Archive for May, 2009
May 30th, 2009
I write a lot about choosing the right word, but picking the right spot can be just as important. Notice the difference in the two statements below, for example, when the article “a” is moved.
“Smith said there was a nearly four-hour meeting Wednesday night.”
“Smith said there was nearly a four-hour meeting Wednesday night.”
The first one says the meeting ran almost four hours.
The second suggests the meeting didn’t quite happen. And since it apparently was scheduled to last four hours, maybe that would be a good thing.
May 29th, 2009
One of the features that I really enjoy in Webster’s New World College Dictionary is what it calls “synonymy.” It uses a shaded paragraph at the end of a main word entry to explore the shades of difference between that word and its synonyms.
Here are the distinctions given for “boast,” which I wrote about yesterday, and some of its cousins:
“Boast” — “the basic term,” which “merely suggests pride or satisfaction.”
“Brag” — “suggests greater ostentation and overstatement.”
“Vaunt” — “a formal, literary term, implies greater suavity but more vainglory.”
“Swagger” — “suggests a proclaiming of one’s superiority in an insolent or overbearing way.”
“Crow” — “suggests loud boasting in exultation or triumph.”
Now I feel I should look up “ostentation,” “suavity,” “vainglory,” “insolent” and “exultation,” just to be sure. Maybe later.
May 28th, 2009
The verb “boast” means “to brag” or “to be proud about.” Some word people object to the second usage, either because they consider it a cliche or because they just don’t like it.
I have a fairly high tolerance for cliches, if they’re used properly. However, something like “the county boasts the state’s highest crime rate” fails the test.
If you’re going to use “boast,” at least tie it to something positive.
May 27th, 2009
As a follow-up to my previous offering on “sign-up,” a colleague asked:
“What if a protester was holding up a sign? What if a protester was robbing a preschooler? Would those be holdups or hold-ups?”
Wouldn’t it be nice if such things were consistent? But no, the answer is “holdups,” one word.
The same goes for the slang synonym for armed robbery, “stickup.”
So what’s the holdup on sign-up? I don’t know. Maybe it’s because robbing has been around longer than writing.
May 25th, 2009
One of the major sources of idiomatic expressions in English is the combination of a verb and a preposition. For example, pairing the verb “sign” with different prepositions yields different meanings: sign away, sign in, sign out, sign on, sign off, sign up.
The words in such verb phrases are kept separate so objects, when needed, can fit in between them: sign your life away, sign me up.
When such phrases become nouns or adjectives, the first step in such an evolution is to insert a hyphen:
“What’s your sign-on?”
” ‘Good night and good luck’ was his signature sign-off.”
“The sign-up period for that class ends Friday.”
Eventually, some such nouns and adjectives lose the hyphen and become one word. So far, that hasn’t happened with the “sign” words.
So, the noun meaning “registration” is still “sign-up,” hyphenated.
These things do make a difference. Notice the change in meaning in “a protester holding a sign up” and “a preschool holding a sign-up.”
Time to sign off for today.
May 8th, 2009
My previous blog entry ended with the word “see.” Not only is it a very irregular verb — see, saw, seen, seeing — but it’s also part of an unusually diverse family of homonyms.
For “see,” we have “sea” and the letter “C” (as well as the Spanish “si”).
For the third-person singular “sees,” we have the plurals “seas” and “C’s,” and we add the verb “seize.”
For the past participle “seen,” we lose the others but gain the noun “scene.”
Unlike children, homonyms should be seen and heard.
May 7th, 2009
The downside to the verb “lend” is it’s irregular. “Lent” is the past tense and past participle, not “lended”:
“He has lent her five bucks a week for about a year, but this week he lent her 20 bucks.”
This “lent,” by the way, is unrelated to the Christian observance of “Lent,” a word that comes from the Old English “lengten,” for “the spring,” which in turn is from Germanic bases for “long” and “day.”
It’s also unrelated to “lentil,” a plant of the pea family, which is also the root for “lens,” whose shape is reminiscent of the lentil seed.
And so we see that the part of the eye that focuses light so we can see is named for a seed. Seems like “seed” should be the past tense of “see,” then, instead of “saw.”
But “see” is another irregular verb.
May 6th, 2009
Here’s another reason I prefer “lend” over “loan” as a verb: “Lender” is better than “loaner” for a person or institution that makes loans. So they seem to go together.
My first thought on hearing “loaner” is that it’s not the provider but the thing provided, like a car: “How long have you been driving a loaner?”
“Loaner” also can be confused with its homonym “loner” — someone or something that’s all by itself, also known as a “lone wolf.”
And while a lone wolf might arouse suspicion, you have much more to fear from a “loan shark.”
May 5th, 2009
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.” Shakespeare gives Marc Antony that memorable line in “Julius Caesar.”
There’s a lot more lending going on these days, but much of it is being called “loaning.”
Strictly speaking, “lend” is the verb and “loan” is the noun. Some authorities suggest “loan” is OK as a verb when referring to money rather than other things, as Marc Antony was.
The Associated Press Stylebook makes no such distinction, saying that “lend” is “the preferred usage” for the verb. And it’s not alone on that (that’s “alone,” not “a loan”).
However, use of “loan” as a verb is fairly common. It’s not horribly incorrect to say, “Could you loan me 10 bucks?” However, if you say “lend” instead, it shows you know the difference — and I for one will be more likely to give you a loan.
May 4th, 2009
Beginnings and endings can be challenging concepts, especially when applied to life. A minor aspect crops up in listings of age categories for children. Sometimes you’ll see a phrase such as “from zero to 2 years old.”
I don’t want to delve too deeply into philosophy here, but no one is really age “zero.” As soon as you’re born, the clock starts ticking.
For a category meant to include the extremely young, make it something like “up to 2 years old.” That should do it.
Also, if you say “age,” you don’t need to say “old.” For example, either of these will work: “The program is for children from age 5 to 10 years” or “The program is for children from 5 to 10 years old,” but NOT “from age 5 to 10 years old.”
In fact, “children from age 5 to 10″ is probably enough, because ages, at least for people, are assumed to be in years unless otherwise specified.Â
