Categories
English language Uncategorized

Two ways to be possessive

Q: Which is correct? “Patricia is a guest of Leonard.” Or: “Patricia is a guest of Leonard’s.” Is there a name for the second example?

A: Either of them is correct. Both are standard English. Some language mavens have called the “Patricia is a guest of Leonard’s” construction a double possessive. No matter what you call it, though, it’s OK to use.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A one-dimensional character?

Q: A book review in the New York Times referred to the characters as one-dimensional. If my memory of high school physics serves me correctly, all physical objects have three dimensions: length, width, and depth. If a book reviewer wants to suggest a lack of depth, shouldn’t he refer to a character as two-dimensional? Please answer before I worry myself into the fourth dimension.

A: When I was an editor at the New York Times Book Review, there were certain clichés that we tried to keep out of reviews: “rite of passage,” “richly woven tapestry,” “stunning debut,” “shock of recognition,” “keen ear for dialogue,” “keen eye for detail,” “sense of place,” and so on.

We should have also forbidden “one-dimensional character,” which deserves a place right alongside the other clichés above. Interestingly, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary consider “one-dimensional” a legitimate term meaning superficial or lacking depth. And the dictionaries say the word “dimension” can be used in a non-scientific sense to mean aspect or quality or trait. Nevertheless, I don’t think a cliché like “one-dimensional” belongs in a book review—unless perhaps the subject is Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man.

Categories
English language Etymology Usage

“Historic” vs. “historical”

Q: I often hear talking heads on TV refer to a current event as “historic” or “historical.” Shouldn’t these adjectives be used only when one is talking about an event in the past? Also, I’ve been told that “historical” should be reserved for momentous events. Isn’t that very subjective?

A: Traditionally, the two words have different meanings. If something has an important place in history, it’s historic. If something has to do with the subject of history or existed in the past, it’s historical. Here’s an example from my grammar book Woe Is I: “There’s not much historical evidence that the Hartletops’ house is historic.”

Can either “historic” or “historical” be used to describe something that’s happening now? I would say no for “historical” and yes for “historic.” If you witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers or the Challenger disaster or the first moon walk, you could justifiably have said they were historic even as you were observing them in progress.

Despite the traditional distinction between “historic” and “historical,” the two words are often used interchangeably these days. In fact, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language now accepts “historical” as a secondary meaning of “historic.”

Categories
English English language Etymology Grammar Linguistics Usage Word origin

The evolution of “peruse”

Q: I have always used the word “peruse” to indicate a skimming through. But I was recently told that the word actually refers to a thorough reading, which, according to the dictionary and to my surprise, is correct. Was I ever right? (I have heard others use “peruse” to indicate a skimming through.) What is the word’s history?

A:  You’re quite correct in your use of “peruse.” It’s true that the most commonly accepted meaning today is to read thoroughly. But in the last decade or so [see our note at the end], the sense in which you use the wordto skim through, glance at, or briefly consulthas seen a revival and has made great gains. It’s considered acceptable in many standard dictionaries and hovers on the edge of respectability in others.

First, some history. “Peruse” comes from an old word in Middle English, “perusen,” which meant to use up.

The Oxford English Dictionary’s earliest reference dates to the late 15th century, when the word meant to go through or examine a number of things one by one, or to use up or wear out something. It has meant to read thoroughly or examine in detail since the early 16th century.

But that’s not all it has meant. As the OED adds, the verb has also been used to mean “to look over briefly or superficially; to browse,” as well as simply “to read.”

Oxford notes that despite the claims of some modern dictionaries and usage guides, “peruse has been a broad synonym for read since the 16th cent., encompassing both careful and cursory reading.”

“The implication of leisureliness, cursoriness, or haste is therefore not a recent development,” the dictionary adds.

The OED’s citations include this quotation by Samuel Johnson, from The Idler (1759): “Whatever is common is despised. Advertisements are now so numerous that they are very negligently perused.”

According to Fowler’s Modern English Usage (rev. 3rd ed.), the word “has a long literary history with many fine shades of meaning.”

These are among the current definitions given in Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged:

(1) “to examine or consider or survey (something) with some attention and typically for the purpose of discovering or noting one or more specific points :  to look at or look through fairly attentively”;

(2) “to look over or through (something) often in a casual or cursory manner”;

(3) to “read.”

