often, it means ""none of them"" and takes a plural verb: ""None of Edward's friends speak of the tragedy."" If the meaning is ""no amount"" or ""none of it,"" the word takes a singular verb: ""None of Edward's inheritance is forthcoming."" Several current grammar books say if you really do mean ""not one,"" it's better to say so and use a singular verb: ""Not one of the checks has cleared.""
The old mnemonic that a ""principal"" is your pal (that is, a nice person with an important job in the administrative hierarchy of a school) always seemed bogus to us: We never had a principal who was a pal. On the other hand, we could argue that the ethical tenets by which we attempt to comport ourselves haven't exactly been our pals either. Here's how to spell ""principle"" and ""principal"" when you have the following nouns in mind: - Big shot in a school or business: principal - Money you try to leave alone so you can earn interest on it: principal - Rule of conduct: principle Perhaps the most common confusion arises when people try to spell the word that means ""primary,"" ""central,"" or ""most important."" That word is ""principal."" In fact, ""principle"" is a noun, not an adjective. So remember, an adjective is your pal.
""Gonzo wannabe"" may sound like a variety of green horseradish paste, but it's actually someone who wishes to emulate the breezy, rule-flouting writing style of Hunter S. Thompson, P. J. O'Rourke, hordes of rock critics, and practically everyone who writes for Wired magazine. Webster's sweetly defines ""gonzo"" as ""idiosyncratically subjective but engage."" Unfortunately, writing that trades on its own novelty risks becoming insufferably tedious when it grows familiar and formulaic. Gonzo writing has two tenets: Use up-to-date slang and err on the side of excess. The result is writing that pleases teenagers and other aspiring hipsters and has the shelf life of organic bread. Great writers from Aristophanes to Swift to Twain have used exaggeration to heighten the absurdity of those they despise and to express forcefully their moral outrage. Gonzo journalists demonstrate that the same techniques can be used to draw attention away from their subjects and toward themselves. Unless this prospect is appealing to you, you should probably avoid the gonzo path.
GONZO WANNABE WRITING--PART 2 OF 2
One of the best pieces of advice in Strunk and White's ""The Elements Of Style"" is ""Prefer the standard to the offbeat."" This and kindred suggestions--""Do not overstate,"" ""Avoid fancy words,"" and ""Do not affect a breezy manner""--amount to a repudiation of the entire gonzo ethos. The point of these strictures is that good writing begins with simplicity and accessibility and achieves excellence through the cumulative force of its character and ideas. Not surprisingly, Strunk and White have become particular targets of hostile wordsmiths who treasure overstatement, gaudy words, affected breeziness, and the cachet of postmodern bohemianism that comes with breaking the rules. ""Wired Style,"" a revisionist take on writing style for the digital age, expresses the gonzo view most bluntly: ""Screw the Rules."" Of course, this dictum applies equally to the writer who knows the rules but rejects them and to the writer who doesn't know them but doesn't care. We suggest that you ponder one question before embarking on a literary life of gonzohood: If you don't know the rules, how do you know what you're breaking?
If it really goes without saying, don't say it. On the other hand, if it goes with saying, don't say ""it goes without saying."" Wrong: ""It goes without saying, Arnold is the best dog for the job."" Right: ""Arnold is the best dog for the job.""
""Not to mention"" doesn't mean you're not going to mention whatever it is. It means that the thing you're about to mention is at least as important as the item(s) previously enumerated, probably more so. ""Milton was attracted by Louise's downcast eyes and modest smile, not to mention her vast fortune."" It goes without saying, ""not to mention"" should be mentioned infrequently.
A reader writes to complain about the trivialization of the word ""community"" through such meaningless constructions as ""AberBid.com targets the high-performance computer upgrade community."" As he notes, people who form genuine communities have strong social bonds, live in a particular area, share an interest in identifiable cultural artifacts and activities, and often act in unison on political issues. They don't just happen to drive the same brand of car. Advertisers and publicists have been known to latch onto words imbued with connotations of warmth, integrity, and esteem--words like ""values,"" ""culture,"" and ""community""--and systematically pillage them. Eventually only the husk of the word remains, together with a set of unsavory associations acquired in the course of its devaluation. You need look no further than those two fine words ""republican"" and ""democrat."" We urge you to resist taking the names of meaningful words in vain. In return, we promise not to think of you as part of the grammar tips community.
