Tag: Etymology

Q: I am upset by the dreadful phrase “ethnic cleansing.” A “cleansing” is such a lovely sounding thing whereas “ethnic cleansing” is so horrifying. Can you suggest another phrase that would truly capture the meaning of ethnic cleansing?

A: You’re right about the horrendous euphemism “ethnic cleansing.” It suggests that a segment of a population should be considered dirty, and consequently swept away. It makes me shudder.

For an alternative, I’d recommend being as precise as possible. If you’re talking about genocide, call it genocide. If you mean mass expulsions or arrests to drive out an ethnic group, say so.

The best weapon against the slings and arrows of outrageous language is plain English.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: What is the origin of the word “wake,” as in “I am going to his wake tonight” or “He is going to be waked”?

A: The modern verb “wake” comes from two Old English words, “wacan” (to become awake) and “wacian” (to be or remain awake), according to The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology and the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto. These two words eventually became “waken” and “wakien,” respectively, then fused into our modern verb “wake.”

This sense of “wake” (to awake or stay awake) also gave rise to related words having to do with guarding (“watch,” “vigil”). “Vigil” is related to the Old Icelandic word vaka, which is a noun meaning the eve before a feast or festival (when people often prayed all night), and also a verb meaning to be awake.

This “guarding” and “watching” angle is what gives us the sense of “wake” as a vigil or watch kept over a dead body. By extension, the dead person is said to be “waked.” The transitive verb “wake,” meaning to hold a wake over someone (that is, to “wake” him), goes back to the 1300s.

Interestingly, the phrase “to wake the dead” now has two distinct meanings in English—to be so noisy as to wake up the dead (a modern interpretation), and to hold a wake over the deceased (the traditional sense).

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

The Junior Library Guild describes Pat’s latest book, Woe Is I Jr., as a “smart, funny guide to grammar” for children. Here’s more of what the Guild has to say about the kids’ version of Pat’s bestselling grammar book for grownups:

“Why should you be careful about cliché usage? This smart, funny guide to grammar and style has the answer to that question – ‘A little goes a long way’ – and many more. What’s the difference between which and that? What’s the correct way to pluralize? And when can you use an exclamation point? – ‘An exclamation point is like the horn on your car, something that shouts to get attention. . . . But if you shout too often, people will stop paying attention.’ Black-and-white cartoons.”

Learn about Woe Is I Jr.

Q: In Woe Is I on page 115 you give the following example: “An 1840 saxophone is a rare artifact.” Shouldn’t the first word be “a,” not “an”?

A: No. The correct article is “an.”

Here’s the story with “a” and “an”: Use “a” before a word, an abbreviation, a number, and so on if it starts with a consonant SOUND (“a unicorn,” “a BMW,” “a 19th-century novel”). Use “an” before a word, an abbreviation, a number, and so on if it starts with a vowel SOUND (“an uproar,” “an NFL coach,” “an 1840 saxophone”).

It’s not just the letter or number at the beginning that determines the article; it’s the SOUND of that letter or number.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I’ve read that the symbol “#” on keypad buttons is called an “octothorpe.” I believe the term has something to do with a clearing in a village. Can you tell me more about it?

A. The term (spelled “octothorpe,” “octothorp,” octalthorp,” “octotherp,” etc.) first appeared in print in 1974 in the magazine Telephony, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Here’s the quote: “A few months ago, a story traveled through the Bell System that the familiar symbol ‘#’ at long last had a name: ‘octothorp.’”

The origin of the word, which describes the symbol commonly referred to as the pound key, the number sign, or the hash mark, is uncertain. The most frequently heard explanation is that it was coined by one or more engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in the 1960s.

Several people who worked at Bell Labs have written accounts about the term, attributing it to various engineers. The wordsmith (or wordsmiths) who came up with the word, according to the stories, was trying to rename one of the two new symbols (the asterisk and the hash mark) that were added to the telephone with touchtone dialing.

Why an “octothorpe”? The various sources agree that the first part comes from the Greek or Latin word “octo,” meaning the number eight, and refers to the symbol’s eight sides or points. But the sources differ about the second half of the term. Here are some of the suggestions.

One former Bell engineer has said “thorpe” comes from the last name of the American athlete Jim Thorpe. Another has said “therp” is a whimsical ending that sounds Greek. Still another has described the choice of “therp” as a joke because the addition makes the word hard to pronounce.

The OED, meanwhile, speculates that the second half of “octothorpe” may be related to an Anglo-Saxon word (spelled “thorpe,” “throop,” or “thrupp”) that refers to a village or hamlet. (Robert Bringhurst, in The Elements of Typographic Style, notes that the symbol “#” has been used on maps to denote a village, which he describes as “eight fields around a central square.”)

