Archive for December, 2008
December 31st, 2008
English is loaded with examples of how one letter can make a big difference. Take the pair “venial” and “venal.”
The former comes from the Latin “venia,” meaning “a grace, favor,” and is akin to “venus,” or “love.”
In this spirit, “venial” is “pardonable” or “excusable: said as of an error or fault.” In theology, “venial,” as applied to a sin, means one “not causing spiritual death.”
“Venal,” on the other hand, means “that can readily be bribed or corrupted.” (We should be familiar with this one in this state.) It comes from another Latin “venus,” one meaning “sale.” It’s also the root for “vend” and “vendor.” Of course, some things should not be for sale.
Neither “venus” is the source for “vendetta,” which English adopted from the Italian. That one comes, appropriately, from the Latin “vindicta,” or “vengeance.”
December 30th, 2008
The word “alternate” comes from the Latin notions of “to do by turns” and “one after the other.”
To be precise in English, “alternate” should preserve this idea of taking turns, like “alternating current.” As a verb, for example: “Good times alternate with bad.” As an adjective: “The American flag features alternate stripes of red and white,” or “The board meets on alternate Mondays.”
As a noun, an “alternate” is a substitute.
When the idea you want to convey is a choice, use “alternative”: “alternative route,” “alternative school,” “alternative lifestyle,” “you give me no alternative.”
So, can there be more than two alternatives? According to “Right, Wrong, and Risky” by Mark Davidson, purists say no, insisting that an alternative must be one of “two mutually exclusive possibilities.” To avoid criticism from such folks, you should use “choices,” “options” or “possibilities” when there are more than two.
The looser usage is gaining support, however, so you’ll have plenty of defenders if you go with multiple alternatives. Just don’t use “alternates.”
December 27th, 2008
I have been using “homonym” for such words. Some authorities insist they should be called “homophones.” This may further muddy the waters, but here are the definitions in Webtser’s New World College Dictionary, fourth edition, which is what I use:
homonym: “a word with the same pronunication as another but with a different meaning, origin, and, usually, spelling.” As examples it gives “bore” and “boar.” As a second definition, it has “loosely, a homograph.”
homograph: “a word with the same spelling as another or others but with a different meaning and origin, and, sometimes, a different pronunciation.” As examples it has “bow,” the front of a ship; “bow,” to bend; and “bow,” a decorative knot.
homophone: “any of two or more letters or groups of letters representing the same speech sound.” As examples it gives the “c” in “civil” and the “s” in “song.” As a second definition, it has “homonym, sense 1.”
The other reason I prefer “homonym” is it matches up well with “synonym” and “antonym.” Why make this stuff even more difficult?
One other note here: The word “homo” is a slang and “often contemptuous” term for “homosexual.” In Latin, “homo” means “a man, human being,” and is used in scientific classification — for example, “Homo sapiens.”
The “homo-” in most words, however, including the three above, comes from the Greek for “same.”
December 24th, 2008
I may have written about this before, but it has come up again. Some people misuse “flush out” to mean “fill out” or “realize or make full, as by the addition of details.”
That should be “flesh out,” as in “fleshing out a report.” It comes from a sense of taking a bare-bones account and putting some “flesh” on it.
Other useful phrases with “flesh” in them include “in the flesh” (meaning “alive” or “in person”); “press the flesh” (informal for shaking hands and, more broadly, working a crowd); “one’s (own) flesh and blood” (one’s close relatives); and “fleshpot” (”bodily comfort and pleasure; luxury” or “a place where carnal pleasures are provided”; both are generally used in the plural). Notice that a fleshpot is not a person.
“Flush” is a versatile word in its own right. It can apply to a sudden and rapid flowing, blushing, glowing and driving from cover. We can flush the toilet, flush with embarrassment, flush birds from the brush, flush a wound with water, be flush with happiness, get hit flush in the face. Carpenters try to make sure doors are flush with walls. And in poker, a flush can be a winning hand.
“Flushing” is even a city — in New York’s Queens County, which had 2.2 million people as of the census in 2000. You could even say it’s flush with flesh.
December 23rd, 2008
“Taut” is an adjective meaning “tightly stretched” (as a rope), “showing strain; tense” (as a taut smile), or “trim, tidy, well-disciplined, efficient, etc.” (as a taut ship).
A homonym is “taught,” the past tense and past participle of “teach.”
