Categories
English language Uncategorized

A bemusing situation

Q: I’m fed up with hearing people misuse the word “bemused.” If you’re “bemused,” you’re puzzled. I feel like shouting every time I hear someone say “bemused” when the intended meaning is obviously amused.

A: Traditionally, “bemused” means puzzled or deep in thought. But I fear that this is a lost cause. Some dictionaries already accept amused as one of the definitions of “bemused.”

The two dictionaries I consult the most are split on this. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) defines the verb “bemuse” in the traditional way: to confuse or cause to be engrossed in thought. But Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) includes a third meaning: to cause to have feelings of tolerant amusement.

The term “bemused” is misused so much these days that I’d recommend avoiding it. If you use it correctly, you’re almost certain to be misunderstood. I don’t find that amusing.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

OFF and ON

Q: I just thought of something. When an alarm goes OFF, it actually goes ON. English is a funny language, isn’t it?

A: You’re right—we turn ON an alarm so it will go OFF, and then we turn it OFF when it goes ON. We also fill IN a form that we’re told to fill OUT. And people who are IN luck say they’ve lucked OUT. No wonder that people new to English have so much trouble with prepositions!

Yes, English is funny, which reminds me of something my mother-in-law used to say: “Is that funny ha-ha or funny peculiar?” In this case, it’s probably both.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why a “via”?

Q: I’ve always thought that “via” should mean by way of, and that it should be used only to describe a geographic route. But many people now use “via” to refer to the means of doing something. Is this usage correct?

A: Traditionally, “via” has meant by way of, as in “We drove to Pittsfield via Red Rock.” This usage dates from the 18th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and comes from the Latin word for road or way.

A newer usage, dating from 1930, is by means of, as in “We traveled from Chatham to Red Rock via bus.”

Many language experts discourage this second usage. Henry Fowler’s Modern English Usage considers it a vulgarism. But both The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) now accept the second usage.

I find the newer usage a bit stiff. I’d prefer a simple preposition like “by” instead of “via”: “We traveled from Chatham to Red Rock by bus.” But it’s a matter of taste. Either word is viable.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Salad days or cake days?

Q: While searching through piles of paper, I came upon a picture of me as a child and remarked, “Those were the salad days.” Why do we refer to youth as “salad days”? Why not “cake days”?

A: The expression “salad days,” like so many others, comes to us from Shakespeare. In act 1, scene 5 of Antony and Cleopatra (1606), Cleopatra regrets her carefree, youthful affair with Caesar:

My salad days,
When I was green in judgment, cold in blood,
To say as I said then!

The word “green,” by the way, had been used for centuries before Shakespeare to refer to youth and inexperience (think of the green shoots of a plant in the spring).

The expression “salad days” appears to have fallen out of favor after Shakespeare, but it was revived in the 19th century. Although Shakespeare used the phrase to refer to a time of carefree innocence, it’s often used now to refer to a time when someone was at a peak of success.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

One word too many

Q: I don’t understand why we use the word “reiterate” so often when “iterate” means to repeat something. Any thoughts? (Don’t get me started on the phrase “reiterate again”!)

A: The term “iterate,” as you point out, means to say or perform again. It comes from the Latin iterare, meaning to repeat. The word “reiterate” also means to say or do again.

Although both words are standard English and both mean to repeat, “reiterate” is far more common and more likely to be understood. That’s a good enough reason for it to get my vote.

How did we end up with one word too many? Barbara Wallraff, in her “Word Court” column in The Atlantic magazine, blames the French. They got confused first, in the 14th century, and confused English-speakers with their verb reiterer.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Strictly a female female

Q: I’m a female criminalist who’s curious about your position on the use of “woman” as an adjective. I’m not a language stickler, but a phrase like “woman doctor” drives me nuts! I just think it sounds awkward and uneducated. Is it too late to stop this trend?

A: “Woman” is now so widely used as an adjective (or, to use Henry Fowler’s term, a noun-adjective) that I think the trend is unstoppable. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) doesn’t include the usage yet, but Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) does.

