Categories
English language Uncategorized

Clothes vs. clothing

Q: Would you mind clarifying the difference between “clothes” and “clothing”? My friend and I disagree. I frequently use “clothing” in a sentence like “Don’t forget to pack some clothing for the trip.” He finds that “clothing” is inappropriate in this sense and should be “clothes.” I almost never use “clothes” – probably because I’m from New Jersey and I find it hard to pronounce.

A: My husband uses “clothing” as you do, while I normally say “clothes.” I think they’re pretty much interchangeable these days, and you’re not necessarily incorrect whichever you choose. But typically “clothes” is used to refer to specific items while “clothing” refers to garments in general.

I’d say “I packed my clothes,” or “She’s wearing her new clothes,” but “Your clothing should always be appropriate.” My husband, on the other hand, would say “clothing” for all three. That’s just his habit.

As far as how to say “clothes,” it may be easier than you think. The pronunciation listed first in most dictionaries sounds something like “close.” I don’t know many people who actually pronounce the “th” sound. Here’s the “clothes” entry from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, with an audio pronouncing guide.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Damn Yankees!

Q: I’ve heard that “Yankee” comes from an old Indian word. Is that true?

A: The origin of “Yankee” is uncertain, but it’s believed to be derived from the Dutch word “Janke,” which is a diminutive of the name Jan. It originated in the 1680s, and was a derisive term used (among other things) to describe pirates.

The English started using the word to refer contemptuously to the Dutch who had settled along the Hudson River, and later to refer to American settlers in general. It wasn’t until the Revolutionary War that anti-British forces adopted “Yankee” as a term of pride.

In fact, the British initially used the song “Yankee Doodle” to insult the Colonials, according to Wikipedia, but the Americans adopted it with pride after the Battle of Lexington and Concord. It’s now the state song in Connecticut.

The Oxford English Dictionary says the “Janke” explanation is “perhaps the most plausible,” but it also cites less likely theories that “Yankee” comes from American Indian words for slave or coward or English.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is there a “hearse” in “rehearse”?

Q: It’s probably apocryphal, but I heard that the word “rehearsal” originated as a sort of contraction that combined the terms “re” and “hears” and “all,” as in the director “re-hears all” the play, etc. Any help?

A: The verb “rehearse” originally meant something like rake over, according to The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology and the Ayto Dictionary of Word Origins. It comes from Old French, “re” (repeat) plus “hercier” (“to rake or harrow”). The Old French noun for a harrow, a plowing implement, was “herce.”

“Rehearse” was adopted into English in the 13th century and meant repeat or recite or say over again. By the 16th century, it was being used in the sense of practicing a play. Oddly, the English word “hearse” comes from the same source. In the 13th century the English borrowed from Old French to create the word “hers” to describe a framework, something like a harrow, used to hold candles and decorations in place over a coffin. By the 17th century, a “hearse” was a vehicle for carrying a coffin.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

On knickerbockers, knickers, and the Knicks

Q: I’m a Knicks fan and I know their name is short for Knickerbockers. But can you tell me how a basketball team got a name like that?

A: The word “knickerbockers” has been used over the years to refer to the early Dutch settlers of New York, the breeches that they wore, and New Yorkers, especially those of Dutch origin. The short form, knickers, has come to mean knee-length trousers for boys or men, and, primarily in Britain, women’s underpants (as in “Don’t get your knickers in a twist”).

The term originated with Diedrich Knickerbocker, the fictitious pen name used by Washington Irving for his 1809 book, A History of New York. The name wasn’t entirely an invention, since Irving actually had a friend named Herman Knickerbocker, who lived near Albany.

In the late 19th century, newspaper cartoon representations of Father Knickerbocker came to symbolize New York much as Uncle Sam now represents the United States, according to the word sleuth Barry Popik.

As for the Knicks, the team’s website says the “original Knicks logo, used from the inaugural 1946-47 season through 1963-4, was that of a Father Knickerbocker figure dribbling a basketball.” What better name for a New York ball team than a symbol of New York!

Categories
English language Uncategorized

You’ve got to be kidding

Q: I cringe when I hear people say “I’ve got to do this” or “I have got to do that.” What’s wrong with simply saying “I have to do this” or “I must do that”?