Almost but not quite a homonym is “tot,” a young child. Two other uses of “tot” are labeled by Webster’s as “chiefly British”: as a noun for “a small drink of alcoholic liquor” and informally as a verb for “to add; total,” usually with the preposition “up.”
None of the above should be mistaken for “tout” (rhymes with “shout”), which is most often used informally as a verb to mean “to praise or recommend highly” or “to solicit or importune, as for business.” In those senses, at least in this country, “tout” has moved beyond its association in England with spying on racehorses in training to provide tips for bettors.
For “tout,” its bettor nature is worse.
December 19th, 2008
From cancer and heart disease to the common cold, the names of diseases, disorders, syndromes and other afflictions are generally lowercase.
For those that contain an element that’s a proper name, capitalize only that element: Asian flu, Down syndrome, German measles, Legionnaires’ disease, etc.
Some names are commonly expressed in acronyms or initialisms. Those are written in all caps: AIDS, SIDS and so on. This is conventional style, and also prevents possible confusion with another word — AIDS and aids, SAD and sad, for example.
December 18th, 2008
Given the current plight of Illinois’ governor, this might be a good time to bone up on impeachment.
In general, to impeach is to challenge or accuse. At the federal level, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach; that is, to bring formal charges against a public official.
Two presidents have been impeached (so far): Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. However, neither was removed from office, because in each case the Senate did not vote to convict.
Members of the Illinois House of Representatives have begun to look at whether to impeach Gov. Rod Blagojevich. If the House impeaches him, it will be up to the state Senate to try him.
It’s important to remember that someone who has been impeached has only been accused of misconduct. It’s not a great thing to have on your resume, but it doesn’t mean you did anything wrong. At least, nothing you were actually found guilty of.
December 17th, 2008
A prisoner’s “last meal” could just mean the most recent one, unless that inmate is on death row.
You should be careful with the word “last,” because it can convey a sense of finality you don’t intend. For example, “In his last speech, the president said he was sorry.”
Does that mean the president won’t be giving any more speeches, or was it just his most recent one?
As an adjective, “last” can mean “latest” or “directly before the present,” as in “We flew to Paris last month.” And as an adverb it can mean “most recently,” as in “I last had pie on Thanksgiving.”
It’s sometimes safer to substitute “latest” or “past” for “last,” although this sensitivity can be taken too far. Take, for example, the sentence “He was head of Chicago Public Schools for the past seven years.” Some usage experts would say that if you used “last” instead of “past,” someone might think you were implying that time was about to end.
If that were the case, I would hope you would use a less subtle way to tell me.
Nevertheless, if there’s a legitimate concern about such misinterpretation, by all means don’t use “last.”
Also, watch for “last” and “past” redundancies. In most constructions such as “She had surgery last Thursday,” you don’t need “last” because the verb (”had”) is in the past tense.
And beware nouns that have an inherent “pastness.” “Past history” and “past experience,” for instance, are redundant.
December 16th, 2008
I may have done this one before, but here I go again: There is a difference between “compare to” and “compare with.” I estimate that 95 times out of 100, what we want is “compare with.” So if we use “with” all the time instead of “to,” we will be wrong much less often. Or we could just learn the difference.
When we compare one thing “to” another, we are saying they’re alike. One is similar “to” the other. We liken one “to” the other.
“Obama’s political style has been compared to John Kennedy’s.”
When we compare one thing “with” another, we are examining them to determine the extent of similarities and differences. “Let’s compare the president’s accomplishments with his campaign promises.”
So remember: When comparing “to,” the “two” are alike. When comparing “with,” they might not be.
December 13th, 2008
The weekend is here, so I don’t have a lot of time. Here are a few quickies on stuff that comes up often:
Use the adverb “presently” to mean “soon,” not “now”: “The first day of winter will be here presently.” If you must use a large word to mean now, try “currently.” However, in clear writing the verb tense usually makes such a word unnecessary. In any event, don’t use “presently.”
For times that aren’t now, use “before” instead of “prior to” and “after” instead of “following.” “Prior to” should be reserved for when you want to sound pretentious. And “following” has other work to do, as in placing one thing behind another — in space rather than time.
And don’t use “author” as a verb. It’s a wonderful profession and a great noun, but try “write,” “compose” or “create” when you need to describe what an author does.
Previous Posts