I prefer “female,” but I believe many people avoid the term because it sounds more sexually charged or more clinical than “woman.” Despite my preference for “female,” the use of “woman” to modify a noun isn’t a recent phenomenon.

The Oxford English Dictionary has published references going back to about 1300 of the noun “woman” functioning as an adjective. The earliest citation mentions a “woman frend.” Other examples are “woman sexe,” “woman modestie,” “woman-nature,” “woman-wit,” “woman-doctor,” “woman-friend,” and “woman teacher.”

My favorite is this 17th-century quote from Dryden: “A Woman-Grammarian, who corrects her Husband for speaking false Latin.”

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Massaging the message

Q: My voice-mail greeting states: “Please speak slowly and loudly so your message can be clearly understood.” It seems correct to me, but it sounds awkward when I fetch my messages. Is there something wrong with it?

A: There’s nothing wrong grammatically with that sentence, but all the “ly” endings do make it sound a bit monotonous.

Here’s a suggestion. Why not drop the last adverb? “Please speak slowly and loudly so your message can be understood.” A message that’s understood is, one would hope, clearly understood. Just an idea.

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

Categories
English English language Etymology Expression Language Usage Word origin Writing

Is “trepidatious” a word?

Q: I hear people use “trepidatious” to mean fearful or anxious, but I can’t find it in my dictionary and my spell-checker tells me it’s wrong. Is “trepidatious” a word?

A: Yes, it’s a word, though it’s more common in the US than in the UK. Six of the 10 standard dictionaries we regularly consult recognize the adjective.

All five American dictionaries include it as standard English. However, it’s found in only one of the five British dictionaries, Lexico (the former Oxford Dictionaries Online), which describes the usage as informal. All 10 dictionaries include the noun “trepidation.”

The Oxford English Dictionary, an etymological dictionary based on historical evidence, defines the adjective as “apprehensive, nervous; filled with trepidation.” The dictionary says it originated with the addition of the suffix “-ious” to either trepidāt-, the past participial stem of the classical Latin verb trepidāre (to be alarmed), or to the root of the English word “trepidation.”

Although the usage is more popular in the US than the UK, the first OED citation is from an early 20th-century British novel about colonial India:

“Hilda looked up from the papers she had been busy with as he entered—in fact, made a guilty and trepidatious attempt at sweeping them out of sight” (The Sirdar’s Oath: A Tale of the Northwest Frontier, 1904, by Bertram Mitford, a member of the aristocratic and literary Mitford family).

The earliest American citation in the OED is from the May 18, 1940, issue of the Circleville Herald, an Ohio newspaper: “A trepidatious Europe today remained tense, worried, fearful, for the outcome of what military men predict will be the greatest battle in the history of the world.”

The much older noun “trepidation” ultimately comes from the Latin trepidāre. When it first appeared in the early 17th century, the OED says, “trepidation” referred to agitation in the scientific sense:

“Massiue bodies … haue certaine trepidations and wauerings before they fixe and settle” (from Of the Proficience and Aduancement of Learning, Diuine and Humane, 1605, by Francis Bacon).

Two decades later, the noun took on its modern sense of “tremulous agitation; confused hurry or alarm; confusion; flurry; perturbation,” according to the dictionary.

The earliest citation is from another work by Bacon: “There vseth to be more trepidation in Court, vpon the first Breaking out of Troubles, then were fit” (The Essayes or Counsels, Ciuill and Morall, 1625).

Some sticklers have objected to the use of the relatively new adjective “trepidatious,” but we see nothing wrong with it. The linguist Arnold Zwicky, who uses the term himself, wrote a strong defense of the adjective in a Nov. 17, 2004, post on the Language Log.

[Note: This post was updated on Feb. 19, 2020, to reflect newer dictionary information. Posts on “trepidatious,” “trepidant,” and “trepidated” also appeared in 2015 and 2017. ]

Help support the Grammarphobia Blog with your donation. And check out our books about the English language. For a change of pace, read Chapter 1 of Swan Song, a comic novel.
Categories
English language Uncategorized

Parameter insecurity

Q: I’m confused. I hear the word “parameter” all the time and it seems to have a different meaning each time. What does it really mean?

