Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Each” and “every” headache

Q: What is the difference between “each” and “every,” as in “Each time I visit my mother, I get a headache,” or “Every time I visit my mother, I get a headache”?

A: “Each” means one of two or more people (or things), considered individually. “Every” means all the members of a group, without exception. The words may seem to mean the same thing in a larger sense, but there are nuances of difference. “Each member of the choir” is considering all of them one by one; “every member of the choir” is considering them as a collection, one from which no member is excluded.

When you say, “Each time I visit my mother, I get a headache,” you’re thinking of headache after headache after headache, with each individual visit. When you say, “Every time I visit my mother, I get a headache,” you’re stating a rule—something that happens without exception.

Again, the difference is very small but worth preserving, I think. And by the way, the expression “each and every time,” which some usage experts consider a misuse (or a redundancy at best), is pretty common these days and of course combines both meanings.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Bringing up “baby-sit”

Q: I’m confused about the verb “baby-sit.” Common usage today seems to be this: “I baby-sit my little brother.” My belief is that it should be “I baby-sit with my little brother.” Also, would one baby-sit with a neighbor? Or with a plant? Can you clear this up for me?

A: The verb “baby-sit” (sometimes “babysit”) has an interesting history. It was apparently formed from the noun “babysitter.” The noun came first (in the 1930s), followed by the verb (in the 1940s). Linguists call this a back-formation.

As a verb, “baby-sit” can be either transitive (“She baby-sits my little brother”) or intransitive (“She baby-sits for [or “with”] my little brother.”) And, yes, one can baby-sit with a neighbor or a plant.

All this comes from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which has an interesting word history for baby-sit.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Down the tubes”

Q: What are the “tubes” in “down the tubes”?

A: I searched the American Dialect Society‘s discussion groups and found a suggestion that the “tubes” are sewer pipes. Thus, “down the tubes” is another way of saying “down the drain.” The expression, which means “into a state of failure or ruin,” is an Americanism dating to the early 1960’s, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED entry also cites a relationship between “tubes” and “drain.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “forward” (or “foreword”) pass

Q: Why do most people pronounce the word “forward” (the opposite of “backward”) the same as “foreword” (meaning “preface”)? And why do so many people mix them up and misspell them?

A: Count me among the people who pronounce these two words the same way. In fact, all the dictionaries I’ve checked say the two are pronounced identically in American English. There’s no phonetic difference. Their sounding alike may explain why, as you say, so many people confuse them and their spellings.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Let’s “vet” this

Q: I’ve been hearing the word “vet” used a lot lately, especially in the media. Is it a Briticism? Is it a new coinage?

A: The word “vet” is often used as a verb meaning to “check out” or “evaluate.” Believe it or not, this usage has been with us for at least a century.

The noun “vet,” short for “veterinarian,” dates back to 1862. By 1891, the word was also being used as a verb meaning “to submit to a veterinarian’s care.” In other words, to “vet” your dog was to take it to a vet for a checkup. The first recorded use of the verb “vet” to mean “evaluate” in a general sense was in 1904.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

On “frogs” and “frog-eaters”

Q: What’s the origin of the epithet “frogs” in reference to the French people?

A: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “frogs” has been used as a term of abuse for men and women since the 14th century. During the 17th century, it was used to refer to the Jesuits and the Dutch.

Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable traces the use of the word “frogs” for the French to both the eating of frogs’ legs and the fleur-de-lis, the French heraldic device, which was sometimes described as three frogs or toads saluting. In the 16th century, Nostradamus, alluding to the fleur-de-lis, used the word “toads” for Frenchmen, according to Brewer’s. In the late 18th century, the dictionary says, the French court routinely called the people of Paris grenouilles, or frogs.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, according to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, “frogs” and “frog-eaters” began showing up in English as derogatory terms for the French people.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Nauseous” vs. “nauseated”

Q: I’m sick of hearing people say they’re nauseous when they should be saying they’re nauseated. It makes me want to puke!

A: I’m with you. If someone is sick to his stomach, he’s nauseated. If something is sickening, it’s nauseous. Never say, “I’m nauseous.” Even if it’s true, why admit it?

(A post in 2012 expanded and updated our views on “nauseous” and “nauseated.”)

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Computer “mouses” or “mice”?

Q: My husband and I have been debating the correct plural of the computer mouse. “Mice” elicits a giggle and “mouses” elicits a cringe. Kindly help us out of this trap.

A: The newest editions of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary list both “mice” and “mouses” as acceptable plurals for the computer mouse.

But another source, Bryan A. Garner’s Dictionary of Modern American Usage, prefers “mouses.” His reasoning is pretty sound: for the plural of “louse,” we use “lice” for more than one insect, but “louses” for more than one cad.

My preference is “mouses.”

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Are you “dubious” or “doubtful”?

Q: Please help me. What’s the difference between “dubious” and “doubtful”?

A: These words are very similar and have overlapping meanings. Something that is doubtful is IN DOUBT; something that is dubious is a CAUSE OF DOUBT. Both have the same ancient Indo-European root, “dwo,” which gives us scores of words, including “two,” “double,” and many more. (You might say that someone who’s in doubt is wavering between two alternatives.)

Here are the acceptable meanings.