Merriam-Webster’s has a worthwhile usage note on “peruse,” which we’ll quote:

“It was a more ordinary word in the past than it is now, although it still has considerable use. About 1906 a writer on usage decided that peruse could mean only ‘to read with care and attention,’ for what reason we do not know. In time this opinion was echoed by a number of commentators, right down to the present. Peruse has indeed been used in the ‘careful and attentive’ sense, but writers almost always signal that meaning with a modifier.”

The dictionary cites such usages as “with heed peruse,” “attentively peruse,” and “peruse thoroughly.”

At least one dictionary hasn’t yet caught up with the explanation in the OED.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.) defines the word as meaning “to read or examine, typically with great care.” The use of the word to mean “to glance over” or “skim” is labeled a “usage problem.”

American Heritage elaborates in a usage note:

Peruse has long meant ‘to read thoroughly,’ as in He perused the contract until he was satisfied that it met all of his requirements, which was acceptable to 75 percent of the Usage Panel in our 2011 survey. But the word is often used more loosely, to mean simply ‘to read,’ as in The librarians checked to see which titles had been perused in the last month and which ones had been left untouched. Seventy percent of the Panel rejected this example in 1999, but only 39 percent rejected it in 2011. Further extension of the word to mean ‘to glance over, skim’ has traditionally been considered an error, but our ballot results suggest that it is becoming somewhat more acceptable. When asked about the sentence I only had a moment to peruse the manual quickly, 66 percent of the Panel found it unacceptable in 1988, 58 percent in 1999, and 48 percent in 2011. Use of the word outside of reading contexts, as in We perused the shops in the downtown area, is often considered a mistake.”

But even that last usage is now accepted by Merriam-Webster, as noted above. The dictionary’s examples include “peruse the museum” and “shoppers perusing saris.”

In recent years, more dictionaries have endorsed your use of “peruse.”

For example, the definition in the Cambridge Dictionaries online has “to read or look at something in a relaxed way” as well as “to read carefully in a detailed way.” And the Collins English Dictionary online (both British and American editions) has “to browse or read through in a leisurely way” alongside to read or examine with care; study.” 

At least one dictionary lists yours as the only definition. The Macmillan Dictionary, in its American and British online editions, defines “peruse” as meaning “to read something.”

[Note: This posting was updated on Dec. 25, 2014.]

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “likely” story

Q: News writers seem to have dropped the word “probably” in favor of “likely.” Now you hear sentences like this: “The president will likely sign the bill.” In fact, “likely” seems to have completely replaced “probably.” Is this grammatically correct?

A: “Likely,” according to traditional usage, can be either an adjective (“that’s not likely”; “a likely story”), or an adverb (“he’ll very likely quit”). But when it’s used as an adverb, tradition says, “likely” should be modified by a word like “very” or “most” or “rather” or “quite.”

The use of “likely” as an adverb all by itself, unadorned, has long been considered substandard or dialect. The New York Times stylebook still subscribes to this belief. However, some recent dictionaries say it’s acceptable in all but the most formal writing. Here’s what The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has to say about “likely.”

I’m with you, though. I think “the president will likely sign the bill” is too informal for a new sgtory. I’d prefer “the president will very likely sign the bill” or “the president is likely to sign it” or even “it’s likely that the president will sign.”

So the answer is no. People who use “likely” as an adverb all by itself, in place of “probably,” are not using the word in its traditionally accepted sense.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

An “actionable” usage

Q: What’s happening with the word “actionable.” Many people (most recently, Condoleezza Rice) use it frequently to describe something that can be acted upon, but my dictionary says it should describe something that can be grounds for legal action. I hear the first usage in business speak so much that it drives me crazy.

A: The usual definition of “actionable,” which dates from the late 16th century, is subject to legal action, or supplying the grounds for a lawsuit. The more recent meaning (capable of being acted on, as in “actionable information,” or usable, as in “actionable data”) is listed in the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary as a secondary meaning.

Most other dictionaries that I’ve checked, including the Oxford English Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, don’t list the secondary meaning. So that usage isn’t standard (at least not yet) and it sounds like gobbledygook to me.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is the adverb losing its -ly

Q: What’s happening to adverbs? Is the “ly” going to disappear completely from our language? I’m thinking particularly of “slow” and “slowly.”