A: You asked the million-dollar question. When a word means too many things, it means nothing at all.

Weak writers love to use scientific words to give their empty writing an appearance of authority. They love “parameter” so much that they’ve loved it to death.

It’s used these days to mean a boundary, a characteristic, a component, an element, a feature, an ingredient, a part, a perimeter, a quality, a requirement, and so on. It’s used for just about anything but its scientific meaning: a type of arbitrary constant or independent variable in mathematics.

Unless you’re on speaking terms with an independent variable and you can look an arbitrary constant in the eyes without blinking, forget about this word.

For another example of an abused technical term, see the “paradigm” entry on The Grammarphobia Blog.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

It’s absolutely annoying!

Q: My pet peeve is about the now common use of the word “absolutely” to mean a simple “yes.” Does this annoy you too?

A: The other day I telephoned a business (let’s call it Acme Widget) and the women who picked up the phone said something unintelligible.

“Is this Acme?” I asked.

“Absolutely,” she responded.

Does this annoy me? Absolutely! But it’s not a recent phenomenon.

The Oxford English Dictionary has published references dating back to the 19th century for “absolutely” used to mean yes or quite so. The OED describes the usage as a colloquialism of American origin.

The OED’s earliest citation comes from The American Claimant (1892) by Mark Twain. Other citations are in works by James Joyce, Alec Waugh, and Rex Stout.

Despite all the history, I’ll go with The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) on this one. American Heritage defines “absolutely” as definitely, completely, unquestionably, or in an absolute relationship.

Not yes!

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

Categories
English English language Expression Usage Writing

Is ‘irregardless’ your #1 ‘uggie’?

Q: I’m sick of hearing people use “irregardless” instead of “regardless.” It’s not just ugly; it’s No. 1 on my list of “uggies.” Where did the superfluous “ir” come from? And how can we get rid of it?

A: “Irregardless” has been around for about a century and has been condemned for just as long. The earliest citation in the Oxford English Dictionary, from Harold Wentworth’s American Dialect Dictionary (1912), questions its legitimacy: “Is there such a word as irregardless in the English language?”

The OED defines it as a nonstandard or humorous usage for “regardless.” Both The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary agree that it’s nonstandard.

Where did that extra “ir” come from? Lexicographers (the folks who compile dictionaries) believe that “irregardless” is probably the result of the mushing together “irrespective” and “regardless.”

I agree with you that “irregardless” is ugly. It’s right up there on my list of “uggies” too. The best way to exorcise it from the English language is to avoid using it. Let’s all do our part. But “irregardless” has been around for a long time, and it doesn’t seem willing to go quietly.

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

 

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Don’t cry for this Argentine!

Q: I hear English-speaking people say somebody from Argentina, like me, is an Argentine (pronounced ar-gen-TINE) or an Argentine (pronounced ar-gen-TEEN) or an Argentinean (pronounced ar-gen-TIN-ian). Which is correct?

A: All three are OK, but the second one appears to be the more common in the United States.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) lists the following English nouns (in order) for somebody from Argentina: (1) “Argentine” (pronounced ar-gen-TEEN, (2) “Argentine” (pronounced ar-gen-TINE), and (3) “Argentinean” (pronounced ar-gen-TIN-ian).

The adjectives referring to someone or something from Argentina are the same as the nouns, and they’re pronounced the same way.

My husband, who worked as a U.S. journalist in Buenos Aires, prefers “Argentine” (pronounced ar-gen-TEEN).

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Email intuition

Q: A friend insists the word “email” is an adjective, not a noun. He argues that one should say, “I sent an email message,” not “I sent an email.” What do you think?

A: I disagree. While “email” is still a young word and still an unfinished product, its use as a singular noun is pretty well established. Here are the usages that seem to have emerged:

(1) Singular: “I sent an email.”