Finally, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) suggests that “thorpe” may come from the last name of James Edward Oglethorpe, an English general who founded the American colony of Georgia.

Michael Quinion, who discuses “octothorpe” in detail on his website Word Wide Words, says it serves no practical purpose to have such an oddball term for a symbol that already has several perfectly acceptable names.

I agree, though “octothorpe” does have one practical purpose—in crossword puzzles!

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: My mom corrects me for being redundant when I say something like “My little brother chased after the dog.” She says the word “after” isn’t necessary because you can’t chase “before” something. This makes sense to me, but I always hear newscasters say “The police chased after the subject.” I was wondering if she is just being a stickler.

A: Well, your mom is being a bit of a stickler. She’s right, though—she correctly objects to that usage because the preposition “after” is redundant. “Chased” alone would do the job.

On the other hand, there are lots of redundant adverbs and prepositions in some of our most common idiomatic phrases: “meet up with,” “face up to,” “try out,” “divide up,” “hurry up,” “lose out on,” and many more.

Sometimes a redundancy adds just the right emphasis, and that’s why these expressions persist in English. Many language authorities would say “chase after” is a justifiable idiomatic redundancy. That’s another way of saying it’s so common that we should look the other way!

But there are a couple of common redundancies that you really can’t justify—”off of” (as in “it fell off of a truck”) and “where is it at?” The “of” and the “at” in those expressions are frowned on by even the most liberal grammarians.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I’m dying to know the answer to this question: What is the origin of the term “bootleg”? My mom (an English teacher) says it means illegal, but I say it’s just the vertical part of a boot.

A: You’re both right.

The first published citations for “bootleg” in the Oxford English Dictionary, dating from the early 17th century, refer to a noun meaning the leg of a tall boot. The most recent (fourth) edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language includes this meaning.

By the late 19th century, the adjective “bootleg” and the noun “bootlegger” were being used to refer to illicit trading in liquor, according to the OED. The verb “bootleg” (as in to smuggle liquor) followed in the early 20th century. I wonder, however, how much booze a smuggler could hide in his bootlegs.

The OED‘s first citation for the liquor usage, an 1889 report in the Omaha Herald, quips that the whiskey consumed in my home state, Iowa, was “for medical purposes only” and “on the boot-leg plan.” Ouch!

In the early 20th century, the term “bootleg” came to be used for other illicit products, including books and food. By the end of the century, it also referred to unauthorized records, tapes, and so on, as well as to a football play in which the quarterback pretends to hand off the ball, but continues to carry it hidden near his hip. The QB could use hip boots!

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Woe Is I Jr., the kids’ version of the bestselling grammar book for grownups, is now in bookstores. If you’re a young grammarphobe (or know one), this book is for you.

Shrek? Earwax-flavored jellybeans? Poems about meatballs? Who on earth would use all these to explain the rules of grammar? Must be Patricia T. O’Conner!

Just like Woe Is I, her national bestseller for adults, the junior version uses simple language and entertaining examples to make good English fun. Hey, grammar doesn’t have to be gruesome or gross or grim. How gratifying! This is one reference book you’ll enjoy pulling off the shelf.

To buy Woe Is I Jr., visit your local bookstore or Amazon.com.

Some Chapters

“I” Witness: When Words Need Stand-ins

Plurals Before Swine: Sometimes There’s More Than One

Yours Truly: Possessives and the Possessed

Action Figures: Words That Do the Work

Small Miracles: Incredible Shrinking Words

Casting a Spell: How to Be Letter Perfect

Endangered List: The Bruised, the Abused, and the Misused

Connecting the Dots: All About Punctuation

Laugh While You Learn

You can say “Woe is I” if you want to sound like the Queen of England. But if you want to sound normal and still be correct, this is the book for you.

Praise for the original Woe Is I

“This is, like, a cool book.” —Garrison Keillor

“Lighthearted and funny.” —Daniel Pinkwater, The New York Times Book Review

“Delightful . . . witty, economical and fun to read.” —Publishers Weekly

“Possibly the most popular book on grammar ever published.” —Writers.com

“Witty and humorous.” —Library Journal

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I often hear presumably intelligent people use the word “loan” when I think they mean “lend,” as in this sentence: “Will you loan me a dime?” Can you actually use “loan” as a verb without doing a disservice to the English language?

