Category: Grammar

Q: I’m bugged by the increasing use of “you” to mean “a person” or “one,” as in “You run into all types on the bus.” It’s even used for “I” to avoid accepting responsibility: “You don’t expect a car to pass you on the right.” In other words, anyone would have hit that car.

A: You’re right that “you” is often used as an indefinite personal pronoun meaning “a person” or “one.”

But we’re not sure that this usage is more common now than in the past. You may simply be noticing it more because it bugs you.

As it turns out, the usage has been around for hundreds of years and it’s perfectly acceptable grammatically. Here’s a little history.

The Oxford English Dictionary has citations beginning in the 16th century for the use of “you” to denote “any hearer or reader; hence as an indef. pers. pron.: One, any one.”

The OED’s earliest citation comes from Barnaby Googe’s 1577 translation of Foure Bookes of Husbandry, a Latin treatise on farming: “You shall sometime have one branch more gallant than his fellowes.”

Here’s another citation, from Gulliver’s Travels (1726) by Jonathan Swift: “A child … began a squall that you might have heard from London Bridge to Chelsea.”

And here’s one from John Ruskin’s Sesame and Lilies: Two Lectures (1865): “You can talk a mob into anything.”

The use of “one” for this purpose (that is, in reference to an unidentified someone, or a person in general) sounds rather formal to the average American.

The OED says “one” is used this way in two difference senses.

In the first sense, “one” is used to mean a person in general—that is, anyone.

This is how the British writer Nancy Mitford used it in her novel Highland Fling (1931): “One is not exactly encouraged to use one’s brain over here, you know.”

In the second sense, “one” is used to refer to the speaker alone (like “I”).

A good example is this conversation from Eileen H. Clements’s novel High Tension (1959): “ ‘Do you often have your fan-mail in person?’ … ‘Not often. One isn’t in the telephone book.’ ”

Another example comes from Frank Johnson’s Out of Order (1982), a collection of political sketches: “How to persuade the Telegraph that … one was a man of immense culture? (Saying ‘one’ when you mean ‘I’ would do for a start, I decided.)”

As the OED notes, this latter usage is “associated esp. with British upper-class speech, and now freq. regarded as affected.”

You’re right in suggesting that speakers sometimes use “you” (or “one”) in place of “I” to avoid taking responsibility.

Here are a couple of examples:

“How are you supposed to know when a gun is loaded?”

“One didn’t realize the safety was off, now did one?”

Check out our books about the English language

She’ll be on Talk of Iowa from 10 to 11 AM Central time (11 to 12 Eastern) to discuss the English language and take questions from callers. Today’s topic: Should people who love English get all hot and bothered when the language changes?

Check out our books about the English language

She’ll be on the Leonard Lopate Show around 1:20 PM Eastern time to discuss the English language and take questions from callers. Today’s opening topic: gloriously ungrammatical song lyrics. If you miss a program, you can listen to it on Pat’s WNYC page.

Check out our books about the English language

Q: Pet Peeve: the hideous and now seemingly universal practice of using the singular “there’s”  (instead of “there’re”) with plural references. Do I have any sympathy? Lost cause, I know.

A: Of course we sympathize! In fact, we’ve written on the blog about this use of “there’s.” But we don’t buy the legitimacy of “there’re” as a contraction.

“There’re” is fine in speech, but what passes in speech doesn’t always make the grade in written English. 

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) has entries for all contractions that are considered standard English. There’s no “there’re” there. And M-W is about as descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) a dictionary as you’ll find.

In our opinion, what we HEAR as “there’re” is actually a phonetically elided “there are.” This is why novelists, for instance, use it in rendering informal speech.

But on to the larger issue, the misuse of “there’s” or “there is” in reference to a plural.

When a statement begins with “there,” the verb can be either singular or plural, as in these examples from Pat’s grammar book Woe Is I:

“There is [or there’s] a fly in my soup!” said Mr. LaFong. “And there are lumps in the gravy.”