(2) Plural: “I sent seven emails.”

(3) Collective (in the sense of correspondence): “I have lots of email to answer.”

For more, see the “email” vs. “mail” entry on The Grammarphobia Blog.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

That’ll be the day

Q: My children in elementary school have brought home spelling assignments that include the contraction “that’ll” for “that will.” Is this valid? I am appalled when I see it in their spelling books.

A: There’s nothing wrong with a contraction like “don’t” or “that’s” or “weren’t,” but not every contraction is legitimate. “That’ll” has been widely used for centuries (I’m reminded of the Buddy Holly song “That’ll Be the Day”). But is it legit?

Well, it’ll get by in speech, where words are often clipped, but not in writing. I definitely wouldn’t include “that’ll” in a spelling assignment for schoolchildren.

In fact, I don’t include it among the “reputable” contractions in my grammar book Woe Is I. I arrived at the list by consulting style and usage guides as well as my own instincts about what seemed reasonable.

This is largely a matter of taste and style. Among the contractions I listed as “out of bounds” (in writing, if not in speech) are “that’ll,” “that’re,” “that’ve,” “there’ll,” “there’re,” “there’ve,” and “this’ll.”

To repeat, what’s acceptable in speech isn’t necessarily proper English, which is what a writing assignment should teach children.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

What a dump!

Q: I recently looked up the word “tenement” after hearing an NPR correspondent use it. To my surprise, I learned that it can refer to any rental building, not just a rundown one. Why do I associate tenements with slums?

A: When I think of tenements, I too think of slum buildings, especially those that housed the waves of immigrants that transformed New York City in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

But the origin of “tenement” has little to do with slums and poverty. The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology says the word dates back to 1303, when it referred to the leasing of land or buildings. It came to mean a leased dwelling place fairly soon, probably sometime before 1400.

The use of the term “tenement house” for an apartment building in a poor section of a city was first recorded in 1858, according to Barnhart. How did the new meaning come about?

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum traces the slum connection to the construction of large, shoddy rental buildings for the working class in New York City in the 19th century. The museum’s website says the early tenements “represented some of the worst housing ever built in this country.”

The museum uses the term “tenement” to refer to a rental building that housed working-class families in New York from the mid-19th century to the adoption of the Multiple Dwelling Law in the city in 1929.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A tortured usage?

Q: Paul Krugman, in a recent column in the New York Times, said a proposed immigration bill would create “a path to citizenship so torturous that most immigrants probably won’t even try to legalize themselves.” Shouldn’t he have said “tortuous” instead of “torturous”?

A: As you suggest, the two words are different: “tortuous” means winding and full of turns while “torturous” means excruciatingly painful. My grammar book Woe Is I has this example of the two words in action: “On the tortuous drive through the mountains, Jake developed a torturous headache.”

Now, did Paul Krugman use “torturous” incorrectly? It depends.

If he was trying to say the bill would confuse or intimidate immigrants because of its twists and turns, he should have said “tortuous.” But if he meant the bill’s agonizing legalization process would drive off immigrants, he was right to say “torturous.”

Being correct is one thing, though, and being sensible is something else. I think he should have avoided either word because of the possibility that he’d be misunderstood. Why not use a clearer, less tortuous word, say “confusing” or “agonizing,” depending on the meaning?

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Who’s the “Indian giver”?

Q: An old history professor of mine once said American Indians were erroneously offended by the term “Indian giver.” He said the term applied not to Indians, but to the white government that granted Indians territory only to break its word and take the land back. My professor is now dead and I have no idea where he learned this. Do you know?

A: None of the sources I’ve checked support your old professor’s definition of “Indian giver”; unfortunately, all I find is the offensive meaning that Native Americans have every right to resent.

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the related phrase “Indian gift” to Massachusetts in 1765, when it was defined as “signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected.”

