Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “pandemic” epidemic!

Q: When did “pandemic” replace “epidemic” to mean everybody gets the same sickness everywhere? Also, why did the usage change?

A: A disease is said to be “epidemic” when it becomes widespread within a specific community or population at a particular time and later subsides. It’s said to be “endemic” when it exists all the time in (or is native to) a given community or population. It’s said to be “pandemic” when it spreads throughout a whole country or continent or the world.

An easier way to remember: the prefix “epi” means “upon” or “close to”; “en” means “in” or “within”; “pan” means “all.” I do think that newscasters and writers sometimes use the word “pandemic” because they think it’s scarier than “epidemic,” which I suppose it is!

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is “whereabouts” singular or plural?

Q: I wonder if you could comment on this grammar question that keeps coming up at work. When we have clients who cannot be found, we document the record as follows: “The client’s whereabouts is unknown.” Is that correct or should we be saying, “The client’s whereabouts are unknown.” Does it depend upon the context? Could you help our team with this?

A: The noun “whereabouts” takes either a singular or a plural verb, so you could say “his whereabouts is unknown” or “his whereabouts are unknown.” Both are correct.

Considered from the standpoint of sense alone, the singular seems more correct to me, since the meaning of the word is something like “location.” The New York Times stylebook has long required that “whereabouts” be treated as singular.

But one’s ear sometimes disagrees. And Bryan A. Garner notes in his Dictionary of Modern American Usage that the plural verb is 10 times as common as the singular in printed sources. So I guess you could conclude that the plural verb is preferred by most writers.

If this provides any guidance at all, you’re welcome to it!

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Disinterested” vs. “uninterested”

Q: What is the current status of “disinterested”? MSN’s online dictionary, Encarta, defines disinterested as both “impartial” and “not interested.” Is the second definition now acceptable? The incorrect use of “disinterested” is a long-time pet peeve of mine, but maybe I require an attitude adjustment.

A: This whole issue is a tangled mess. “Disinterested” once meant “not interested,” back in the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century, when “disinterested” was taken to mean “impartial” or “objective.” That was a handy thing, because then we had a distinction between “disinterested” and “uninterested” (not interested). But in the 20th century, people again started using “disinterested” to mean “not interested” and the tendency shows no indication of disappearing.

The fact is that many educated people—probably most—still cling to the old distinction. The latest dictionaries point out the difference of opinion, the tangled history, and tend to endorse both meanings of “disinterested,” with No.1 being “impartial” and No. 2 being “uninterested.”

What all this means to me is that the word “disinterested” has become useless, since two reasonable people can mean different things by it. Too bad.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Pregnant or “knocked up”?

Q: Here’s a question that’s been on my mind ever since my wife took a pregnancy test this morning. What’s the origin of the phrase “knocked-up”?

A: According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, the phrase “knocked up,” meaning pregnant, first appeared in print in 1830! An 1860 slang dictionary defined the term this way: “Knocked up. … In the United States, amongst females, the phrase is equivalent to being enceinte.”

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the expression back as far as 1813 and says it’s of American origin. An OED citation from 1836 refers to slave women who are “knocked down by the auctioneer, and knocked up by the purchaser.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Can “Esq.” be used after a woman’s name?

Q: Here’s a question I’d love to see addressed in a future edition of Woe Is I. Should “Esq.” be used after a woman’s name? I’m a professional editor and this question just came across my desk, but I have no answer for it. I’ve checked The Chicago Manual of Style, The Associated Press Stylebook, Words into Type, and Wired Style, but found no opinions. One dictionary I consulted listed it as a masculine title, but most avoid the subject altogether. Help!

A: For an answer, I went to A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, whose author, Bryan A. Garner, is both a lawyer and a usage expert.

He says “Esq.” can be used in American English these days after the names of men and women alike to signify that they’re lawyers. But he says people shouldn’t use it after their own names—on their stationery and cards and so forth. Although it’s OK to use “Esq.” in reference to other people who are lawyers, it’s not necessary and it’s never used with another title, such as Mr. or Ms.