A: I’m sorry that I have to disagree with you about “have got to” in place of “have to” or “must.” The “have got to” construction, conveying an obligation or a duty, has been an accepted idiom since the 1860s.

Published examples can be found in the writings of Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, John Ruskin, and others. The Oxford English Dictionary’s earliest reference is in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865): “The first thing I’ve got to do is to grow to my right size again.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why does the Bronx have a “the”?

Q: I listen to you whenever you’re on WNYC, but I can’t call in because I’m driving a bus during the broadcast. My question is this: Why do we refer to Bronx, New York, as the Bronx? We don’t use “the” with Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, the other New York City boroughs. Why do we use it with the Bronx?

A: Dr. Peter Derrick of the Bronx Historical Society says the Bronx has a “the” because it’s named after the Bronx River, which runs through the borough. The Bronx River, in turn, was named after Jonas Bronck, the first European settler in the area, according to Dr. Derrick. One common misconception, he says, is that the borough got its ‘the’ from people who said they were going up to visit the Broncks on their farm.

There’s a capital “T” in the official name of the borough, according to Dr. Derrick, so it should be The Bronx, not the Bronx. But most newspapers (and this blog) prefer a lower-case “t.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“All is” vs. “all are”

Q: A contributor to a publication I edit has complained that I wrongly changed the sentence “All is returned to a simmer” to “All are returned to a simmer.” Is she right? If so, oops!

A: “All” is a two-faced word. It can be either singular (“is”) or plural (“are”). If a writer means “all of it,” she should use “is.” If she means “all of them,” she should go with “are.” So it depends on whether your contributor was thinking of the whole dish or the various things in it: “All [the soup] is returned to a simmer” or “All [the ingredients] are returned to a simmer.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The pedigree of “pet peeve”

Q: Where does the phrase “pet peeve” come from?

A: “Pet peeve,” an alliterative expression referring to something that bugs you, is relatively recent in origin and dates to about 1919. Here’s the entry from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

The noun “peeve” isn’t much older, going back to only 1908, according to The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. It comes from the much older word “peevish,” an adjective from the 1300s. The derivation of “peevish” is unknown, but the Barnhart dictionary suggests that it might be linked to perversus, the Latin word for perverse.

Interestingly, one of the oldest meanings of the noun “pet” is a fit of peevishness. (The Oxford English Dictionary has published references going back to the late 16th century.) As an adjective, “pet” can mean “favorite,” as in “pet project” or “pet topic” or, getting back to the subject at hand, “pet peeve.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Dissing the Democratic Party

Q: Why do Republicans refer to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party? The first time I remember hearing this was out of the mouth of Newt Gingrich.

A: I too have noticed that Republicans often use the noun “Democrat” as an adjective in phrases like “Democrat Party” or “Democrat platform” or “Democrat politician.” The correct adjective is “Democratic,” as we all know and as dictionaries will confirm. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, for example, defines “Democratic Party” this way: “One of the two major political parties in the United States, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.”

But deliberately messing up someone’s name—mispronouncing it or otherwise misusing it—is an age-old form of disrespect. The misuse says, in effect, “You’re not worth the effort of getting your name right.”

Also, some Republicans are reluctant to use a favorable adjective like “democratic” to describe the opposition party or a politician belonging to it. And those Republicans say they want to be able to refer to one of their own as a “democratic” politician with a small “d” and not have him be confused with a big “d” politician.

William F. Buckley Jr., writing in the National Review in 2000, acknowledged the possible confusion between big “d” and small “d” politicians, but he nevertheless had “an aversion to using ‘Democrat’ as an adjective.”

“It has the effect of injecting politics into language, and that should be avoided,” he wrote, adding that “it’s our job to get the correct meaning transmitted without contorting the language.”

Yes, Newt Gingrich did a lot to encourage the use of “Democrat Party” as a not-so-subtle form of denigration, but the practice began well before he arrived on the scene. During the Truman-Dewey presidential election campaign in 1946, for example, B. Carroll Reece, who was then chairman of the Republican National Committee, used the adjective “Democrat” as a weapon. (Truman, in turn, suggested calling the GOP the Publican Party, a reference to the tax collectors of the New Testament.)