The OED‘s earliest citation for “Indian giver” is John Russell Bartlett’s Dictionary of Americanisms (1860): “Indian giver. When an Indian gives any thing, he expects to receive an equivalent, or to have his gift returned.”

But a posting on the Linguist List, a forum for linguists, offers this 1848 entry from a previous edition of Bartlett’s dictionary: “INDIAN GIVER. When an Indian gives anything, he expects an equivalent in return, or that the same thing may be given back to him. This term is applied by children in New York and the vicinity to a child who, after having given away a thing, wishes to have it back again.”

An article in the New-York Mirror in June 1838 also defined “Indian giver” as meaning “One who gives a present and demands it back again.”

Too bad. I like your professor’s definition better.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Out of sight!

Q: In a recent New York Times column, Dan Barry referred to the buying of property “sight unseen.” Shouldn’t he have said “site unseen,” since he was clearly referring to a piece of property? In fact, I’ve long wondered why we say “sight unseen” when the clear meaning is usually “site unseen.”

A: I have to disagree with you. A “site” is a location while a “sight” is a view. What this idiomatic usage means is that a “sight” (a view) has not been “seen.” When you buy something “sight unseen,” whether it’s a four-acre lot or a four-pound Chihuahua, you haven’t laid eyes on it.

The Oxford English Dictionary says “sight unseen” is an American expression for “without inspection” and dates from the 1890s. The OED’s earliest citation, from 1892, is in Dialect Notes, a journal of the American Dialect Society: “To trade knives sight unseen is to swap without seeing each other’s knife.”

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Possessed by possessives

Q: I work in a dental office and I have a possessive problem. Which of these sentences is correct? “The following is a brief description of our mutual patient, So and So’s, dentition and treatment plan.” Or: “The following is a brief description of our mutual patient’s, So and So, dentition and treatment plan.” I hope you can help me!

A: Neither one is right. In fact, there’s no smooth way to write that sentence correctly without a little surgery.

A case could be made for adding apostrophes to both “patient” and “So and So,” but you’d end up with a clunky sentence. A better solution is to reorganize the sentence.

Here’s one possibility: “The following is a brief description of the dentition and treatment plan of our mutual patient, So and So.”

Here’s another possibility: “I’ve prepared a dentition and treatment plan for our mutual patient, So and So. A brief description follows.”

One more: “Here is a brief description of the dentition and treatment plan that I have prepared for our mutual patient, So and So.”

That wasn’t so bad, was it? Easier than a root canal, anyway.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

What’s with the “et” in “et cetera”?

Q: Would you care to comment on the more and more frequent mispronunciation of “et cetera” as “ek cetera”? Is this a lost cause? Or is there time to draw the line?

A: I don’t think it’s a lost cause, but the mispronunciation you mention, often heard as “exetra” or “ek cetera,” has become so commonplace that it’s no longer “eksentric.” It’s still not “akceptable,” though.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) lists only two pronunciations: et-SET-uh-ruh and et-SET-ruh. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) adds “ek” and “ik” versions, but says they’re less common and considered unacceptable by some.

Why do so many people pronounce “et cetera” as though the first syllable were “ek” or “ex”? I can’t answer that, but Bryan A. Garner, in Garner’s Modern American Usage, lists it as one of the 50 most commonly mispronounced words in American English. It’s right up there with “ast” and “aksd” (for “asked”).

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is “overage” over the line?

Q: Here’s something that has been driving me crazy: the term “overage,” which the cell-phone companies have invented. It’s not really a word, is it?

A: The noun “overage,” meaning a surplus, is legitimate, according to both The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.).

Merriam-Webster’s dates it from 1909, so it’s been around a lot longer than cell phones.

In fact, “overage” was a word back in the early 15th century, when it meant work or a piece of workmanship, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED says the work angle comes from the Old French ovre or oeuvre.

So, you could say that “overage” is not only OK, but also a piece of work!

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Did Roger Clemens throw a wild pitch?