A: In formal English, “lend” is the verb and “loan” is the noun. But common usage has taken over in American English. It’s now considered acceptable (at least informally) in the United States to use “loan” as a verb for the lending of money or physical goods.

A Usage Note in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) says objections to the verb “loan” may be the result of “a provincial deference to British critics, who long ago labeled the usage a typical Americanism.”

Although American Heritage accepts the verb “loan” for physical transactions, it says only “lend” is correct for metaphorical or intangible transactions.

What this means is that Shakespeare, if he were alive today, would NOT feel free to write, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, loan me your ears.”

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I’ve always been confused about the difference between “forewarn” and “warn.” Aren’t you warning someone either way? When do you use one over the other?

A: I think “forewarn” and “warn” mean about the same thing. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) defines “forewarn” as to warn in advance. It defines “warn” as to make aware in advance of actual or potential harm, danger, or evil. If you see a significant difference between the two meanings, you have better eyes than I.

You could justify “forewarn” if you really are warning someone of some danger way, way ahead of time. Otherwise, I think the term “forewarn” appears mostly as part of the old expression “forewarned is forearmed.” Also, writers may like “forewarn” because it has a sense of menace about it. It’s spooky.

Both “warn” and “forewarn” are very old words. The earliest reference to “warn” in the Oxford English Dictionary is from around 1000 while the earliest “forewarn” citation dates from 1330. I like this quotation from a 16th-century translation of the Aeneid: “The Harpye Celaeno Forwarns much mischiefe too coom.”

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: Have you ever discussed “RSVP”? It has come to be a noun meaning a reservation as well as a verb meaning to respond. As you know, it really stands for “Répondez, s’il vous plaît,” or “Please respond.” Nowadays I’m always seeing “Send your RSVP” or “Please RSVP.” This one is a lost cause, I know, but you aren’t afraid of lost causes.

A: The “Send your RSVP” and “Please RSVP” usages are so common now that I think they’re here to stay. In fact, the verb is now accepted in some dictionaries.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) lists only one definition for “RSVP”: please reply. But Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) also defines it as a verb meaning to respond to an invitation. Merriam-Webster’s dates the verb usage to 1953.

The Oxford English Dictionary also includes the verb usage. The dictionary has two published references, one in a 1969 novel and the other in a 1978 article in the Observer newspaper.

Here’s the earlier OED citation, from Next Time I’ll Pay My Own Fare, by Raymond Vernon Beste: “The Duchess de Santine Miorna requests the pleasure of Detective-Inspector John Gage’s company to dinner tonight … R.S.V.P. … Gage R.S.V.Ped in Spanish.”

So, the verb usage isn’t all that new. I’ll keep my eyes open for more about “RSVP.” If I learn anything else (or even if I don’t), I may mention this on the radio show.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

A: I’ve always thought that the phrase “out of pocket” referred to the absence of money, not the absence of people. But the expression seems to have evolved into meaning unavailable. Why? I find it annoying!

Q: There appear to be at least three distinct meanings for “out of pocket”:

(1) At a fiscal loss: In this case, “out of pocket” means out of one’s own pocket—in other words, you have to pay for something yourself. Examples: “I thought the tickets would be free, but I got stuck with paying, so I’m $150 out of pocket.” Or, “Mrs. Grosvenor refused to pay for the cabinetry, so the carpenter was out of pocket.” The Oxford English Dictionary has this usage dating from 1679.

(2) Behaving badly: According to the newest edition of Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, “out of pocket” is a variation on the phrase “out of (the) pocket,” a 1940s African-American expression referring to bad behavior or a bad situation. Cassell’s says this meaning grew out of pool jargon (a shot that was “out of pocket” or “out of the pocket” caused a player to miss a turn).

(3) Unavailable: I first came across this meaning in the early 1980s when I was a staff editor at the New York Times. Reporters who had filed stories were supposed to supply phone numbers where they could be reached in case questions arose. If a reporter was unreachable (say, on a plane to Tibet), he or she was said to be “out of pocket.” The OED cites published references for this meaning dating back to 1946, though it didn’t become common until the 1970s.

I haven’t found an answer to your question about why the third meaning evolved. I also haven’t seen an explanation of why we say out of “pocket” rather than out of “hat” or “glove” or whatever when we’re unavailable, but here’s a possibility.

There’s an expression “to have someone in your pocket,” which means to have him under your control. Perhaps by extension, if he’s “out of pocket” he’s no longer under your control or scrutiny. Again, this is just speculation on my part.

[Update: Here’s a later post on “out of pocket.”]

Buy our books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: John Edwards used “highfalutin” in the recent debate for Democratic presidential candidates. I think of it as rural and maybe Southern. Have you got anything else?