So the use of the term “Democrat Party” is quite an old trick. In fact, researchers have found references from as far back as 1855, though at that time the term may have been inoffensive and not intended to show disrespect. The linguist Geoffrey Nunberg has cited negative references from the early 20th century, but he says the practice didn’t become “a Republican tic” until mid-century.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Port and Starboard

Q: I’m reading a Patrick O’Brian novel and I find myself wondering about the origin of the words “port” and “starboard.” I guess “port” must come from the side of a ship that faces the port, but what’s the etymology of “starboard”?

A: The term “starboard” refers to the right side of a ship when facing the bow or front. It’s a very old word (dating way back to the 9th century) for the side from which a ship is steered. (“Steor” was the old word for rudder or paddle; “bord” was the word for side.) Boats used by the early Germanic tribes were steered from a paddle on the right side of the boat. “Stern,” the term for the rear of a boat, comes from the same source.

The term for the left side of a ship used to be “larboard,” which came from the Middle English “ladde-borde” or loading side of a ship, according to The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology. In the 16th century, sailors began using the word “port” to refer to the loading (or port) side. In recent times, the word “port” has generally replaced “larboard” to avoid confusion with the similar-sounding “starboard,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Her Nibs, Miss Georgia Gibbs

Q: I was reading the other day about the death of the singer Georgia Gibbs. The obituary in the New York Times reminded me that she was referred to as “Her Nibs, Miss Georgia Gibbs.” Where did the term “his nibs” or “her nibs” come from?

A: “His nibs” or “her nibs” is an informal expression used to refer to a “person in authority, especially one who is self-important,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. The dictionary speculates that the word “nibs” may be an alteration of the word “nob,” chiefly British slang for a “person of wealth or social standing.” The word “nob,” which American Heritage suggests might be a variant of “knob,” is also slang for the human head.

In cribbage, a jack is known as either “His Nibs” or “His Nobs.” In fact, the first citation for “his nibs,” from 1846, in the Oxford English Dictionary may be a reference to cribbage, though the second citation, from 1877, clearly refers to a person in authority.

The OED says the origin of “his nibs” is obscure, but it might have come from the slang term “my nabs,” meaning “my gentleman” or “myself.” The word “nab,” according to the OED, refers to a head or a coxcomb (a fop or a dandy).

The word “nib,” of course, refers to a bird’s beak or the business end of a pen. But the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang has a citation from 1812 in which “nib” was used to mean “a gentleman or person of the higher order.”

By the way, I didn’t find any references that link “his nibs” to the word “nabob,” which comes from Arabic and Hindi, and also refers to an important person.

As for Miss Gibbs, the TV host Garry Moore dubbed the singer “Her Nibs,” probably because the phrase rhymed with her name and reflected her prominence in the world of popular musical.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why is the proof in the pudding?

Q: I don’t get the expression “the proof is in the pudding.” It doesn’t make sense to me. Could it have anything to do with the rum or brandy in a Christmas pudding?

A: You deserve a toast for that idea! As for the actual origin of the pudding business, it’s a shortened version of an old proverb popularized by Cervantes in Don Quixote: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” The Mavens’ Word of the Day, a Random House website, says the proverb has been around in various guises since about 1300.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The origin of “randy”

Q: My name is Randy, which may explain my interest in the adjective “randy.” Do you know the origin of the word?

A: The adjective “randy” originally meant rude, disorderly, or aggressive, and dates back to the late 17th century in Scotland.

It was first used to describe beggars, according to The Oxford English Dictionary, most likely “implying vagrant habits as well as rude behavior.” It probably originated with an old Dutch word, “randten,” meaning to rave or talk foolishly, which also gave us the English word “rant.”

It wasn’t until the 1840s that “randy” came to mean wanton, lustful, or sexually aroused.

We don’t know why it took on that meaning, though it already had an element of coarseness and that quality may have been exaggerated to include the sense of lewdness. (In Scotland, according to the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “randy” can still mean “having a coarse manner.”)

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

 

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?)