The choice can be tricky, though, because “there” is only a phantom subject. In the first example, the real subject is “fly”; in the second it’s “lumps.”

Why do so many people resort to “there’s” for both singular and plural?

One reason, according to the grammarian Otto Jespersen, is that people often begin a statement with “there is” or “there’s” before they know how they’re going to finish it.

Although this singular use of “there is” and “there’s” is very common now, it’s not new; it’s been around for a long time.

In fact, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage has published references dating back to the late 1500s.

The earliest M-W citation is from the Shakespeare comedy Love’s Labour’s Lost (1595): “Honey, and milk, and sugar: there is three.”

And here’s an example from a 1797 letter by Charles Lamb: “… there is in nature, I fear, too many tendencies to envy and jealousy.”

Another citation is from Daniel Defoe’s novel Moll Flanders (1722): “A lottery where there is a hundred thousand blanks to one prize.”

M-W even cites the lexicographer Stuart Berg Flexner in the journal Righting Words (1987): “…if there’s several ways you can use something before or after the verb.”

The usage guide also says people tend to use “there is” or “there’s” with a plural compound subject when the first part of the compound is singular. For example, “There’s a car and two bikes in the garage.”

We have one more possible explanation why the singular “there’s” is seen and heard so much these days.

People who are contraction oriented may find “there’re” too much of a mouthful (whether in writing or in speech), and turn to “there’s” as the default usage.

The difficulty with “there’re” is no excuse, though. In standard English today, the singular is “there’s” or “there is,” and the plural is “there are.”

Check out our books about the English language

Q: Which is correct: “He wanted this bad” or “He wanted this badly”? My teacher and I disagree. Can you help me win this argument?

A: You don’t say which side of the argument you’re on, but this may be a case where there’s no definite winner.

What your question boils down to is this: Does “want” qualify as a linking verb (one that describes a state or condition, rather than an action)?

If it does, then it’s fine to say “He wanted this bad.” If not, then good English requires “He wanted this badly.”

The short answer is that there’s no short answer, because usage authorities disagree.

Many usage guides say that “want bad” is quite common in speech and informal writing, but it doesn’t belong in formal written English.

At least one guide, however, regards “want bad” as standard English.

Our advice, particularly since you’re a student being graded on grammar, is to use “want badly” in formal written English. You can use “want bad,” if you like, in other contexts. 

Here’s the story. A linking verb (like “be” or “feel” or “seem”) is modified by an adjective (like “bad”) rather than an adverb (like “badly”).

So, for example, it’s perfectly correct  to say “I’m good” or “I feel good” or “I’m not bad” when someone asks you how you are or how you’re feeling. 

We’ve written several blog items about this subject, including one in 2009.

There are 11 verbs generally considered linking verbs: “be,” “appear,” “become,” “feel,” “grow,” “look,” “remain,” “seem,” “smell,” “sound,” and “taste.”

Since “want” isn’t one of these, it should generally be modified by an adverb (as in “he wants it greatly”) rather than an adjective (“he wants it great”). 

However, “bad” is a special case and sometimes acts as an adverb, according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage.

For instance, the dictionary says, “bad” is interchangeable with “badly” after the verbs “want” and “need.”

So, in M-W’s opinion, expressions like “he needed it bad” and “he wanted it bad” are standard English. 

This makes some sense to us, since wanting and needing are closer to emotional states or conditions than they are to actions.

M-W notes, however, that while it considers these usages standard English, most of its evidence comes from speech rather than writing.

And as we said earlier, many other commentators, including the editor of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, consider phrases like “want bad” and “need bad” to be informal rather than standard. 

That’s why we advise you to pick your words according to context: conversation, casual writing, or formal written English.

In any case, you can’t go wrong with “want badly.” 

Interestingly, at one time “want badly” was considered grammatically incorrect!