""Forego"" with an ""e"" means to go before, to precede. You're probably most familiar with the word in its past tense, as in ""foregone conclusion""--a conclusion reached in advance. ""Forgo"" without an ""e"" means to do without. ""You agree to forgo any further embezzlement of my trust?"" asked Louise. ""My incapacity foregoes my promise,"" replied Milton, in handcuffs. Puzzled, Louise turned and left the courtroom.
As we've noted in previous tips, the old rule that forbade splitting
infinitives under any circumstances--as in ""to boldly go where no man
has gone before""--has lost its authority. That doesn't mean, however,
that all splits are now okay. Consider this specimen:
""Glump Enterprises designed the Digital DustStorm to also cover your
tracks as you surf the Web.""
Splitting an infinitive to accommodate transition words such as ""also""
is never a good idea. Neither is it excusable to under the spell of
whatever fancy may momentarily have enthralled you and seemed as it
were to impetuously, nay, imperiously beg you to slyly or boldly
interpolate something important between the ""to"" and the verb split
infinitives with multiword digressions. Finally the infinitive is a
poor place to express hesitancy about your purpose:
""I come not to praise Caesar but to, um, well, bury him.""
The day of the knee-jerk condemnation of split infinitives is done.
Let's not replace it with an era of incoherent infinitive anarchy.
Yesterday we looked at the quotation below as an example of a sentence
with a bad split infinitive:
""Glump Enterprises designed the Digital DustStorm to also cover your
tracks as you surf the Web.""
Now let's focus on how the effect of ""also"" changes depending on where
it appears in the sentence. The word can establish four possible
connections; we'll look at two today and two more tomorrow. In its
current position, ""also"" implies that the previous sentence has
already named one thing Glump designed the Digital DustStorm to cover,
and now the writer is identifying a second thing (""your tracks"").
The same meaning could be attained less objectionably by deleting the
""also"" and adding a ""too"" at the end of the sentence. But what if the
writer meant to say that Glump designed the Digital DustStorm for two
purposes, only one of which involved covering anything? Then the
wording could be revised to say, ""designed the Digital DustStorm also
to track""--or the opening of the sentence could be restructured to
say something like ""Another function of the Digital DustStorm is
to.""
ALSO: A POSITION-SENSITIVE WORD--PART 2 OF 2
Today we're continuing our investigation into the changes in meaning
produced by moving ""also"" around in the following sentence:
""Glump Enterprises designed the Digital DustStorm to also cover your
tracks as you surf the Web.""
Suppose the writer wants to draw a connection between two completely
different products (one of them the Digital DustStorm) designed by
Glump. We can represent this by shifting the ""also"" far to the front,
so that the sentence's opening reads ""Glump also designed."" Finally
suppose that the sentence just before this one had said something like
""Glump's main claim to fame during its five years of existence was an
annoying radio jingle that endlessly repeated the company's name.""
In that case, the ""also"" could be moved all the way to the beginning
of the sentence to act as a (rather weak and probably unnecessary)
transition between Glump's first achievement and its second.
The moral: ""also"" is an extremely position-sensitive word; take care
to place it where it joins the two things you mean to connect.
""Alright"" in place of ""all right"" is another of those terms which,
though accepted by some respected dictionaries, can get you in hot
water among people of letters. ""Webster's 10th Collegiate"" says
""alright has its defenders and its users"" but acknowledges that ""since
the early 20th century some critics have insisted that 'alright' is
wrong.""
Among the aforementioned critics is ""Atlantic Monthly"" columnist
Barbara Wallraff, who denounces ""alright"" as ""emphatically not
standard English."" ""New York Times Book Review"" editor Barbara T.
O'Conner says, ""No, 'alright' is not all right--it's all wrong!"" And
Strunk and White say simply: ""properly written as two words--'all
right.'""
If you want to be sure you're all right with a grammar-conscious,
literary readership, ignore Webster's attitude of forbearance and add
""alright"" to the list of typos.