A: The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang has oodles of citations for “highfalutin” (spelled variously). The first, from 1839, is a quotation in which the term means pompous or bombastic: “Them high-faluting chaps.” Random House says the origin of the term is unknown, but it’s probably influenced by “high-flown.”

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.), which defines the word as pompous or pretentious, lists three spellings: “highfalutin,” “hifalutin,” and the less common “highfaluting.” American Heritage says it has been suggested that the term may come from “flute”—so someone who thinks too highly of himself is “high-fluting.”

The dictionary says “highfalutin” is characteristic of American folk speech, but it’s not a true regionalism, Southern or otherwise, because it has occurred throughout the country.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: The word “revulsed” reared its ugly head in the CBS response to the Don Imus flap, as in this quote from Leslie Moonves: “I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on the air.” I was certain that this usage was wrong. Off to the dictionary I went—and found it in Merriam-Webster’s. As Mr. Wagnalls said to his partner: “Funk, who woulda thunk.” What do you say?

A: For starters, the Oxford English Dictionary has never heard of “revulsed” in this sense. The only “revulsed” I can find in the OED is a 17th-century medical term meaning to pull back or tear away. Here’s a 1673 example by the English physician and anatomist William Harvey, from a book published after his death: “To take away the blood … that it might be revulsed from the lungs.”

As you point out, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) includes the adjective “revulsed” and defines it as affected with revulsion. It says this usage dates from 1934. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) has a similar entry.

Traditionally, to feel revulsion is to be “revolted,” not “revulsed.” I don’t know about you, but I find this new word entirely unnecessary. “Revolted” is a perfectly good word and I think “revulsed” is … revolting.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I don’t have a question, but I thought you might like to see this novel usage of the word “bandwidth” in an article about Governor Spitzer’s plans to introduce a gay-marriage bill in New York: “That would leave Mr. Spitzer with little political bandwidth that would allow him to build support for another controversial bill.”

A: Thanks for “bandwidth” — my husband spotted the usage, too, and I’m saving it to mention on a future WNYC broadcast. He suspects, as do I, that this one will be just too irresistible to the language trendies and that it will be around for a while.

The first published citation for “bandwidth” in the Oxford English Dictionary dates from 1930, when the word referred to the interval separating the limits of a band of electromagnetic frequencies or wave lengths.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defined it pretty much the same way until the latest edition (the fourth), which added this additional definition: “The amount of data that can be passed along a communications channel in a given period of time.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if the next American Heritage edition takes the word one step further and uses it metaphorically as a synonym for “influence” or “clout” (political, financial, romantic, and so on).

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: What has happened to “penalize” with the long “e”? I hear it more and more with the short “e.” Is it because people don’t like pronunciations that sound like body parts? Of course we still use a long “e” for “penal” colony!

A: Either pronunciation of “penalize” (with or without a long “e”) is all right. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) both list the pronunciation with the long “e” first, which means it’s more common.

If the “pen” pronunciation is gaining on the “peen,” it may be, as you suggest, because of the “peen” resemblance to “penis” and “penile.” On the other hand, it may be because the word “penalty” has a short “e” and is more common than the associated word “penalize.”

At any rate, both pronunciations of “penalize” are alive and kicking. You shouldn’t get penalized for using either one.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: Oh, how I would love to know where the expression “full of pizzazz” comes from! The phrase itself is full of pizzazz! Is it a Boston thing? Is it a 1940s and 1950s expression?

A: The noun “pizzazz” (also spelled “pizazz” and “pazazz”) originated in the 1910s and originally meant an expert or an exemplar, according to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang. (This was news to me too!)

In the 1920s, the meaning evolved into style, glamour, or ostentation. By the 1930s, it was being used to mean energy or zest. I’d guess this is the meaning in the expression “full of pizzazz.”

The word’s etymology is unknown, though the Oxford English Dictionary says it’s frequently attributed to Diana Vreeland, the late fashion maven. (Cassell’s Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins is dubious about the Vreeland attribution.)

The OED’s first published reference is from Harper’s Bazaar in 1937, the year Vreeland arrived at the magazine as a columnist. Here’s the citation: “Pizazz, to quote the editor of the Harvard Lampoon, is an indefinable dynamic quality, the je ne sais quoi of function; as for instance, adding Scotch puts pizazz in a drink.”