A: No, we don’t think “ly” adverbs are disappearing, but it may seem that way from some of the signs (“DRIVE SLOW”), ad slogans (“Think Different”), and informal expressions (“hang tough”) that have been popular in recent decades.

In fact, adverbs without “ly” (they’re called simple or flat adverbs) were more common in the past, though they may be making a revival now from all the complaints that we hear about them.

Many adverbs, including “slow” and “slowly,” exist in both forms (with or without the tail, as Theodore M. Bernstein puts it in The Careful Writer). Authorities on grammar and usage generally recommend the ones with the tail in formal writing, but there are many exceptions.

No one would complain about phrases like “sitting pretty” or “come close.” And a lot of tail-less oldies are still going strong (“fast,” for example, has been an adverb since around 900).

Here’s some history. We’ve had adverbs with and without the “ly” (or archaic versions of it) since Anglo-Saxon days. In Old English, adverbs were usually formed by adding “lice” or “e” at the end of adjectives.

Over the years, the “lice” adverbs evolved into the modern “ly” ones and the adverbs with a final “e” lost their endings. In recent centuries, writers have tended to add “ly” to the end of the simple adverbs or to prefer the “ly” adverb when two versions existed.

Which brings us back to “slow” and “slowly.” The Oxford English Dictionary’s first published reference for “slowly” dates from around 897 while the OED’s first citation for “slow” as an adverb is from around 1500.

Both adverbs are legit, and both have long histories, but be aware that sticklers consider “slow” a second-class citizen, good only for informal speech or writing.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The scoop on newspaper jargon

Q: I read many blogs on the Web. One word that I keep seeing is “lede.” It is usually used as the equivalent of “lead,” as in the lead, or opening, paragraph. My compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary seems to indicate that it is an obscure variant of “lead.” Has the Web brought this word to life?

A: Thanks for the question. The word “lede” is newspaper language for the lead paragraph (or “graf”) in a news story. The headline is called the “hed,” which often includes a “subhed,” perhaps an overline (or “deck”) and, if it jumps to the inside, a “jumphed.” The abbreviations “HTK” and “LTK” mean “hed to come” and “lede to come.”

This is just industry jargon. It wasn’t intended to make its way into the language, but it sometimes slips by the copy desk and gets into a newspaper. As you point out, such newsroom talk can also be seen on websites, especially those popular with journalists, journalism groupies, or people who want to show what insiders they are.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The origin of “caucus”

Q: I’ve been reading a lot lately about Democratic and Republican caucuses on Capitol Hill. Do you know the origin of the word “caucus”?

A: The Oxford English Dictionary’s first published citation is from 1763 (a reference in John Adams’s diary to meetings of the “caucus club” in Boston). The precise origin of the word is unknown, however, and seems lost in the mists of time. There are three theories, two of them are doubtful.

The first questionable theory is that “caucus” comes from the Greek “kaukos” or the Medieval Latin “caucus,” meaning drinking cup. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language offers this view, but I think it’s improbable. If true, why would the term go underground for centuries and then show up out of nowhere in colonial Boston? Where was it all that time?

The second dubious theory is that “caucus” might be a corruption of “caulkers,” named after a political meeting first held in a caulkers’ shop in the shipbuilding district of Boston in 1770. The weakness of this theory is that the word “caucus” is at least seven years older than the political gathering.

The most likely theory, in my opinion, is that the word is of Algonquian origin. An authority on Native American languages, Dr. J. H. Trumbull, suggested in the “Procedures of the American Philological Association” in 1872 that the word might be derived from an Algonquian word, “cau´-cau-as´u,” mentioned in the writings of Capt. John Smith in the 17th century. The word was said to mean “one who talks with or advises.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

An ATM machine?

Q: What do you think of people who say “ATM MACHINE”? It is like saying “AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE MACHINE.”

A: You’re right that the phrase “ATM machine” is redundant. In fact, it’s famous for being redundant. Since you’re interested in redundant acronym phrases, here’s a link to a site devoted to the subject, the Redundant Acronym Phrase project.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A murderous mob of crows

Q: Do you know why a group of crows is called a murder of crows? I’m a reference librarian and a patron asked me this. I couldn’t find the answer, though I did find a reference to the term.

A: The phrase “a murder of crows” is a poetic term, not a scientific one. The more common expression is “a flock of crows.”