So if you’re the kind of person who likes to append “Esq.” to a male lawyer’s name, you should do likewise for a female. You might pretend it stands for “Esquiress,” a term the Oxford English Dictionary has recorded as being in use as far back as 1596.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

How arguable is “arguably”?

Q: Why don’t you add “arguably” to the list of verbally abused words in your book Woe Is I? I’ve read numerous articles and books in which “arguably” is mistakenly used to mean “undoubtedly.”

A: Thanks for the tip. I’ve discussed the problem during my monthly radio appearances on WNYC, but I’ll make a note to consider adding it to the next edition of Woe Is I.

Some people are confused about whether “arguably” is negative or positive. Does it mean you can make a case for something or against it?

One reason for the confusion is that the adjective “arguable” can be either positive or negative. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate (11th ed.) says it’s used for something that can be “open to argument” or “convincingly argued.”

But the adverb “arguably,” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage explains, “is used in a positive sense” and “is primarily a qualifier or hedge against too strong a statement.”

M-W Collegiate says “arguably” describes something that “may be argued or shown by argument.” It gives these two examples: “an arguably effective strategy” and “arguably the greatest writer of his era.”

So when you say somebody is “arguably” the best slugger in baseball, the word “arguably” is intended to convey something stronger than “possibly” but not quite as strong as “undoubtedly.” That is, you could argue convincingly that he’s the best.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “moot” point

Q: I don’t know if you’ve ever considered the current use of the word “moot.” My dictionary defines it as “open or intended for discussion: debatable.” Now it’s commonly used with the exact opposite meaning: not open for debate. I find this interesting and annoying. Any comment?

A: The word “moot” is more complicated than you might think. It started life as a noun, meaning something like “meeting” or “gathering.” In the mid-16th century, the noun “moot” was used to refer to a gathering of law school students in which a hypothetical case was being discussed.

From this usage, the adjective developed in the 17th century. A “moot” case was a theoretical one being argued by law students; a “moot” court was a mock court; a “moot” point was an arguable or debatable one.

So far, so good. But ambiguity raised its ugly head in the 19th century, when the hypothetical aspect of “moot” led people to interpret it as meaning something like “irrelevant” or “insignificant” or “of no practical value.”

Today, most dictionaries define “moot” as either “debatable” or “irrelevant.” In the United States, the predominant meaning is “irrelevant.” In Britain, it’s “debatable.” Because of the ambiguity, you should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why do politicians sound like turkeys?

Q: Why oh why do politicians always seem to use gobbledygook? Can’t they say anything without resorting to clumsy, over-stuffed language?

A: Here’s my answer in a nutshell:

(1) They’re hoping to sound smarter than they are. (Perhaps they’re insecure.)

(2) They don’t really want you to know what they’re saying.

(3) They don’t know the answer, so they’re hiding their emptiness behind a lot of verbiage.

(4) They’re so accustomed to “bureaucratese” that they can’t use English anymore.

(5) They’re lying.

(6) They’re turkeys.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A singular question

[Note: An updated post on the use of “they” in singular references was published on May 22, 2017.]

Q: What’s a suitable (that is, gender-less) alternative to the use of the pronoun “his” in the sentence “Someone forgot to pay his bills”? Many people use “their” instead of “his” in this case and others like it. What’s your opinion?

A: You’ve asked the grammar question of the century: What’s a suitable, gender-free, singular pronoun for such cases? The answer: There isn’t one. The use of “they,” “them,” and “their” in reference to singulars isn’t considered acceptable in formal English (at least as of today) even though millions of people use them that way.

One solution to the problem is to use the phrase “his or her,” as in “Someone forgot to pay his or her bills.” But many people consider that clunky.

Here’s another solution: If the piece you’re writing is long, and if this seems appropriate, alternate using masculine pronouns in some places and feminine pronouns in others, to indicate a sort of generic individual. You might say “Someone forgot to pay his bills” in one place and “Did anyone lose her umbrella?” in another.