Although its origin is unknown, “pizzazz” has echoes in “razzle” (a spree or a good time) and “razzmatazz” (showy, high-class, or an exclamation of pleasure). I think people back then had a lot more energy than we do today.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I am a faculty assistant at Columbia Law and one of my professors recently came across a book that says the United States was frequently referred to as plural before the Civil War and singular after the war. Can you shed any light on this? Was the Civil War a linguistic as well as a historical turning point?

A: The Civil War historian James McPherson, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Battle Cry of Freedom, apparently saw the war as a turning point for singularity. I’ll quote from an article in John Hopkins Magazine (April 2001) about McPherson’s work:

“From his vast reading, he notes that before 1861, the public tended to treat ‘United States’ as a plural: ‘The United States are moving toward war.’ After the conflict, U.S. became singular: ‘The United States is looking forward to peace and reconciliation.’ McPherson traces changes in Abraham Lincoln’s vocabulary as well, with the word ‘nation’ gradually replacing ‘union’ in his speeches as the war progressed.”

Similar observations have been made by the historians Shelby Foote and Thomas E. Woods Jr. In an interview for Ken Burns’s documentary “The Civil War,” Foote remarked:

“Before the war, it was said ‘the United States are.’ Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always ‘the United States is,’ as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an ‘is.'”

But Benjamin Zimmer, editor for American dictionaries at Oxford University Press, looked into the issue and concluded that the transformation of “United States” from plural to singular wasn’t nearly as smooth and symbolic as Foote suggested.

In an extensive posting to the Language Log, Zimmer offers evidence that the issue of whether “United States” should be singular or plural was still being debated nearly four decades after the war.

He cites a May 4, 1901, article in the New York Times under the headline, “ARE OR IS: Whether a Plural or a Singular Verb Goes With the Words United States.” The article, written by John W. Foster, a former Secretary of State, notes public figures who used the singular before and after the war.

The Civil War probably sped up the change from plural to singular, but the transformation apparently wasn’t as dramatic as some historians have suggested. In fact, Zimmer points out that the plural form is still around in some idioms, like “these United States.”

“So even now,” he writes, “the pluribus sometimes outweighs the unum.”

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: HELP! The New York Times says things like this: “Nassau and Suffolk counties” and “First, Second, and Third avenues.” My knee-jerk reaction is to capitalize the “c” in counties and the “a” in avenues. WHY, why, why does the Times make them lowercase? Is this correct?

A: The Times practice is a matter of house style rather than of grammar. But I think it makes sense.

If you’re talking about several streets or avenues in combination, only the principal part of the name should be capitalized. The generic part (“streets” or “avenues”) shouldn’t be. So it would be correct to refer to “First, Second, and Third avenues.”

For the same reason, the principal names of counties are capitalized, but the generic part (when several names are combined) would not be: “Nassau, Suffolk, and Putnam counties.” Similarly, “the Chrysler, Empire State, and Citicorp buildings.”

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I keep telling my office mates about you and your website, so by association, I have become the go-to person in the office for grammar questions (how scary is that?). Here’s a question I’ve been asked that only a guru like you would know: Is it wrong to begin a sentence with a preposition? You say in Woe Is I that it’s OK to put one at the end, but what about the beginning?

A: It’s perfectly normal to begin a sentence with a preposition (a positioning word like “after,” “between,” “in,” “over,” “toward,” and “within”). In fact (or should I say “After all”?), it’s extremely common.

As you note, a preposition can go at the end of a sentence, too, contrary to what a lot of people believe. See my blog entry about putting one at the end.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

[Note: We had an updated post about “anyway” and “anyways” on Aug. 21, 2009.]

Q: Why do I hear people say “anyways” instead of “anyhow” or even “anyway”? It sounds awfully wrong to my ears! Or is it just me?

A: “Anyways”? No way, at least not in modern times. These days, the acceptable usages are “anyway” and “any way.” Here’s now they work.

It’s one word (“anyway”) if you want the adverb that means in any case or nevertheless: “He slipped but he won the race anyway.”

Otherwise, it’s two words (“any way”): “Is there any way to escape? There doesn’t seem to be any way out.”

Once upon a time, beginning in the 13th century or so, “anyways” and “anywise,” both adverbs meaning in any manner, were common usage. Now they’re considered archaic and nonstandard.

As for why so many people insist on “anyways,” that’s a mystery I can’t solve!

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: My sisters use the word “sketchy” in odd ways: “That was a very sketchy thing to do” or “Dad is very sketchy.” I had previously heard the word used only as a synonym for incomplete: “We have a sketchy description of the murder.” Are my sisters using the word correctly?

A: The adjective “sketchy” originally referred to something that was outlined only slightly and with no details filled in, a meaning the Oxford English Dictionary traces back to 1805.