A correspondent writes: ""I'm wondering if I need to say 'import into'
or just 'import to,' since the 'in' is already contained in the word
'import.'""
The prefix ""im-"" does indeed mean ""in"" (just as the prefix ""ex-"" means
""from""), but this fact does not make the use of ""into"" or ""in"" in the
prepositional phrase following the verb redundant. Consider these:
""The story implanted an idea in his head.""
""I'm going to install a periscope in my swimming pool.""
In the case of ""import"" and ""export,"" the appropriate prepositions are
as follows:
export fromto
import frominto
At greater length, the equivalent expressions would be ""send from one
place to [another]"" and ""bring from one place into [another]."" Hence
we'd say
""U.S. tobacco companies EXPORT [send] tons of cigarettes TO China each
year.""
""Car manufacturers IMPORT [bring] tons of chromium INTO the United
States from South Africa each year.""
Although the use of ""hopefully"" to mean ""it is hoped"" is sanctioned by
""Webster's 10th Collegiate,"" the recently published ""New York Times
Manual of Style and Usage"" cautions against using it in sentences like
""Hopefully, Congress will pass the law.""
Says the Times, ""Traditionalists insist that 'hopefully' can be used
only to mean 'in a hopeful manner.'In surveys of skillful writers
and teachers, large majorities cling to the restrictions. Writers and
editors unwilling to irritate readers would be wise to write 'they
hope' or 'with luck.'"" Bill Walsh (no, not that Bill Walsh--Bill Walsh
the creator of ""The Curmudgeon's Stylebook"") says he avoids using the
term in the stigmatized form to avoid ""the scorn of the misinformed
legions.""
The same caveat should apply to ""thankfully."" Webster's now endorses
the word's secondary meaning ""as makes one thankful"" (in constructions
like, ""Graceless stadiums are thankfully going out of style""). But
prudent wordsmiths might choose ""luckily"" or ""fortunately."" How
thankful can a stadium be?
HOPEFULLY SPRINGS ETERNAL--PART 2 OF 3
As sometimes scornful legionnaires in the battle over the popular use
of ""hopefully"" to mean ""it is hoped that"" and ""thankfully"" to mean ""it
is appropriate to be thankful that,"" we should point out two things
that too often get lost in arguments about whether these meanings are
legitimate. First, as the definitions themselves reveal, ""hopefully""
and ""thankfully"" are slyly passive constructions attributing the hope
towhat? a speaker who is too modest to claim responsibility for
hoping? a consensus of right-minded people who reflect the views of
their community? the reader? the weltgeist? In above-board writing,
authors try to attribute beliefs, feelings, and desires clearly so the
reader can make an informed decision about how much credence to give
the assertion. From this point of view, the most objectionable thing
about ""hopefully"" and ""thankfully"" is that they express a state of
mind without attaching it to any mind in particular.
HOPEFULLY SPRINGS ETERNAL--PART 3 OF 3
A second reason to resist employing ""hopefully"" in the
Webster's-approved sense of ""it is hoped that"" involves ambiguity. If
""hopefully"" only means ""in a manner full of hope,"" the following
sentence has an unmistakable meaning:
""Hopefully, Griselda asked the teacher if she could hand out the
birthday invitations in class.""
Griselda is hopeful that the teacher will let her hand out the
invitations. But with the newer meaning hovering over the proceedings,
we must consider the possibility that the sentence actually expresses
the author's hope that Griselda didn't forget to ask the teacher about
passing out the invitations. If so, has the author gained anything by
saying ""hopefully"" instead of ""I hope""? We don't think so.
Dictionary.com is the Club Wynnski site for superb
word referencing. Dazzle your friends with multi-syllabic synonyms in your
cyber communciations. Dictionary.com
is the best place to research spelling and discover a wide range of info
on any word in our lexicon. I've used it, and it really works. E
me if you have any questions.
ALSO: A POSITION-SENSITIVE WORD--PART 1 OF 2
ALRIGHT VS. ALL RIGHT
IMPORT VS. EXPORT
HOPEFULLY SPRINGS ETERNAL--PART 1 OF 3
Hope the year 2000 is the best…
Wynnski
Wynnski's
Cool HTML Trick...Click Here!