A third solution is to “write around” the problem. Instead of “Someone forgot to pay his bills,” write “Someone forgot to pay the bills.” Instead of “If anyone calls, tell him I’m out,” use “If anyone calls, say I’m out.”

If you want to use “they,” “them” or “their,” you could, on the other hand, make the subject plural instead of singular: “If people call, tell them I’m out” or “All parents dote on their children.”

There’s always a way around this problem.

Help support the Grammarphobia Blog with your donation
And check out our books about the English language.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why is a toll road a “turnpike”?

Q: I’m too shy to call you during the radio show, but I have a question. Why is a toll road called a turnpike?

A: The word “turnpike” dates back to 1420, according to the Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. It originally referred to a spiked barrier designed to restrict access to a road. It comes from the Middle English “turnen” (to turn) plus “pike” (a sharp spike).

The Oxford English Dictionary says the spiked barrier was used “as a defense against sudden attack, especially of men on horseback.” In the late 17th century, according to the OED, “turnpike” began being used to refer to a barrier on a toll road. By the mid-18th century, the word was used to refer to the road itself.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “trying” time

Q: I often hear people say “try and” instead of “try to,” as in “I will try and go to the store today,” instead of “I will try to go to the store today.” This sounds to me as if they will do two things: they will try today, AND they will go to the store today. Is this really a grammatical error, or am I being too picky? In other words, should I try and get a life?

A: “Try to” is correct in formal English, but “try and” is gaining acceptance in spoken and informal usage. As Pat noted in her book Woe Is I, the “try and” form seems appropriate if there’s a note of belligerence or defiance involved (as in “Just try and make me!” or “Try and stay in your own lane, #@$%!”).

Are you too picky? Well, we wouldn’t say it’s a grammatical error per se; it’s more an example of slang or colloquial usage. According to one authoritative reference we consulted, “try and” is accepted as a standard idiom in British English.

Help support the Grammarphobia Blog with your donation. And check out our books about the English language and more.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “flustrating” question

Q: I keep hearing the word “flustrated,” but I can’t find it in my dictionary. Is it a legitimate word?

A: “Flustrated” is a mixing of “frustrated” and “flustered.” It’s not accepted by most dictionaries, at least not yet, but many similar words (linguists call them “blends” or “blended words”) have become part of the English language.

Lewis Carroll coined another term for these linguistic mixes: “portmanteau words.” (A portmanteau is a kind of suitcase with two hinged compartments.) One of Carroll’s creations was “chortle,” a combination of “chuckle” and “snort.”

Some of the most common blended words that have made their way into the English language are “smog” (“smoke” plus “fog”); “motel” (“motor” plus “hotel”); “Breathalyzer” (“breath” plus “analyzer”); “televangelist” (“television” plus “evangelist”); “sportscaster” (“sports” plus “broadcaster”), and, of course, “weblog” or “blog” (“Web” plus “log”).

So the phenomenon has a long history, and probably a long future ahead of it too.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “cockamamie” story

Q: I tuned in during your discussion of the word “cockamamie.” I didn’t hear the whole thing, but the word sounds like a Yiddishism to me.

A: I agree that “cockamamie” (it means “worthless” or “nonsensical”) sounds like a Yiddishism, but it seems that it’s not. The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang says it comes from “decalcomania” (the practice of using decals as cheap fake tattoos). According to Random House, “cockamamie” was the Brooklynese pronunciation of “decalcomania.” You can see the connection if you think of “cockamamie” as not only worthless or nonsensical but fake as well (the tattoo is a cheap imitation).

Another listener looked up “cockamamie” in Leo Rosten’s The Joy of Yiddish. Rosten says the word “is not Hebrew and not Yiddish, but indigenous argot.” He adds that people on the Lower East Side of Manhattan called the decal tattoos “cockamamies” because they didn’t know how to spell “decalcomania.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Do you really need “that”?