The poetic version is one of the whimsical names for congregations of animals that can be found in James Lipton’s book An Exaltation of Larks. Other collective terms include “a covey of partridges,” “a rafter of turkeys,” “a brood of hens,” “a fall of woodcocks,” and “a wedge of swans.”

Lipton traces “a murder of crows” back to the 15th-century phrases a “mursher of crowys” and a “murther of crowes.” I’ve found postings online mentioning similar citations in the Oxford English Dictionary, but I couldn’t find such references in my CD-ROM version of the OED.

I’ve seen speculation on the Internet that the expression is based on a spurious folk belief that flocks of crows hold trials and execute (that is, murder) members for bad behavior. I’ve also read online that crows sometimes feed on the carcasses of dead crows and may occasionally kill a crow from another flock. I can’t vouch for either of these explanations.

[Note: A later post on this subject appeared in 2008.]

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Appendices” vs. “appendixes”

Q: A burning question in publishing: Books may have appendices, but what about people? If a doctor removes more than one appendix, has he removed appendices? We suspect not.

A: The short answer is yes, way back when.

Over time, plural endings of foreign-derived words tend to become Anglicized. Many English dictionaries now list “gymnasiums” before “gymnasia,” “memorandums” before “memoranda,” “syllabuses” before “syllabi,” “cactuses” before “cacti,” and so on.

Similarly, 150 years ago, your dictionary would have recommended “appendices” for the plural of “appendix” (in both the literary and medical senses). These days “appendixes” is preferred for both. Many dictionaries, however, give the two plurals, as in this entry for “appendix” in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

In the mind of the beholder

Q: A Brazilian friend of mine is taking English language lessons in Rio. She used the term “in the mind” with her teacher and she was told that this usage was incorrect. I told her that her teacher was mistaken. Who is correct? Is “in the mind” correct English?

A: I see nothing wrong with “in the mind.” For example: “Pain is all in the mind,” or “Who knows what’s in the mind of a terrorist?”

But there’s another expression without the article: “in mind,” as in “That’s not what I had in mind.” Perhaps your Brazilian friend should have used “in mind” and didn’t need the article.

I’d have to know the context to tell whether your friend was using “in the mind” correctly.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is it “militate” or “mitigate”?

Q: When did “militate against” (correct) become “mitigate against” (wrong)?
Condoleezza Rice has repeatedly used the latter in her public statements.

A: “Militate” and “mitigate” do not mean the same thing, despite Ms. Rice’s remarks. And the use of “against” with “mitigate” makes no sense. To “mitigate” is to moderate, to make milder. To “militate” is to influence or have an effect—either for or against.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Straight from the horse’s mouth

Q: Does the expression “straight from the horse’s mouth” have anything to do with actual horses?

A: The expression, which means reliable or on good authority, has two possible origins. The most likely is that it comes from horse-racing circles: a tipster supposedly has inside information so good that it comes straight from the horse. According to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, the expression goes back to 1917.

The second possibility is that the phrase comes from the world of horse-trading, but I can find no good evidence to support it. According to this explanation, a smart buyer examines a horse’s teeth to determine its age and general health, so reliable information about the animal comes from its mouth. This, by the way, is the origin of the expression “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” (don’t quibble about something you aren’t paying for).

Categories
English language Uncategorized

What’s the skinny on “skinny”?

[Note: An updated post about “the skinny” appeared on Jan. 23, 2011.]

Q: Perhaps you can put me out of some minor misery by answering this question: why is the expression “the skinny” used for the word “information”? This usage has me baffled and irritated.

A: The use of “skinny” as a noun meaning information is relatively new. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first published citation as 1959, when the question “What’s the skinny?” was translated as “What’s up?” The OED describes the usage as chiefly American slang.

There’s no reliable explanation for the origin of the expression, but it’s been speculated that “to get down to the skinny” (that is, to get the essential information about something), was like getting down to the skin of an issue. Well, that’s as good an explanation as any, I suppose.

Categories
English English language Expression Grammar Phrase origin Usage

“Woe is I” vs. “Woe is me”

Q: I love your book, but I have a question about the title. How come it’s Woe Is I and not Woe Is Me or Woe Am I? Is there a reason?

A: I chose the title Woe Is I to poke fun at hypercorrectness—that is, incorrectness used in the mistaken belief that one is being  ultra-correct. (A good example is a sentence like “Give your seat to whomever needs one.”)