Q: Many people say “I don’t know that” at the beginning of a statement. In my opinion, “I don’t think that” makes more sense. For example, in a recent interview Roger Clemens said, “I don’t know that I have anything left to prove.” It sounds like he’s stating a fact while claiming not to know it. Is this usage correct?

A: Roger Clemens’s use of “know” isn’t unusual. In fact, you might say it’s been known for quite some time. The Oxford English Dictionary quotes similar usages dating back to the year 1000.

From then until now, according to the OED, one definition of “know” has been “to be cognizant, conscious, or aware of (a fact); to be informed of, to have learned; to apprehend (with the mind), to understand.” The dictionary notes that the usage is seen in “various constructions,” including “with dependent statement, usually introduced by that.”

So a sentence like “I don’t know that I have anything left to prove” can be read as “I’m not aware that I have anything left to prove.”

One other point. An obscure definition of “know,” dating back to the year 1200, is to acknowledge. This cobwebbed usage sounds very similar to the sense in which modern speakers say things like “I don’t know that I agree with you.”

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Textual criticism

Q: What’s the proper word for sending a text via the phone? The statement “he texted me” sounds funny. I usually say “he sent me a text message.” Can you clear this up?

A: As of now, the current editions of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) don’t recognize “text” as a verb. But I’ll bet it won’t be long before they do. [Note: See the update at the end of this post.]

The editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, in their online draft additions to the dictionary, include “text” as a verb meaning to send a text message. The earliest citation is from an Internet newsgroup (alt.cellular.gsm) posting in 1998: “We still keep in touch…‘texting’ each other jokes, quotes, stories, questions, etc.”

Interestingly, the word “text” was used as a verb back in the 16th and 17th centuries. In those days it meant to write in text-hand (the large, formal handwriting used in books) or to cite texts. One of the earliest published references in the OED is from Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing: “Yea, and text underneath, ‘Here dwells Benedick the married man!’”

The expression “he was texting me” somehow sounds better to my ears than “he texted me,” but I’d hold off using “text” as a verb until it actually shows up in dictionaries or is more commonly used. Your best choice for now is to continue saying what you’re saying: “He sent me a text message.”

[Update, July 8, 2013:

In the six years since this post was written, the verb “text” has become a household word, along with the past tense “texted.” The most recent editions of American Heritage and Merriam-Webster’s both recognize the verb.

American Heritage (5th ed.) has two definitions for the transitive use: “(1) To send a text message to: She texted me when she arrived at the airport. (2) To communicate by text message: He texted that he would be late.”

And AH has one definition for the intransitive use: “To key or send text messages: She was texting in class and missed what was said.”

The dictionary lists the past tense as “texted” and the present participle as “texting.”]

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

 

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is it worth the “efforting”?

Q: I recently said somebody was “efforting” (that is, working hard) to accomplish something. The people who were with me looked at me as if I had three heads, insisting that this was not a word. Is “to effort” a legitimate verb, and if so, did I use it properly?


A: I can’t find the verb “effort” in the two dictionaries I consult the most, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Both have “effort” only as a noun, with related adjectives and adverbs.

I did, however, discover a single published reference for “effort” as a verb in the Oxford English Dictionary, the 20-volume mother of all dictionaries. Thomas Fuller, a 17th-century scholar and clergyman, used the term in History of the Worthies of England: “He efforted his spirits with the remembrance…of what formerly he had been.”

That was then. What about now?

I got nearly 20,000 hits when I Googled “efforting,” but many were complaints about the usage. As Barbara Wallraff puts it in her Word Court column in The Atlantic, “There’s no point in inventing ‘efforting’ when so many familiar verbs are available to do its job.”

Amen!

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A hairy thought

Q: What’s the origin of the word “sideburns”? I’ve heard that a Civil War general, Ambrose Burnside, made them stylish and well known. Can this be true?

A: General Ambrose Everett Burnside, who commanded the Union’s Army of the Potomac during its defeat at the Battle of Fredericksburg, is indeed responsible for the word “sideburns.”

He wasn’t much of a general, according to the historian Bruce Catton, but he had “what was probably the most artistic and awe-inspiring set of whiskers in all that bewhiskered Army.”