Q: Please tell me which of these sentences is correct?

1) I was beginning to think THAT you would never call.
2) I was beginning to think you would never call.

A: Either of them is correct. The use of “that” in such sentences is optional. It’s a matter of taste. Do whatever sounds better to your ear.

However, there are times when using “that” can make a sentence clearer. For instance, a sentence with more than one verb might be ambiguous.

Here’s an example: “I hoped you went to Texas and Stephanie did too.” This could mean either:

1) “I hoped THAT you went to Texas and THAT Stephanie did too.”
2) “I hoped THAT you went to Texas and Stephanie hoped so too.”

In some cases, adding “that” can make the sentence clearer. But when clarity isn’t involved, let your ear decide.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Who put the “tom” in “tomboy”?

Q: What is the etymology and history of the word tomboy?

A: According to the Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology, the noun “tomboy” (formed by joining the male name Tom and the word “boy”) was coined sometime before 1553, and meant a boy who was rude or boisterous. The Oxford Dictionary of Etymology says it was related to the terms “tom-fool” (a buffoon) and later “tomfoolery.” And according to the Ayto Dictionary of Word Origins, since “Thomas” was the archetypal male name, the word “tom” was often used in the 16th century to indicate maleness (hence “tomcat”) and male aggression.

In 1579 the word “tomboy” was applied to a bold or immodest woman. By 1592 it was applied to a girl who acted like a spirited or boisterous boy, and that’s been its meaning ever since.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A plural in sheep’s clothing

Q: I wonder if you could tell me the name for the plural of a word that’s the same in both the singular and the plural (a word like “sheep,” for example). I heard the name for it some time ago, but I cannot recall it.

A: Plurals of words like “deer” and “sheep” are often called “unmarked plurals.” More obscurely, the grammarians Otto Jespersen and George Curme called them, respectively, “unchanged plurals” and “collective plurals.” I hope this helps.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Liberty” vs. “freedom”

Q: Is there a difference between “liberty” and “freedom”?

A: I think of “liberty” as meaning free of controls or unrestrained. “Freedom,” to me, is the capacity to choose or to exercise free will. That said, many dictionaries often use similar definitions to describe both “liberty” and “freedom.” I’m sure that a great statesman at some time in history has come up with a much more eloquent description of the differences between the two. If I come across one, I’ll mention it on the air.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is broccoli “healthy” or “healthful”?

Q: I’ve always believed that foods are healthful and people are healthy, but nobody seems to observe that distinction nowadays. What do you think?

A: Technically, foods (or life styles or whatever) are considered “healthful,” while people are said to be “healthy.” But literal meanings are one thing and common practice is another. It’s become almost universal for people to refer to “healthy food,” even though a literal-minded person might imagine a stalk of broccoli lifting weights!

Interestingly, the distinction between “healthy” and “healthful” is relatively recent, dating back to the late 19th century, according to a usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Before that, the two words were used interchangeably. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary has citations going back to the 16th century in which both “healthy” and “healthful” are used to mean “enjoying good health” as well as “conducive to good health.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

On “each other” and “one another”

[Note: A post on March 4, 2013, reflects our updated views on “each other” and “one another.”]

Q: I have a question that has bothered me for years. I was taught English in Paris by a French teacher educated at Oxford. If I remember correctly, the phrase “each other” is supposed to be used for two people (i.e., Jane and John love each other) and the phrase “one another” should be used when more than two people are involved (i.e., the teacher and her students love one another). That’s the way I have used those phrases, but no one else does. Am I right or wrong? Thank you for caring for our language. It is massacred by too many!

A: It’s a traditional belief that “each other” should be used to discuss two people or entities and “one another” to discuss more than two. Speaking about two children, you’d say, “They shared with each other.” Speaking of three or more, you’d say, “They shared with one another.”

Certainly there’s nothing wrong with following that tradition in your own speech and writing.