In the case of the book’s title, the butt of the joke is the old rule of English grammar (now considered excessively formal) that required the nominative case after the verb “to be.” (Example: using “It is I” instead of “It is me” or “It’s me.”) I wanted to show how ridiculous we sound when we go overboard in the name of correctness.

As I wrote in the preface to the second edition, “the expression ‘Woe is me’ has been good English for generations. Only a pompous twit—or an author trying to make a point—would use ‘I’ instead of ‘me’ here.”

Check out our books about the English language

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Whose name is mud?

Q: I heard you on the radio discussing the expression “his name is mud.” I did some research online and it seems that Dr. Samuel Mudd was the man who mended John Wilkes Booth’s leg and this is where the expression comes from. Just thought I’d let you know.

A: Thanks for the information on Dr. Mudd, but he isn’t the origin of the phrase. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the noun “mud,” meaning a stupid (thick) fellow, dates back to 1708, and the expression “his name is mud” dates back to 1823. Booth shot Lincoln in 1865.

So, it isn’t true that Dr. Mudd’s example inspired the expression, although that explanation has been widely disseminated on the Internet.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is a person a “that” or a “who”?

Q: I constantly hear people say “the man that did something” or “the woman that went somewhere.” Shouldn’t it be “the man who did something” or “the woman who went somewhere”? Or did I fall asleep again in English class?

A: Despite what many people believe, a person can be either a “that” or a “who.” There’s no grammatical foundation for the belief that it’s incorrect to refer to a person as a “that” (“the man that I marry,” “the girl that married dear old dad,” and so on).

A thing, on the other hand, is always a “that.” As for pets, they aren’t people, but they aren’t quite things either. If an animal is anonymous, it’s a “that.” If it has a name, it can be either a “that” or a “who.” (“I’m looking for a dog that can act; Lassie is a dog who could direct her own movie.”)

Getting back to people, there may be a “politeness” issue here. Some folks seem to think using “that” in place of “who” or “whom” demeans or objectifies a human being. Still, there’s no grammatical reason for such a rule, even though many style books persist in spreading the misconception.

A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage, by Bergen Evans and Cornelia Evans, has this to say on the issue: “That has been the standard relative pronoun for about eight hundred years and can be used in speaking of persons, animals, or things. … Three hundred years ago who also became popular as a relative. It was used in speaking of persons and animals but not of things. This left English with more relative pronouns than it has any use for. … Who may in time drive out that as a relative referring to persons, but it has not yet done so.”

For more about these two little words, see the “Who’s That” box in the first chapter of Woe Is I.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why is there an “e” in Pat’s last name?

Q: My last name is O’Connor and I was always told by my Irish relatives that there was no such spelling of O’Connor with an “er” at the end. Can you explain why Patricia’s last name ends that way?

A: Your family is right. The correct spelling of our last name is “O’Connor.” In my case, the name got misspelled somewhere along the way, beginning with my father’s generation. My birth certificate actually has the misspelling, as does my sister’s. I always wanted to change it back but never did and now it’s too late. Sigh.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Much ado about “doable”

Q: Would you comment on the overuse of the word “doable”? I hear it all the time. Also, why do people coin a new word like that when there are plenty of older ones around that can do the job? How about “achievable,” “attainable,” “conceivable,” “possible,” “viable,” and “workable”?

A: I do agree that “doable” (meaning able to be done) is vastly overused, and often there’s a better alternative. In addition to the ones you mention, “practicable” and “feasible” come to mind.

In its defense I should mention that “doable” is not a recent coinage. Believe it or not, this adjective has been in use for well over five centuries. The Oxford English Dictionary cites published references that go back to 1449. The noun “doer” (meaning one who does) is even older, with the earliest published reference from the 1300s.

So yes, “doable” is overused. But it’s a legitimate usage and still with us after all these centuries, probably because none of the alternatives have exactly the same meaning.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why isn’t “email” more like “mail”?