It was criticized by commentators in the early 1900s, apparently because they didn’t like the use of “badly” as an intensifier meaning “very much.”  

This is no longer the case. Here’s what The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) has to say on the subject:

“The use of badly with want was once considered incorrect but is now entirely acceptable: We wanted badly to go to the beach.”

There are two lessons here. One is that nobody will criticize you for saying “want badly.” The other is that English is a changing language. Stay tuned.

Check out our books about the English language

[An updated post about “have a good day,” “have a nice day,” and “have a good one” appeared on Oct. 19, 2018.]

Q: I get my back up (just a little) when someone says “Have a good one.” OK, it’s pretty clear it means “Have a good day,” but when did this foolish usage come into use? And why? It’s not as if “one” has fewer syllables than “day.”

A: People who say “Have a good one” may annoy you, but their hearts are in the right place. At least we hope so.

You’re probably right that the expression is a variant of “Have a good day.” Our guess is that “Have a good one” is starting to replace another variant, the still ubiquitous “Have a nice day.”

We also find some of these formulaic phrases annoying, but we try not to get too irritated, since “Have a good day,” the granddaddy of them all, has been around in one form or another since the early 1200s.

The Oxford English Dictionary hasn’t yet commented on “Have a good one” but it has taken notice of “Have a nice day.”

The OED describes it as a colloquial phrase (one more characteristic of speech than of writing) that originated in the US nearly 40 years ago.

It’s used, the OED says, “as a conventional formula on parting,” like “goodbye.”

The dictionary’s first published reference for the phrase is from Dorothy Halliday’s 1971 book Dolly and the Doctor Bird: “The admonitions of the freeway from the airport are wholly American: Keep off the Median … Have a Nice Day.”

Here are a couple of other citations.

1980, from a piece in Redbook magazine: “He picks up the phone, calls his old friend. What are old friends for? Have a nice day.”

1985, from Eating Out in London: “What characterises a good restaurant in America is brisk service (which can, but doesn’t necessarily entail the ‘have a nice day’ syndrome).”

But back to “Have a good day.”

The earliest OED citation for the expression in its modern form is from Paul Theroux’s novel Picture Palace (1978): “ ‘Have a good day,’ he said. ‘You too.’ ”

However, an earlier version (minus the indefinite article “a”) first showed up around the year 1205 in the Brut, a history of England in verse by the Middle English poet Layamon.

In the medieval poem, King Vortiger tells his knights: Habbe alle godne dæie (in Modern English, “Have now all good day”).

The OED describes the now-obsolete Middle English version of the expression, “have good day,” as “a phrase used as a salutation at meeting or parting.”

The latest OED citation for an article-free version of the expression is from Sir Walter Scott’s The Lord of the Isles (1814): “Thanks for your proffer—have good-day.”

The expression has also appeared in various other guises, including the verbal phrases “bid (someone) good day” or “give (a  person) good day.”

The OED’s citations include this one from Ann Radcliffe’s novel The Italian (1797): “The old lady again bade him good-day.”

Here’s another, from Mary Elizabeth Braddon’s novel Wyllard’s Weird (1885): “They gave him good-day if they met him in the street.”

The plain and simple “good day,” the OED says, is comparable to the French bon jour, the German guten tag, and equivalent phrases in all the Teutonic and Romance languages.

It adds, though, that “good day” is less common in English than in French or German.

In English, the phrases “good morning,” “good afternoon,” and “good evening” are more common at meetings and partings. (“Good night” is used only in parting.)

The OED’s earliest citation in writing for the simple “good day” is from a set of religious dramas known as The Towneley Mysteries (1460): “A good day, thou, and thou.”

Jane Austen used it in 1798 in her novel Northanger Abbey: “And to marry for money, I think the wickedest thing in existence. Good day.”

We all know, of course, how common “g’day” now is in Australia, where it’s become a national byword.

And with that, we’ll bid you and our other readers a good day.