But it’s long been common practice to refer to two with “one another,” as in “Husband and wife should love one another.” And I see nothing wrong with this.

Using “each other” in reference to three or more, though, would be unacceptable to most usage experts. Frankly, it sounds off-kilter to me.

You should know, however, that many sources, including The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.), have relaxed the old distinction between “each other” and “one another.” And that relaxation no doubt reflects the way these expressions are increasingly being used.

I hope this helps. Short answer: you’re right and your teacher’s right.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The scoop on “bi” and “semi”

Q: I was taught in school that “bimonthly” meant “every other month” and “semimonthly” meant “twice a month.” But nobody seems to remember the difference anymore. In fact, many companies don’t even use those terms now. They say “every other month” or “twice a month” instead. Do you think that’s right?

A: I can understand the problem the companies have. As I wrote in Woe Is I, the prefix “bi” means two and “semi” means half, but in practice “bi” sometimes means “semi” and “semi” sometimes means “bi.” For example, “bimonthly” can mean every two months OR twice a month, depending on the dictionary you consult. “Biweekly” can mean every two weeks OR twice a week. “Biennial” means every two years, but “biannual” can mean every two years OR twice a year.

So it’s probably better to avoid misunderstandings and say “every other month” or “twice a month” if that’s what you mean.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“In behalf of” vs. “on behalf of”

Q: Which is proper, “on behalf of” or “in behalf of”?

A: Both expressions are correct, but they mean slightly different things. I discuss this in my book Woe Is I.

“In behalf of” means “for the benefit of” or “in the interest of.”

“On behalf of” means “in place of” or “as the agent of.”

So I might give a donation, “on behalf of” my gardening club, to be used “in behalf of” tree restoration in the park.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Got” and “gotten”

Q: I have a question about British usage. The Brits say “have got” when we say “have gotten.” Which is more correct?

A: In Britain, the preferred past participle of the verb “get” is “got”; in the United States the preference is for “gotten” in some cases and “got” in others, depending on one’s meaning. (The past participle is the form of a verb that’s used with “have,” “had,” or “has.”)

As far as which is “more correct,” a Brit will tell you that “gotten” is wrong. Not so! The truth is that at one time, English routinely had two past participles for the verb “get.” Over the centuries, the two branches of English developed in different directions. While American English retained both forms, British English dropped “gotten” entirely. The result is that we have a nuance of meaning the poor Britons don’t.

When we say, “Jack and Sue have got a dog,” we mean they own a dog. When we say, “Jack and Sue have gotten a dog,” we mean they have acquired one. There’s a distinct difference between the two statements.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“I Wish I Were Blind”

Q: Could you tell me if Bruce Springsteen’s song “I Wish I Were Blind” should actually be “I Wish I Was Blind”?

A: No, the Boss is right. “I Wish I Were Blind” is correct.

The reason is that when you express a wish, or when you use an “if” statement (“If I were blind…”) to talk about a condition contrary to fact, you use the subjunctive mood instead of the indicative. So you’d say, “Last year I WAS in Maine” (indicative), but “Now I wish I WERE in Maine” (subjunctive) and “If I WERE in Maine I wouldn’t be here.” That’s why we say things like “If I were king…” or “If only she were here…” or “I wish he were nicer to his parents,” and so on. In the subjunctive mood, “was” becomes “were.”

You should have more faith in Bruce.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Off of” is off-putting.

Q: I am British, live here in NYC, and hear a lot of people hereabouts use the phrase “off of,” e.g., “I took it off of the table,” etc. This seems not only redundant, but, when I was growing up, it was considered really, really bad English. Is this just a British thing? It really grates on my nerves! Be thrilled if you could answer this for me since nobody knows what the hell my problem is!