The general’s cheek whiskers became known as “Burnside’s,” then “burnsides,” and finally “sideburns” in a linguistic flip-flop, according to Evan Morris’s Word Detective website. Before then, Morris tells us, cheek whiskers had been referred to as “mutton chops” because of their resemblance to the cuts of meat.

The Oxford English Dictionary’s first published reference to sideburns is in an 1887 item in the Chicago Journal: “McGarigle has his mustache and small sideburns still on.”

After the war, Burnside became Governor of Rhode Island, a U.S. Senator, and the first president of the National Rifle Association. But his most famous contribution to history may very well be his awe-inspiring mutton chops.

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

Categories
English English language Expression Usage

Why do New Yorkers stand “on line”?

Q: I clearly have too much time on my hands, but I was wondering if it’s correct English for New Yorkers to stand “on line” instead of “in line.”

A: It’s an accepted idiom in New York City to stand “on line,” though it sounds odd to people from other parts of the country.

Somebody from Atlanta or Chicago or Omaha or Phoenix gets “in line” and then stands “in line”; somebody from New York gets “on line” and then stands “on line.” (Same idiom whether you’re getting in/on line or standing in/on it.) Similarly, New York shopkeepers and such will always say “next on line!” instead of “next in line!”

This is a good example of a regionalism. In Des Moines, where Pat comes from, you get black coffee when you ask for “regular” coffee. In New York, “regular” coffee means coffee with milk. It’s a big country.

Interestingly, New Yorkers aren’t the only folks to stand on line. The Dialect Survey, which maps North American speech patterns, found that the idiom was most prevalent in the New York metropolitan area, but that it occurred in pockets around the country, especially in the East.

Our old employer, the New York Times, frowns on the usage. Here’s what the Times stylebook has to say on the subject: “Few besides New Yorkers stand or wait on line. In most of the English-speaking world, people stand in line. Use that wording.”

Well, is “on line” proper English? When you’re in New York, it is (unless you work for the Times). Just relax and “enjoy” (another New Yorkism!).

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A kangaroo court

Q: What’s the origin of the expression “kangaroo court”? Does it come from Australia? And why a kangaroo of all things?

A: The expression “kangaroo court” originated not in Australia but in the American West during the 19th century. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it as an illegal, dishonest, or incompetent court.

The first published reference in the Oxford English Dictionary is from A Stray Yankee in Texas, an 1853 book by Philip Paxton, the pen name of Samuel Adams Hammett: “By a unanimous vote, Judge G— was elected to the bench and the ‘Mestang’ or ‘Kangaroo Court’ regularly organized.” (“Mestang” is an old spelling for that small, wild horse we now refer to as a “mustang.”)

Nobody knows for sure how the kangaroo got into the expression “kangaroo court.” But there are several theories. (Excuse me if I don’t get into the mustang angle here!)

Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable says the term “probably arose from some likening of the ‘jumps’ of the kangaroo to the progress of ‘justice’ in such courts.” The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang suggests that the irregular court and the odd-looking kangaroo both seem to defy the laws of nature.

Another possible explanation is that the expression describes the informal trials of accused claim jumpers during the Gold Rush. But this is all speculation. Sorry I can’t be more definite.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is talk cheap?

Q: I’m often irritated by hearing someone say “talk” when I think he or she means “speak,” but I’m not sure if there’s any basis for my irritation. What are your thoughts on “talk” vs. “speak”?

A: It’s interesting that you should raise this question now. I recently reread the Mapp and Lucia novels of E.F. Benson. There’s a recurring motif in which Lucia pretends to know Italian and tosses around a few Italian words. She is said to “talk” Italian, not “speak” it. All the characters use this term, and Benson himself as narrator uses it. I thought it odd that he didn’t use “speak.”

At any rate, both words have long been verbs meaning to use a language. But “speak” has meant this for many more centuries than “talk.”

