Posts filed under 'strict usage'
October 6th, 2009
I’m a big fan of simplicity, but sometimes we try to make English too simple.
Case in point: Here’s an entry in The Associated Press Stylebook — recur, recurred, recurring. Not “reoccur.”
The problem is, there’s a subtle difference between “reoccur” and “recur.”
I concur with trying to avoid “reoccur.” It simply means “to happen again.” So why not just say “happen again” instead of “reoccur,” which seems inelegant.
However, “recur” is perfect for “to appear at intervals.” In other words, for when something occurs again and again.
That’s how we get the adjective “recurrent” for “intermittent.”
All of them can be traced to the Latin verb “currere,” for “to run,” which is also where “current” comes from.
And you thought it came from electrical devices.
October 5th, 2009
The dictionary’s third definition of “dilemma” is “any serious problem,” and it gives “predicament” as a synonym. This is about as loose as usage can get.
The word comes from the Greek “di-” for “two” and “lemma” for “proposition.” Its original sense, and still its first definition, is “an argument necessitating a choice between equally unfavorable or disagreeable alternatives.”
Its second definition expands its reach beyond arguments to any situation presenting two such options — in other words, “between a rock and a hard place.”
There are many kinds of problems, and many words for them, including the aforementioned “predicament,” “plight,” “quandary,” “pickle” and “fix.
Let’s keep “dilemma” for those no-win situations where there are two choices and both stink. To be “on the horns of a dilemma” is a particularly unpleasant place to be.
July 7th, 2009
A recent wire service story described something as hindering “a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others.”
“Interacting” and “communicating” are activities that, by definition, require others. If you have specific participants, name them. Otherwise, you don’t need “with others.”
On the flip side, however, if you’re communicating alone, you’re probably talking to yourself. That can be a bad sign.
And I don’t even want to think about what interacting with yourself might be. Keep it to yourself.
June 29th, 2009
Beware of the temptation to make things sound more impressive or mysterious by tacking on useless adjectives.
Recently, for example, I encountered the phrase “linear feet” — and more than once.
A foot, by definition, is a unit of length, a linear measure. If other dimensions are involved, we use square foot or cubic foot.
There are also “foot-candles” to measure illumination and “foot-pounds” and “foot-tons” to measure energy or work.
But when figuring length, a foot is just a foot, and a sigh is just a sigh, as time goes by.
June 4th, 2009
The Associated Press still prefers “garnishee” over “garnish” as a verb for “to attach a debtor’s property or wages to satisfy a debt.” The implication is this is to head off confusion with the other kind of “garnish,” “to adorn or decorate.”
But “garnishee” also is the noun for “the individual whose property was attached.” I’m OK with that, because the double “e” is typical for nouns (”employee,” “lessee,” etc.), but it’s unusual for verbs.
In American English, says Bryan A. Garner in “Garner’s Modern American Usage,” “garnish” is “the usual verb form.”
I prefer “garnish,” too, and I don’t know why the AP clings to “garnishee.” But I do find it amusing that it favors the one with the unnecessary ending — a garnish, if you will.
June 3rd, 2009
I’ve heard this one before: You can evacuate a building, but you can’t evacuate a person. Or maybe it’s the other way around.
Does anyone know where this thing came from?
I have checked all my usual printed sources on this, plus some online dictionaries, and no one makes any such distinctions.
The verb “evacuate” has several meanings, but the one we’re talking about here is “to remove (inhabitants, etc.) from (a place or area), as for protective purposes.”
My interpretation is, you could say, “The town’s inhabitants were evacuated as the river continued to rise.” Such people are “evacuees.”
However, you also could say, “The town was evacuated as the river continued to rise.” It is understood that the townsfolk are being moved, not the town.
According to “The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories,” the word comes from the Latin verb “evacuare,” for “empty (the bowels).” And “evacuate” still can mean that, too.
I’ll try to keep my next offering free of references to body wastes.
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 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.”
Previous Posts