A: You’re right. “Off of” is no way to talk. It IS really, really bad English. I added a bit about this to the second edition of my book Woe Is I because it seemed so ubiquitous an infraction. So, all you miscreants out there, don’t use “of” if you don’t need it: “I took it off the table.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Bob’s your uncle”

Q: I heard you discussing “Bob’s your uncle” on the air. In England, where I lived for many years, the expression was often used at the end of the description of a process, such as giving directions: “Take the second left, then the first right, go halfway down the block, and Bob’s your uncle!”

A: I love that usage. It’s almost like “and there you have it” or “and you’re all set.” How much more interesting than our saying “and there you are” or some such!

As for the origin of the expression, the best explanation I can find is Michael Quinion’s (the following quotation comes from his website, World Wide Words):

“This is another of those catchphrases which seem to arise out of nowhere and have a period of fashion, in this case quite a long one. We know that it began to be used in the 1880s in Britain. One theory has it that it derives from the slang phrase all is bob, meaning ‘all is safe.’ But there have been several slang expressions containing the word bob, some associated with thievery or gambling, and around this time it was also a common generic name for somebody you didn’t know. The most attractive theory is that it derives from a prolonged act of political nepotism. The prime minister Lord Salisbury (family name Robert Cecil ) appointed his rather less than popular nephew Arthur Balfour (later himself to be PM from 1902-11) to a succession of posts. The first in 1887 was chief secretary of Ireland, a post for which Balfour was considered unsuitable. The consensus among the irreverent in Britain seems to have been that to have Bob as your uncle guaranteed success, hence the expression and the common meaning it preserves of something that is easy to achieve.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

There’s no “there’s” there.

Q: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to complain about something that has bothered me for ages, yet I have never heard anyone mention it, i.e., the incorrect use of the contraction “there’s.” I am a senior citizen, who took too many Latin courses in high school, but it bugs me no end to hear and read “there’s” when it should be “there’re.” Has common usage made it OK or what? I hope not. If you discuss this error in your book, I will buy it.

A: You’re right that the word “there” is often misused as the subject of a sentence (even if it is something of a phantom subject). It can take either a singular or a plural verb, but many people don’t seem to realize this and resort to “there’s” for all occasions. Why? I can think of a couple of reasons.

One may be that people find the contraction “there’re” hard to pronounce, so they take the easy way out and use “there’s” in all cases.

Another reason might be this. When a sentence starts with “there,” the “real” subject follows the verb and that’s what determines whether the verb is singular or plural. Many people (perhaps most!) speak before they’ve thought through their sentences. It’s easier to start out with “there’s” and hope that the rest of the sentence will take care of itself, though it often doesn’t.

I do deal with “there” in my book Woe Is I. (See pages 14 and 55 of the second edition.) By the way, I don’t like the use of the contraction “there’re” in WRITING. It’s fine in conversation, but in written English it’s clumsy and the full form is better.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“I mean,” “you know,” and other tics

Q: I have lately become obsessed with eliminating the phrase “I mean” from my daily speech. I find myself using it to begin sentences that would otherwise stand alone just fine. And funny as it seems, I’ve been hearing it all over the place, including on WNYC (from both guests and hosts!). Could you tell me what phrases like this are called as a class and the history of this one in particular?

A: “I mean” seems to have become the new “you know,” joining “like,” “um,” and company.

I’m one of those people who still struggle not to say “you know” with every other sentence. I’ve wrestled with this for more than 10 years, since my first book, Woe Is I, came out in 1996. That’s when I started making radio appearances and hence trying all the harder to stifle all those “you knows.”

I have no explanation for this, or for “I mean,” or any of the other superfluous words, phrases, and grunts that litter our speech. They’re sometimes called “fillers,” and sometimes “verbal tics,” and they can become terrible habits once they get hold of you. I do my best, but once in a while I let loose a “you know” on the air and get angry e-mail in response!

Eric Partridge has traced “you know” to the 18th century. He notes that there are parallel constructions in German (wissen Sie) and French (vous savez) that have the same function: virtually meaningless filler.

Partridge also has an entry for “I mean to say,” and the shorter version, “I mean,” which he says dates from the 1890s. In explaining what it means (which is essentially nothing), he notes that it “connotes apologetic modification or mental woolliness.”