Another meaning (imperfect or superficial or flimsy or lacking in substance) evolved later, and the OED has citations for this dating from 1878. One of the quotations is from a letter written by E.B. White in 1943: “I am hoping that my health (which has been rather sketchy lately) will improve.”

It sounds as though your sisters’ usage is something like White’s, with a more pronounced negative meaning. Perhaps they’re using the word in a way that I’ve noticed in the last few years: something like shallow or one-dimensional.

This progression seems reasonable to me: 200 years ago, “sketchy” described a simple line drawing with no detail or depth, and today it can also describe something that’s shallow or skin-deep. I’ve also heard it used lately to mean questionable, iffy, or off-color. Thus does language change!

By the way, the adjective “sketchy” originally referred to something that resembled a rough drawing or “sketch,” a noun that first appeared in print in the late 17th century, according to the OED. The noun came to mean a short play or performance in the late 18th century.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: We used to recite a rhyme in the first grade (during the 50s in southwest PA). It had to do with vowels and went “A, E, I, O, U, sometimes Y and W.” I thought of it the other day while listening to you in the car from the DC area via satellite radio. W? I am at a loss to come up with examples of W being used as a vowel.

A: You asked about “w” as a vowel, but let me comment about both “w” and “y.” In my book Woe Is I, I used a little sentence to illustrate how “w” and “y” can sometimes act as vowels: “Few boys own many cows.”

The letters “w” and “y” are officially consonants, but they have characteristics of both consonants and vowels. (In fact, some people refer to them as semi-vowels.) Even when they are clearly acting as consonants, these letters are diphthongs, combinations of at least two vowel sounds. Take the words “wet” and “yet.” The initial letters are clearly consonants, but the actual sounds of these words are “oo-EHT” and “ee-EHT”; the “w” and “y” sound something like “oo-EH” and “ee-EH.”

When “w” appears in conjunction with a vowel (“awe,” “ewe,” “owe,” “own,” “sew,” “raw,” “how”, and others), it often acts as a vowel; the same happens with “y” in words like “toy” and “style.”

Keep listening, and keep your mind on the road!

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: Please, please, please explain to me why every dictionary shows the abbreviated version of pyjamas to be p.j.’s and Pj’s and other whackadoodle versions that ALL INCLUDE APOSTROPHES! What is going on here? There is no possession implied in the abbreviation. How can this be? It is driving me crazy and I will NOT accept it any way other than PJs or pjs or even p.j.s. I will sleep without them if this goes on!

A: Calm down, and don’t jump out of your pajamas. Here’s the lowdown on nightwear, plurals and otherwise, courtesy of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:

“pajama”; “pajamas”: the standard American spelling.

“pyjama”; “pyjamas”: the standard British spelling.

“pj”; “pj’s”: the standard singular and plural abbreviations.

I can see that you’re bothered by the apostrophe in the plural abbreviation. But many, many style books and grammar guides (including mine) recommend adding an apostrophe with the plural of a small letter in an abbreviation to make it easier to read.

Without an apostrophe, the “s” in the plural abbreviation looks like part of the principal term. Imagine trying to pluralize the individual letters a, i, and u without using apostrophes: as, is, us. They’re much more readable as a’s, i’s, and u’s. No possession is implied.

Now keep those pj’s on, and go to sleep!

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I was just wondering if you knew why the letter “Z” is pronounced “zee” by Americans and “zed” by Canadians. My cousin is from Vancouver and it makes me giggle whenever I hear him say that.

A: Where the pronunciation of the last letter of the alphabet is concerned, we in the United States are the odd ones out. The standard pronunciation in Britain and in all the old British Commonwealth nations is “zed.”

H.L. Mencken, in his book The American Language, says that the standard pronunciation “zed” became “zee” in the United States sometime in the 18th century, but he doesn’t go into why this happened.

One might speculate that the “zee” pronunciation was influenced by the parallel pronunciations “bee,” “cee,” “dee,” and so on. And it was probably helped along by Noah Webster’s preference for “zee” in his influential American Dictionary of the English Language (1828).

The pronunciation “zed” for the letter “z” entered English in the 1400s, borrowed from the Middle French zède, which in turn was derived from zeta, the Latin and Greek name for the letter.

“Zed” and “zee” aren’t the only versions on record, though. In Samuel Johnson’s time, the letter was often called “izzard” or “uzzard,” and in fact “izzard” survived in odd pocket of the U.S. well into the 20th century. But it was mainly used as part of the expression “from A to izzard,” and was seldom used by itself.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: My boyfriend and I have a quick question. I referred to a strong animal scent as being poignant. One of the definitions of “poignant” in the dictionary is pungently pervasive. But he thinks that describing a scent as poignant is not correct. What do you think?