Q: I have been an Internet technologist and heavy email user for 20 years. I love Woe Is I, but I find your use of “an email” and “a few hundred emails” really grating. I’ll admit that this has become common usage, but I cannot understand why you would condone it. Until the Internet went public, “email,” like “mail,” was a mass noun. To me this makes a lot of sense. I certainly wouldn’t say “I wrote my grandmother a mail”; nor would I write “the postman pushed several mails through the slot.” Why not “I just received three pieces of spam, two replies regarding the bid, and a video clip of Wendy’s dog,” rather than “I just received six emails”? Or why not say “I’ll send it to you as an email attachment” instead of “I’ll email it to you”? Isn’t meaning being lost?

A: When I wrote the second edition of Woe Is I, there were style issues to be decided: how to write the word “email” (hyphen? capital?); whether to use it as a verb (“to email”); whether to use it as a noun meaning a single email message (“an email”); whether to use “emails” as the plural form (“three emails”), and so on. At the time, usage was all over the map. I weighed the alternatives, took into account what newspapers and book publishers were doing, kept abreast of changing dictionary usage, tuned in to what email users themselves were writing and saying, and most of all tried to anticipate emerging preferences and decide what seemed most natural and most likely to enter the public lexicon.

I think I made the right choices. There are no good reasons to prohibit using “email” as a verb or as a noun in both singular and plural forms. Otherwise we’re stuck with confining “email” to an adjective or to a generic noun meaning the medium itself.

Yes, meaning is being lost if you say “I just received six emails” instead of “I just received three pieces of spam, two replies regarding the bid, and a video clip of Wendy’s dog.” But there’s nothing to prevent you from being more specific if you want to be. Lots of people do. The point is, we have choices. In the end, individuals don’t decide what becomes “acceptable” English. The world at large does. Like it or not (and I don’t like a lot of it), common usage eventually becomes the standard. Thanks for your thoughtful email message. (Is that OK?)

Categories
English language Uncategorized

What’s the origin of “hinky”?

Q: I heard you discussing the word “hinky” on the air. A friend of mine from California uses it to mean “shifty” or “jumpy” or “nervous.” It has a vaguely criminal connotation. Did you ever find out where it comes from?

A: The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang has an entry for “hincty,” which it describes as a Black English term dating from the 1920s. It originally meant snobbish, fastidious, or aloof. Random House says the origin is unknown. The Oxford English Dictionary says some people have suggested “hincty” might be a clipped form of “handkerchief-head” (that is, an Uncle Tom), but the connection hasn’t been demonstrated.

Back to Random House: A later variant (spelled variously “hincty,” “hinkty,” “hankty,” and finally “hinky”), is described as an underground or police term for suspicious, wary, paranoid, nervous, jumpy, or even arousing suspicion (as in “Something hinky is going on”). Urbandictionary.com describes “hinky” as meaning, among other things, “Something as yet undefinable is wrong, out of place; not quite right.” Many online slang sites say much the same.

The question arises whether these are really two different terms—one meaning snobbish, the other meaning paranoid—or whether one meaning evolved from another.

It’s hard to say. But it’s worth noting that the OED has an entry for “hink,” an old and obscure Scots noun meaning a hesitation or a misgiving; a separate verb form means to limp or falter. This might indicate that the “hinky” that means nervous or jumpy is a different “hinky” altogether. We may never know.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is “none” singular or plural?

Q: My question is whether the word “none” can ever take the plural, as in “none are.” I see “none” as a contraction of “not” and “one,” and if this is true it should obviously be followed by “is.” But I hear “none” used in the plural so often—even by fine writers—that sometimes I wonder. If it is strictly a singular word, we need one for the plural, maybe a contraction of “not” and “any,” something like “nany.”

A: The word “none” can be either singular or plural, but it’s more likely to be plural.

Contrary to what many people think, “none” does not always mean “not one.” Historically, its derivation is closer in meaning to “not any.”

The word in Old English was nan, so your suggestion of a contraction “nany” isn’t all that far out.

What to remember: When “none” means “none of them,” it’s plural. Example: “None of the cookies were eaten.” When “none” means “none of it,” it’s singular. Example: “None of the cake was eaten.”

If you really do mean “not one,” my advice is to say “not one.”

You can find more misconceptions about English in “The Living Dead” chapter of my book Woe Is I or on the Grammar Myths page of Grammarphobia.com.

Categories
English language Grammar Usage

Is it “fewer” or “less”?

Q: Which is correct: “Less than five percent of the people came” or “fewer than five percent of the people came”?

A: Strictly speaking, “fewer” should refer to plural nouns (“fewer kittens”) and “less” to singular nouns (“less milk”).