I managed to get rid of most fillers by just concentrating really hard on NOT saying them. I’m not a speech specialist, but there are probably better ways to approach the problem, mental tricks to use that would make the process easier. You might look around on the Web for some tips. (Or else pretend that millions of people are listening to you on the radio and scare yourself out of the habit!) Good luck.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Do you feel “bad” or badly”?

Q: Please settle something for me (and others) once and for all. Which is grammatically accurate? “I feel (‘bad’ or ‘badly’) about revealing your imprecise use of the English language.”

My tendency is to say “badly” is the answer. However, this question appeared in an MSN.com “grammar quiz,” and the “correct” answer provided was “bad.” Could you please explain?

A: When you’re describing an activity, like running or swimming or playing, use “badly,” as in “Roger runs badly.” When you’re describing a condition or a passive state, like how someone feels or seems or looks or smells, use “bad,” as in “Roger smelled bad after the race.” If Roger smelled badly, he’d have something wrong with his nose.

So, in answer to your question, the correct sentence is “I feel bad about revealing your imprecise use of the English language.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Don’t give me that jive.”

Q: I have a pet peeve about “jive” and “jibe.” People use them interchangeably all the time, but don’t they mean different things?

A: You’re right. “Jibe” and “jive” have different meanings and aren’t interchangeable.

“Jibe” is a verb meaning something like “agree” or “be consistent with,” as in, “Those figures don’t jibe.”

“Jive” can be either a noun or a verb, as in “Don’t give me that jive” or “Don’t jive me.” It can refer to jazz or jazz jargon, but it usually refers to deceptive or nonsensical talk.

There’s another word, “gibe,” that is both noun and verb and is used to refer to teasing, taunting, or caustic remarks, as in “I ignored his rude gibes” or “He tends to gibe when he’s annoyed.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The “which” (or “that”) trials

[Note: A later and more complete post on this subject ran on April 28, 2010.]

Q: I was wondering if you could clear up something that’s bothering me. What’s the difference between “which” and “that”?

A: We think there’s a pretty good explanation in Pat’s book Woe Is I. When you’ve got a clause that you could start with “that” or “which” and you can’t decide between them, here’s a hint: If you can drop the information and not lose the point of the sentence, use “which.” If you can’t drop it, use “that.”

The examples in the book are: “Buster’s bulldog, which had one white ear, won best in show. The dog that won best in show was Buster’s bulldog.”

In the first example, the information in the “which” clause is not essential. In the second example, the clause starting with “that” is essential; it’s the whole point of the sentence.

You’ll also notice that “which” clauses are set off with commas, and “that” clauses aren’t. So if you find yourself wanting to insert little pauses before and after the information, it’s probably a “which” clause.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Does “presently” mean “now” or “soon”?

Q: When I was in school, I was taught that “presently” meant “soon,” but the word is being used all the time these days to mean “now.” Was I taught wrong or has the meaning of the word changed?

A: One of the original meanings of “presently” was “now” or “at present,” but by sometime in the 17th century that meaning had fallen by the wayside and become obsolete. For the last few hundred years, the preferred meaning of “presently” has been “soon” or “before long,” as in “I’ll be along presently.”

However, the old meaning (“now”) never completely disappeared and has become more common lately, particularly in American English. “Presently” is often used interchangeably with “currently.” Still, most style guides recommend against that usage, particulary if there’s a danger of ambiguity.

In my opinion, using “presently” to mean “now” is unnecessary (“now” is a perfectly good word). And using “presently” in the accepted sense of “soon” sounds stiff and pretentious. (“Soon” is another perfectly good word.) Since there’s an ambiguity to the word anyway, I tend not to use it at all.