A: One of the definitions of “poignant,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is sharp, pungent, piquant to the taste or smell. But the OED says this meaning is now rare.

I believe that most people these days think of “poignant” as keenly moving or affecting. You might be understood in a roomful of lexicographers if you use “poignant” to mean pungent, but the rest of the world would respond with “Huh?”

I’d rather be understood than technically correct. It would be better, I think, to use “pungent” to describe a strong smell.

The word “poignant,” which goes back to the 14th century, comes to us from the Latin pungere, meaning to pierce or prick. The two earliest OED references are in The Canterbury Tales.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: This has been bugging me since my first fortuitous encounter with the joys of www.grammarphobia.com: Why “grammarphobia,” rather than “grammarphilia”? Can it be that you harbor a secret hatred of punctuation and syntax — or was it, simply, because “grammarphilia” was taken?

A: The name of the website comes from the subtitle of Pat’s first book, Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English.

Pat wanted to show that her book and our website would be friendly and accessible to people who FEAR grammar (hence the “phobia”), as well as to language types who gulp down bowls of gerunds and subjunctives for breakfast in the morning.

The idea was to explain grammar (and other language issues) in terms that wouldn’t intimidate the ordinary reader, while not turning off those who already feel comfortable with the terminology and complexities of our language (grammarphiles).

Buy ours books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: Why do so many people mispronounce “jewelry”? I find this particularly ubiquitous and irritating. More often than not, the word comes out “JOO-lu-ree” rather than “JOO-ul-ree.” Recently, I even heard the abomination spoken on PBS by (shock, horror!) an English actor with perfect diction.

A: The word is usually spelled differently in the U.S. and the U.K., which may have something to do with the differences in pronunciation. In American English, the word is spelled “jewelry”; in British English, it’s most often spelled “jewellery.”

Despite the different spellings, however, the word should be pronounced the same on both sides of the Atlantic.

H.W. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage, second edition, says the correct pronunciation is “JOO-ul-ree,” no matter how it’s spelled. The Oxford English Dictionary lists both “JOO-ul-ree” and “JOO-ul-uh-ree,” but says the first one is usual. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lists only “JOO-ul-ree” as the proper way to say it.

The word, which comes to us from Old French, dates back to the 14th century and was originally spelled “iuelrye” and later “jowalre” in English, according to the OED. “Jewellery” first appeared in the late 18th century, and “jewelry” in the early 19th century.

The British spell the word “jewellery” in commercial usage, the OED says, but sometimes spell it “jewelry” in poetry, as in this example from “Alice du Clos” by Coleridge: “Smit by the sun the mist in glee / Dissolves to lightsome jewelry.”

As for that English actor who mispronounced the word on PBS, he was either mistaken or affected.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: Any ideas about the expression “going to hell in a handbasket”? I didn’t find a very satisfactory derivation on Google. One early 18th-century citation on Michael Quinion’s World Wide Words mentions a “head in a Handbasket.” Could the basket in question refer to a container used to catch the results of a beheading? (Or am I just being over-influenced by recently watching Mary Queen of Scots meet her end on DVD?)

A: I don’t see anything in my usual language references to link the expression with a beheading. You can find almost anything on the Internet, of course, but the only reference I’ve seen on a serious language site is this brief, uncertain mention on The Phrase Finder’s Discussion Forum: “It seems to me that someone suggested that the basket used to catch the head during a beheading gave rise to ‘hell in a handbasket.’”

Michael Quinion is extremely reliable on these matters and I wouldn’t hesitate to accept his entry on “hell in a handbasket,” even though it’s necessarily inconclusive. Here’s how he sums up the situation: “It’s a fairly common American expression, known for much of the twentieth century. But it’s one about which almost no information exists, at least in the two dozen or so reference books I’ve consulted.” In other words, some of these things will never be tracked down.

Another Internet source I trust is Evan Morris’s Word Detective site, which gives this explanation: “Clues to the origin of ‘going to hell in a handbasket,’ meaning ‘deteriorating rapidly or utterly,’ are, unfortunately, scarce as hens’ teeth.” He notes that Christine Ammer, in Have A Nice Day – No Problem, a dictionary of clichés, dates the expression from the early 20th century and suggests that the alliteration of ‘hell’ and ‘handbasket’ probably contributed to its popularity.