“Dubious” can mean: (1) questionable in character, or untrustworthy, as in “the company’s earnings report was dubious” or “her résumé was full of dubious job references”; (2) undecided or uncertain, as in “he’s dubious about switching jobs”; (3) open to question, as in the old cliché about the “dubious distinction.”

“Doubtful” can mean (1) subject to doubt, as in “his chances for recovery are doubtful”; (2) undecided or uncertain, as in “he’s doubtful about switching jobs”; (3) in doubt, as in “we were doubtful that it would work”; (4) suspicious, as in “she has a doubtful reputation.”

As you can see, there’s a lot of room for duplication. In some cases, you could choose either word; the difference would be one of nuance. But it seems that “dubious” has a more negative or ominous tone.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “pandemic” epidemic!

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is “whereabouts” singular or plural?

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Disinterested” vs. “uninterested”

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Pregnant or “knocked up”?

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

How arguable is “arguably”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “moot” point

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English English language Etymology Punctuation Usage Word origin

On ’til and till and until

[Note: A May 30, 2022, post discusses the history of “ ’til,” “till,” and “until.”]

Q: My pet peeve is the use of the word till to mean until. Isn’t ’til the correct contraction of until? I see it all the time (and I mean all the time) spelled till, which makes me think of working the soil. Am I wrong? I can’t rest ’til I know.

A: I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Both till and until are legitimate words.

Historically, in fact, till came first. Later, un was added and the final l dropped, giving us until.

In modern usage, they’re interchangeable, though until is more common at the beginning of a sentence.

So it’s not correct that till is a shortening of until. Rather, until is a lengthening of till.

Where did ’til come from? It all began in the 18th century when writers muddied the waters by creating ’till and ’til under the mistaken assumption they were contractions of until. Not so.

The word ’til (with or without an apostrophe in front to indicate an omission) is etymologically incorrect, and frowned on by many usage writers.

However, some standard dictionaries now accept ’til  as a variant spelling of till. As The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.), explains:

“Although ’till is now nonstandard, ’til is sometimes used in this way and is considered acceptable, though it is etymologically incorrect.”

[This post was updated on Oct. 17, 2015.]

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why do politicians sound like turkeys?

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

A: Here’s my answer in a nutshell:

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

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

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

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

(5) They’re lying.

(6) They’re turkeys.

Categories
English language Usage

What’s the right dictionary for me?

Q: What is the best dictionary to purchase? I’d like to buy a nice hard-bound dictionary for my family. Could you suggest a quality edition with good etymological references?

A: I like both The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the big fourth edition, and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the eleventh edition.

[2012 update: American Heritage is now available in an updated fifth edition.]

The dictionary you choose depends to some degree on what you’re using it for. I find myself using American Heritage a lot because the entries are so interesting and the usage notes are very helpful. It’s an entertaining dictionary if you’re into looking things up!

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster’s is the “house” dictionary of many publishing companies, newspapers, magazines, and so on. If you’re writing for them, that would be a good dictionary to have from a style point of view (consistency of capitalizations, abbreviations, and so on). It is also less conservative from a usage point of view.

I realize this isn’t a definitive answer. So here’s one: If you’re buying a dictionary to use for work or writing and you need fast, authoritative answers that don’t go into a lot of detail, get Merriam-Webster’s. If you want to be entertained and edified as well, get American Heritage.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A singular question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s always a way around this problem.

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Why is a toll road a “turnpike”?

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “trying” time

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language

The uniqueness of ‘unique’

[An updated post about “unique” appeared on Oct. 20, 2017.]

Q: I have increasingly been hearing phrases like “very unique” and “most unique.” I had thought that such expressions were used mostly by illiterates, but last week I heard them on a news commentary on the BBC. What is the status of the qualified “unique”?

A: There is no legitimate qualification for “unique.” If something is unique, it’s one of a kind. There are no degrees of uniqueness. As I say in my grammar book, Woe Is I, “Nothing can be more, less, sort of, rather, quite, very, slightly, or particularly unique. The word stands alone, like dead, unanimous, and pregnant.” So if you hear someone qualify it, that’s a misuse. The reason this particular misuse is such a shame is that “unique” is unique! Using a modifier with it muddies the meaning, and there’s no synonym that’s as good.

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “flustrating” question

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A “cockamamie” story

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Do you really need “that”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Who put the “tom” in “tomboy”?

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

A plural in sheep’s clothing

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Liberty” vs. “freedom”

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

Is broccoli “healthy” or “healthful”?

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

On “each other” and “one another”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

The scoop on “bi” and “semi”

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

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

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“In behalf of” vs. “on behalf of”

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
English language

The ‘lie’ or ‘lay’ of the land?

[Note: A more detailed post on this subject appeared on April 2, 2021.]

Q: I frequently hear the phrase “lay of the land,” typically referring to a situation or condition that might affect some plan of action. I was taught the phrase should be “lie of the land,” as in how the land lies (a metaphorical reference to the landscape itself and its suitability for what one wanted to accomplish). Has wide common (mis)usage made “lay” acceptable or have I been wrong all along?

A: It depends on where you live. In American English, the idiomatic noun phrase used to describe topography or the state of affairs is “lay of the land.” In British English, it’s “lie of the land.”

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

Categories
English language Uncategorized

“Got” and “gotten”

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

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

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

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