Clearly, the once-obsolete meaning (“now”) has been revived. Since real, honest-to-goodness usage is what determines “correctness,” there’s no point in arguing against the trend. But in many cases, the word “presently” can simply be deleted (example: “I am presently living in Altoona” vs. “I am living in Altoona”). If an ambiguous or a disputed word can be deleted without bloodshed, why not drop it?

Categories
English language Etymology Grammar Linguistics Uncategorized Usage

Why is a police officer called a “cop”?

Q: I’ve heard that the word “cop” (for policeman) comes from “constable on patrol.” Am I right?

A: The noun “cop,” meaning a police officer, isn’t an acronym for “constable on patrol” or “custodian of the peace,” as some have suggested over the years. It comes from a verb, “to cop,” meaning to seize or nab, which subsequently gave rise to the noun “copper,” meaning a person who seizes or nabs. The noun “copper” was later shortened to “cop.”

According to the Dictionary of Word Origins (by John Ayto, Arcade Publishing), the noun “copper” is what’s called an agent noun, formed from the verb “to cop.” It is thought to come from Old French (“caper”) by way of Latin (“capere”), meaning to seize or take. It’s also the root of our word “capture.”

The noun “copper” was first used to refer to a police officer in 1846, according to other sources I’ve checked. The noun “cop” is a shortened form that dates to 1859.

Categories
English language Etymology Grammar Linguistics Uncategorized Usage

Is it “gantlet” or “gauntlet”?

Q: Sometimes I see “gantlet” and sometimes I see “gauntlet.” Which one is correct?

A: The old “gantlet/gauntlet” distinction is rapidly being lost, since dictionaries these days are increasingly regarding them as interchangeable.

“Gantlet” originally came from a Swedish word similar to “lane,” and referred to the parallel lines involved in an old form of military punishment. Someone forced to “run the gantlet” was made to run between parallel lines of his colleagues, who would hit him with clubs or switches as he passed.

A “gauntlet” (French word) was a heavy, armored glove worn by a knight. As a challenge to fight, the knight would toss his glove to the ground (“throw down the gauntlet”). The opponent accepting the challenge was said to “pick up the gauntlet.”

Most dictionaries now accept the spelling “gauntlet” for both of those meanings. There’s still a technical term “gantlet” used in railroading, though.

Categories
English language Etymology Grammar Linguistics Uncategorized Usage

“A while” and “awhile”

Q: I know there’s a difference in the way one uses “awhile” and “a while,” but I can’t remember what it is. Is it correct to say “for a while” or “for awhile” – and, just for fun, where does “while” come from?

A: “Awhile” is an adverb meaning “for a time.” (The “for” is inherent in the word, so “for awhile” would be redundant.) “A while” is a noun phrase meaning “a period of time.” You could correctly say “We sat awhile and spent a while talking.” Or, “When he called a while ago, we talked awhile and laughed for a while.”

More than a little confusing, aren’t they?

“While” comes from a prehistoric Indo-European root meaning “rest” or “repose,” and it entered Old English from Germanic sources. It is a noun (for “period of time”), a conjunction (meaning “during the time that”), and a verb (to “while” means to spend time idly). I’ll take a crack at a sentence with all three: “For a while, he whiled away his time by eating while watching TV.”

Categories
English language Etymology Grammar Linguistics Uncategorized Usage

A female version of “avuncular”

Q: A caller asked you on the air if there’s a feminine equivalent to “avuncular.” The Oxford English Dictionary lists “materteral” as meaning “characteristic of an aunt.” It comes from the Latin “matertera,” which refers to a mother’s sister. That’s consistent with “avuncular,” which means “characteristic of an uncle.” It comes from “avunculus,” which refers to a mother’s brother.

A: You’re right. But the OED lists only a single published reference to the word, from 1823, and calls it “humorously pedantic.” Until it shows up in more dictionaries, not many people are likely to use it. It’s not completely useless, however, as long as we can use it to answer the question, “What’s a word meaning ‘aunt-like’?”

By the way, one listener suggested creating the word “aunticular” and another listener suggested “tantatious” as feminine versions of “avuncular.”