I might add that there are scores of variations on this theme: the poor victim may go to hell not only in a handbasket but also “on a poker,” “in a bucket,” “in a hack,” “in a handcart,” “on a handcar,” “in a basket,” “in a hanging basket” [probably a deliberately humorous mistake], “on a shutter,” “in a wheelbarrow,” “on a toboggan,” and even “schooner-rigged.”

Despite the 18th-century citation you mentioned about “head in a Handbasket,” which comes close to the usual expression, there are no published references to “hell in a handbasket” more than a century old.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: Which is correct: “all ready” or “already”? I see the words (or word) both ways.

A: They’re not the same. “All ready” means prepared; “already” means previously.

Here’s an example from my grammar book Woe Is I of the two terms in action: “Carrie and Samantha are all ready to boogie; in fact, they’ve already started.”

I hope this helps.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: At the company where I work, the project managers use the phrase “speak to” like this: “Would you be able to speak to this question?” Is that usage correct? Or is it just another “office-ism”?

A: People use the expression “speak to,” meaning to address an issue, in two different ways.

The first usage, as in the example “increased crime speaks to the need for vigilance,” goes back to the 17th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. In this sense, “speak to” means to influence or to constitute evidence of something.

The second usage, as in “let me speak to that,” also goes back at least as far as the 17th century. The OED cites several published examples of “speak to” in the sense of to deal with or discuss or comment on. The first citation is from 1610: “I desire them therefore to speake to these foure points.”

So both usages are well-established. But these days they’re also much overused, especially in muddy or imprecise writing. I find the second one the most annoying. When I hear people say, “Let me speak to that,” I expect them to speak around a point without really addressing it. In other words, here comes a half-baked comment.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I’m always delighted when you’re on WNYC. You’re such fun! And I learn so much, too. Which brings me to my question. I’m completely confused about when “too” should be preceded by a comma. For example, was it correct in my sentence above? What is the rule?

A: I usually tell people that a comma with “too” is optional: use one if you want to express a pause or emphasize something. In the sentence you asked about, I think the comma is right.

Although the presence or absence of a comma often doesn’t matter, it sometimes does make a difference. For example, both of these sentences may be punctuated correctly, depending on the emphasis:

a. “Steve likes ice cream, too.”
b. “Steve likes ice cream too.”

If Grandma has just given Steve’s pushy little brother Sam a scoop of ice cream, and their mother wants to suggest that shy little Steve should get the same, she might say, “Steve likes chocolate ice cream, too.” (With a little lilt at the end, emphasizing the “too.”)

But if Mom is just describing a catalog of the stuff Steve likes, and she has already mentioned, say, vanilla ice cream, she might say, “Steve likes chocolate ice cream too.” (No particular inflection there.) It’s often a judgment call.

Sorry this isn’t more definitive, and I hope it hasn’t muddied the waters!

Note: I just realized that I answered a similar question last year. If anyone wants to compare the two replies, here’s a link to the old item.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: I’m not sure whether this question is properly directed to you or to William Safire, but here goes: Is the phrase “root cause” proper English, or is it redundant? Wouldn’t the same meaning be conveyed if “root” were omitted? Or are there different degrees of “cause”?

A: In my opinion (and I can’t speak for Safire), the expression “root cause” isn’t redundant. I think one can argue that there are different levels of causality.

I may have an overly complicated view of all this since I was a philosophy major in college. But I think of causes in at least four different ways—material, formal, efficient, and final causes.

The material cause of something is what it’s made of. A house is “caused” by the wood and other materials it’s built from.

The formal cause is the set of characteristics that make it what it is. A house is “caused” by the fact of its having walls, a roof, rooms, or whatever qualities make it a shelter.

The efficient cause is what brings it into being. A house is “caused” by the builder.

The final cause is the greater purpose or good that it serves. The final “cause” of a house is our need for shelter.

This is an Aristotelian view of “cause.” For many of the same reasons, I think almost anything can be said to have multiple causes. Probably the “root” cause of something is its ultimate purpose. But there are no doubt lesser “causes” along the way that contribute to its coming into existence.

This is a very windy way of answering your question. To paraphrase Pascal, I’ve made it too long because I didn’t have the time to make it shorter.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.

Q: In the following sentence, which is correct, “we” or “us”? “This was a ritual that [we/us] kids looked forward to with anticipation.” I favor “we,” but a friend suggested “us” might be correct.

A: In this case, “we kids” is right. However, you could say something like this: “It was a ritual that was greatly anticipated by us kids.”

In the first example, “we kids” is the subject of a clause; in the second, “us kids” is the object of a preposition.

Hope this helps.

Buy Pat’s books at a local store or Amazon.com.