Check out our books about the English language

Q: You’ve written about “well” and “good,” but here are some examples that still aren’t clear to me: (1) “Is everything well/good with you?” (2) “I hope all is well/good there.” (3) “I’m well/good” with it. (4) “He feels well/good after surgery.” (5) “The wound has healed and he’s well/good.”

A: In most of your “well/good” examples, the verb is a form of “be,” which is a linking verb.

And linking verbs—“be,” “feel,” “seem,” “look,” and others—are generally modified by an adjective (like “good”), with one major exception.

If you’re speaking specifically about a person’s health—in the sense of being “well” as opposed to “sick”—then choose “well.”

That’s generally the situation today, according to most usage authorities, but the history of “well” and “good” is much more complicated.

We won’t get into the etymology now, except to say that “well” was used as an adjective back in Anglo-Saxon times in some of the ways we’d use “good” today. And it’s still used as an adjective in many common constructions.

Getting back to your question, most people would use “good” in examples 1, 2, and 3 (though 2 could also be used with “well,” as we’ll explain below). For examples 4 and 5, choose “well.”

If you’re still having trouble, try substituting “bad/badly” or “pretty/prettily” for “good/well,” and that might make things clearer.

As you mention, we’ve written several blog items about this business of “well” and “good,” including posts in 2009 and 2008.

The thing to remember is this: if your verb is a form of “be” (“is,” “am,” “are,” “was,” “were,” etc.) or another linking verb (like “feel” or “seem”), generally use “good” unless you’re talking about health.

But keep in mind that we use “well” adjectivally in many common idioms: “All is well at our house,” “All’s well that ends well,” “That’s all well and good,” “Blue looks well with that,”  “Is all well with you?” and so on.

The OED has many examples of “well” used as an adjective (rather than an adverb) in constructions like “all is well,” “it is well that we should walk humbly,” “it is well to remember,” “it is well that his errors have done no harm,” “it’s just as well to let it go,” “that’s all very well, but …,” etc.

On that note, we’ll end with a line (later echoed by T. S. Eliot) from Juliana of Norwich, a 14th-century English mystic: “All shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.”

Check out our books about the English language

Q: Is the word “of” necessary in these two examples: “She closed all of  the blinds” and “The bull runs with all of his might”?

A: The preposition “of” is optional in both examples. The sentences would be good English with or without it.

It seems to us, though, that your first example (“She closed all of the blinds”) may be a bit more emphatic with “of.”

And your second (“The bull runs with all of his might”) may be a bit more idiomatic without it, but there’s nothing wrong with using “of” here.

In fact, some googling suggests that both versions of the second example (“all his might” and “all of his might”) are quite common, though the one without the preposition is more popular.

The scorecard as of this writing: “all his might,” 3.95 million results; “all of his might,” 1.8 million.

Although the use of the preposition is optional in your examples, it’s sometimes a no-no.

Pat writes about optional as well as undesirable uses in the new third edition of her grammar and usage book Woe Is I.

The following passage from Woe Is I buries the old misconception that “of” should always be deleted from the phrases “all of” and “both of”:  

“Some members of the Redundancy Police think of is undesirable in the phrases all of and both of, except in front of a pronoun (all of me, both of them, etc.). They frown on sentences like Both of the thieves spent all of the money, and would prefer Both the thieves spent all the money.

“Either way is correct. There’s no law against keeping of, but by all means drop it if you want to. You can’t please all of the people all the time.” (Page 220 in the paperback.)

Another passage from the book deals with the undesirable use of the preposition in these examples: “Paulie says his new TV fell off of a truck. The missing warranty is not that big of a problem.”

Pat’s advice to readers: “Whack the of: Paulie says his new TV fell off a truck. The missing warranty is not that big a problem.” (Page 127.)

We’ve also written a blog item about the unnecessary “of” in expressions like “not that big of a deal.”

Check out our books about the English language