But with percentages (say, “five percent of the people”), the answer isn’t so black and white. I think (and Bryan A. Garner’s Dictionary of Modern American Usage agrees) that in this case “less” is better. To me, “the people” is closer to a collective mass noun than to a collection of individuals counted up. So I’d suggest “less than five percent of the people.”

There are intelligent arguments for “fewer,” but “less” would be my choice, since percentages suggest quantity rather than counted individuals.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Some “gruesome” thoughts

Q: In the course of your recent fun discussion with Leonard Lopate about the English language, you speculated that “gruesome” was derived from the old English word “grue.” I suggest that a more likely origin is the German “grausam.” Do you have any further thoughts on this subject?

A: The Oxford English Dictionary says “gruesome” comes to us from the Middle English verb “grue,” which means to feel terror. The word “grue,” in turn, may have been borrowed from similar words in old German, Dutch, Danish, or Swedish languages. So, one can make the case that both the English word “gruesome” and the German word “grausam” are derived from the various Germanic versions of “grue.” The OED’s earliest reference for “grue” is from 1300 and its earliest reference for “gruesome” is from 1570.

An interesting footnote: John Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins points out that “gruesome” was used in only Scotland and northern England for more than two centuries. It didn’t become a common English word until Sir Walter Scott began using it in his novels in the early 19th century.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

When the issue is “issues”

Q: I heard you discussing the frequent use of the word “issue” these days to mean an objection or a complaint, as in “to have issues with somebody.” This isn’t a question, but the discussion reminded me of a less frequent use of the word “issue” now: Henry the VIII had issues. Unfortunately, he couldn’t get the male issue he wanted until he’d gone through 3 wives!

A: Reminds me of an old Burma Shave ditty: “Henry the Eighth … sure had trouble. … short-term wives … long-term stubble. … Burma Shave.”

The Oxford English Dictionary‘s earliest reference for the use of “issue” as offspring dates back to the late 14th century. The OED‘s earliest citation for “issue” as a subject of controversy or dispute dates back to the early 15th century. But my CD version of the OED doesn’t include the phrase “to have issues with,” indicating that the usage is relatively recent. A discussion about the expression on Google Answers suggests that it might have originated as college slang in the 1990s or Gateway computer jargon, though I can’t vouch for either.

Categories
English English language Expression Language Usage Writing

Assure, ensure, and insure

Q: I am a puzzled editor. I cringe every time I see the word “insure” used in a non-financial sense in respected publications. I am under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that “insure” should be used in regard to finances, and “ensure” in a more abstract and wider sense. I would appreciate any light that you can shed on this.

A: In the US, both “ensure” and “insure” can mean to make certain of something, but “insure” is preferred in the commercial sense (to issue or take out insurance). All five American standard dictionaries that we regularly consult agree on this, while the five British dictionaries we consult describe it as standard in the US.

Nevertheless, some usage and style manuals insist that “insure” should be used only in the financial sense.

A third verb, “assure,” is often confused with “ensure” and “insure.” In both the US and the UK, “assure” means to set someone’s mind at rest, though it’s sometimes used in the UK to mean underwrite financial loss.

All three verbs—“assure,” “ensure,” and “insure”—have their roots in a Latin word for “safe” or “secure.” 

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

[Note: This post was updated on April 21, 2020.]
Categories
English language Uncategorized

Should “Ms.” have a period?

Q: The Chicago Manual of Style says “Ms.” should have a period, but Gloria Steinem and the other feminists who popularized the term don’t use a period. Which is right?

A: In matters of style, there’s no absolutely correct or incorrect call. In grammar perhaps, but not in style.

Most American stylebooks, however, will advise using a period for an honorific, with the exception of “Miss,” which is not an abbreviation. One might argue that “Ms.” isn’t an abbreviation of anything, either. But the fact remains that it is not a noun on its own, and exists only as a courtesy title before a name.

It’s worth noting that in Britain, “Mr” and other titles are used without periods. That’s a peculiarity of British style.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

With John and “me”

Q: My boss corrected me for writing “with John and me” in a memo. He insisted that I should have said “with John and I.” I didn’t want to get into an argument, but he was wrong, wasn’t he?