The earliest published reference in the Oxford English Dictionary for “speak” used this way dates from the late 13th century (spelled “speke”). The OED’s earliest citation for “talk” in this sense is from the mid-19th century.

It appears from the OED examples that “speak” may have once been considered somewhat more respectable than “talk.” But modern dictionaries accept both verbs as standard English. To my ears, though, “speak” sounds a bit more formal.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

For younger grammarphobes

Pat was interviewed recently by the website Slow Reads about her new grammar book for children, Woe Is I Jr. Here is an excerpt from the interview:

Q: You wrote your original book, Woe Is I, in 1996 at the request of a book editor who wanted a lighthearted grammar guide. Why do you think the book became a bestseller?

A: I don’t think anyone before me had ever tried to address grammar problems without using the complicated and intimidating terminology of formal grammar. And the book was funny besides, which was a novelty for a grammar book then.

Q: What led you to write Woe Is I Jr., a similar book for middle-graders?

A: When the original book came out, parents and teachers told me they found it helpful in explaining grammar to children, and suggested that an edition especially for kids would fill a niche. But I never acted on their suggestions until Susan Kochan, a very gifted editor at the Penguin Young Readers Group, pressed me to do an edition for fourth- through sixth-graders.

Q: You seem to get middle-school kids: their reading level, their capacity for understanding grammar, and their humor. What did you have to do to prepare for – and to adjust your writing for – what I suppose is your first children’s book?

A: I corralled the children of my friends, and I asked dozens of kids from my neighborhood school as well as young library patrons to answer questionnaires designed for ages 9 through 12. The responses were priceless! All the kids who helped are getting free copies of the book, as well as thanks in the acknowledgments.

For more of the interview, visit Slow Reads.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

When the Joneses are possessed

Q: I believe you once told a caller on public radio that Joneses’ is the possessive of Jones. I’ve always believed that you should add an ‘s to a word that ends in s to form the possessive. Isn’t Joneses the plural while Jones’s is the possessive?

A: I don’t recall the show, but you may have misunderstood me. Also, Jones’s and Joneses’ are pronounced the same way, which may have contributed to the confusion. Here’s how to form the possessive of a name that ends in s.

You add ‘s to a singular name that ends in s: “Mr. Jones’s boss sent him a Christmas card.” But if you’re talking about more than one Jones, you add es to make the name plural and an apostrophe to make it possessive: “The Joneses’ Christmas card had a picture of the whole family, including the two yellow Labs.”

The same is true for the possessive plural of any word that ends in a hissing, shushing, or buzzing sound (s, sh, ch, x. or z). You add es to make the word plural, and then add an apostrophe to make it possessive.

I hope this clears things up.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

T ceremonies

Q: For over a year, my 7-year-old son has been dropping his t’s at the end of words (cat = ca and what = wha!). My husband and I moved from Ireland to New York City’s suburbs nine years ago. Is the dropping of t’s a regional phenomenon? Or is this the result of my son’s hearing both Irish and American accents? Maybe he’s just doing it to annoy us! Neither his teacher nor the school speech therapist has done anything about it. Should I continue my crusade to correct him or should I back down?

A: I’d bet the dropping of t’s that you refer to is a regionalism, a local accent feature that your son has picked up from people around him.

My husband, a New Yorker, pronounces the word “bottle” with a blip in the middle where the t’s should go—roughly like “bah-ul.” I’ve noticed that many Easterners do this. I grew up in the Midwest (Iowa), where many people pronounce “bottle” as “boddle.” They also skip over the t’s in words like “twenty” and “plenty,” rendering them as “twunny” and “plunny.”

As for what you should do, I’m not qualified to say. But I’m curious about why your son’s teacher doesn’t correct his pronunciation. Have you asked? You might also ask both the teacher and the speech therapist whether you ought to continue to correct him, or whether they think this is a childhood imitation of his peers that he will simply outgrow.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The dirt on “ethnic cleansing”

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.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Waking the dead

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.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A kid-friendly grammar book?

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.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Sound advice

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.