A: Yes, you were right. Mistakenly using “I” for “me” is probably the most common grammatical error in English. Nobody makes a mistake when “I” or “me” is used alone. No one (at least no grown-up) says “with I” or “me went.” So if you can’t choose between “I” and “me,” it helps to mentally eliminate the other guy: “with [John or] me” or “[John and] I went.” You can find more hints about solving “I” vs. “me” problems in the first chapter of Woe Is I.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why do we say “eighty-six it”?

Q: Where did the slang expression “eighty-six it” come from? The common understanding of this phrase is to get rid of something, but how did this come to be?

A: The noun “eighty-six” is restaurant slang “indicating that the supply of an item is exhausted, or that a customer is not to be served,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED’s earliest published reference is from 1936: “Eighty-six, item on the menu not on hand.”

The verb “eight-six,” according to the OED, means “to eject or debar (a person) from premises; to reject or abandon.” The OED gives this citation from 1959: “Eighty-sixed some square bankers from the temple.”

As for the origin of “eighty-six it,” the short answer is that the expression probably originated as rhyming slang for “nix it.” But there are a lot of other theories, including one supposedly involving a Prohibition-era speakeasy named Chumley’s at 86 Bedford Street in New York City. Michael Quinion’s Web site World Wide Words has an informative item on “eighty-six.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why do Americans say “horseback riding”?

Q: I am English and I don’t understand why Americans say “horseback riding.” In England, we just say “riding” or “horse riding.” It’s taken for granted that the back is the place of choice. I don’t know why it bothers me so much.

A: The term “horseback” is very old, and published references go back to the late 1300s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. You can find it used as a noun, which sounds very odd to modern ears, and even as a verb. More commonly, it has been used as an adverb or adjective. Here’s an OED citation from 1390: “This knight, whiche hoved and abode Embuisshed upon horsebake.”

Now, to your question. The expressions “horseback ride” and “horseback riding,” according to the OED, are now “used chiefly in U.S.; in England, ride, riding are understood to be on horseback, unless otherwise expressed or implied, as ‘a ride in a wagon,’ ‘a bicycle ride.’ “

I haven’t found any reason for this difference in contemporary usage. It’s been my experience, though, that horsemen and horsewomen in the U.S. use “ride” and “riding” the same way they’re used in the U.K. Non-riders or occasional riders in the U.S. are more likely to refer to “horseback riding.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Where ignorance is bliss

Q: Does the old expression that begins “where ignorance is bliss …” finish with “it follows to be wise” or with “ ’tis fallow to be wise”? The first one makes little sense to me. I think the second is right because it uses the agrarian idea of a field left fallow, where nothing productive is growing.

A: The expression comes from Thomas Gray’s poem “On a Distant Prospect of Eton College.” The lines read, in part: “… where ignorance is bliss, / ’Tis folly to be wise.” You can find the whole poem on Bartleby.com.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A dotty question

Q: I use a lot of dots like these ……….. in my e-mail. It’s a sort of stream of consciousness thing …….. a conversational way of expressing myself. What’s the correct way to use them?

A: The dots you’re talking about are called ellipsis points or ellipses. They usually come in threes, like so … and they’re supposed to signal that the writer has deliberately omitted something. When the omission comes at the end of the sentence, there’s a period added, so there are then a total of four dots. But in the middle of a sentence there should be only three.

You frequently see ellipsis points in quotations, since the writer often doesn’t want to quote everything the speaker said: Mr. Smith said, “I’m happy to be here … and to see all my old friends.” That indicates the quote was actually longer but the writer is omitting some of it. Or maybe there was an obscenity the writer doesn’t want to repeat: “Get your … feet off the table!”

Another use of ellipsis points is to indicate a trailing off at the end of a sentence, often with the final period omitted, like this: I saw the train hurtling toward the bridge, then …

As for the “stream of consciousness” stuff, some people use these dots in their e-mails to string together a bunch of disorganized ideas. Not a good use of ellipsis points!

Categories
English language Uncategorized

How do you say “affluent”?

Q: Senator John Edwards uses the word “affluent” frequently and pronounces it with the accent on the second syllable. My dictionary says it should be on the first syllable. Can you tell me what is correct?

A: The correct pronunciation is “AFF-loo-ent” (short “a” as in “apple,” accent on the first syllable). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language allows a second pronunciation for “affluent” with the stress on the second syllable. It’s less common, though, and it doesn’t sound very fluent to me.