|
When composing a document should
you use the word: |
| "affect" or
"effect" |
"Illicit" or
"Elicit" |
"Poured" or
"Pored" |
"N.D." or "ND" or
"N.Dak." |
"Assure" or
"Ensure" |
|
NDSU Agriculture Communication
Department Editors explain the correct usage of these and other
terms. |
|
| a.m. |
A colleague suggested the topic of
time-- not how much of it we use doing what, but how to put it in writing,
especially how to abbreviate ante meridian (before noon) and post meridian
(after noon). The quick answer is: a.m. and p.m. Lower case, periods, no
space. But of course you will run into exceptions, especially if you must
follow style guides for journals or the like. The Chicago manual says to
use small caps. That's fine for publishing, but not always practical for
most of us. The CBE (scientific) guide recognizes lower case, small caps
or full capitals (without periods) but prefers full caps. Can't imagine
why. For virtually all general writing, I'll stick with the quick answer:
a.m. and p.m. |
|
Versus |
| p.m. |
|
| A |
Which article, a or an, to use before
an acronym or initials is sometimes confusing. An acronym is a word formed
from initials or some combination of words, such as NATO (pronounced
nay-toe) for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NDSU (pronounced en-dee-
ess-you) is of course the initials standing for North Dakota State
University. There's no attempt to pronounce a word; you just say the four
letters. Both start with the letter N, but they take different articles: A
NATO military force. AN NDSU student. Simple enough, following the rule to
use A before a consonant sound and an before a vowel sound. But in writing
a common error is to use the article that goes with the word the initial
stands for, as in: A NDSU student. Wrong. Follow the sound of the initial,
N, rather than the word, North. When in doubt just say it to yourself and
trust your ear. |
|
Versus |
| An |
|
| Affect |
There are a multitude of word pairs in
the English language that can cause confusion. One such pair is affect and
effect. Part of the problem is that it is possible for each of these words
to be used as both a verb and a noun. Not advisable in all cases, but
possible. In most usage, however, just use affect as a verb and effect as
a noun. Affect means to produce an effect. Affect is sometimes used
as a noun in psychology to describe an emotion, but in everyday language
there is no reason to use it any way but as a verb--as in, "This policy
will affect the way we do business." Effect as a noun means result. "The
effect of the policy is to change the way we do business." But effect can
also be used as a verb, meaning to cause, or to bring about. "The new
policy will effect many changes."
For most practical purposes, just
remember that affect is a verb, as in an action that will cause some
result. Effect is a noun, meaning the result that is caused. So remember
"cause (affect) and effect (result)." Use effect as a verb only
sparingly. |
|
Versus |
| Effect |
|
| Alluded |
And in an op-ed column in the
Washington Post, "Never mind that Andersen has been involved with two
other corporate meltdowns that somehow ALLUDED its green-eyeshade staff."
To allude to something is to make reference to it. The financial
shenanigans in question ELUDED the bean counters. |
|
Versus |
| Eluded |
|
|
A recent front-page teaser on the
newspaper: MSUM alumni is busy with her tie business |
| Alumnus |
a man who has attended a school (singular) |
| Alumna |
a woman who has attended a school
(singular) |
| Alumni |
a group of men or a group of men and women who
have attended a school (plural) |
| Alumni |
a group of women who have attended a school
(plural) |
|
So how should the teaser have been written? MSUM
alumna is busy with her tie business. |
|
| Alternative |
The word "alternative" is used a lot
these days, as in alternative crops, alternative agriculture, alternative
lifestyles and so on. But sometimes we see "alternate" slipped in as a
substitute. Wrong. The words are not interchangeable. Alternative refers
to a one-instead-of-the-other choice--growing faba beans as an alternative
to artichokes--or one of a range of choices. Alternate suggests one after
the other--we alternate faba beans and artichokes in that field. (All
right, so that's a crazy crop rotation. You pick alternatives to
alternate.)
Things have been quiet on the Trained Professional Watch. The most
glaring word misuse in the local paper lately occurred in a direct
quotation, so we'll assume the Trained Professional knew better but was
quoting accurately. The misuse involved (unfortunately) a member of the
local education community talking about "ALTERNATE" methods of education.
That could mean using lecture one class period and multi-media the next.
But I think the intent was ALTERNATIVE, or offering another
choice. |
|
Versus |
| Alternate |
|
| Assure |
Assure, ensure and insure are often
misused. Assure means to give assurance. I can ASSURE you that this
information is correct. Ensure means to guarantee. We must double check to
ENSURE the figures are accurate. Insure should only be used in references
to insurance. This policy will INSURE you against a financial loss. In
practice, the distinction between ensure and insure is disappearing. But
it's still more correct to use ensure unless you are talking about
insurance. |
|
Versus |
| Ensure |
|
Versus |
| Insure |
|
| Capital |
Someone inquired recently about the
use of capital and capitol. Capital refers to the main city of a state,
country or such body, as in, Bismarck is North Dakota's capital city. It
also refers to wealth or resources, as in, The group is raising capital to
construct a processing plant. Capitol refers to the building where
government bodies meet, as in, We went to the capitol while we were in
Bismarck, or The Capitol dome is Washington's most prominent landmark.
Capital is also used as an adjective meaning excellent or first-rate, such
as a capital idea or a capital hotel, but it might seem a bit outmoded in
modern English, sort of a contemporary of Teddy Roosevelt's "bully."
Capital as used in capital punishment or a capital crime refers to death
and actually stems from a slightly different root, capitate, referring to
the head, as in decapitate. |
|
Versus |
| Capitol |
|
| Cite |
A set of homonyms that are sometimes
misused is cite, site and sight. The one most often used in error, usually
as a substitute for one of the other two, seems to be site. Cite means to
be called to appear, as in court, or to quote as an example or proof. Site
is a location or scene of something or, as a verb, to place something in a
location. Sight of course refers to seeing or the sense of sight. A
sentence suggested to keep the three straight: While searching for a
building SITE out of SIGHT of the highway, he was CITED for trespassing.
(But maybe his lawyer was able to CITE a legal point that got him
off.) |
|
Versus |
| Site |
|
Versus |
| Sight |
|
| Climatic |
Some members of the Trained
Professional Watch Posse reported sightings recently. These included the
common (but inexcusable from a Trained Professional) using "site" for
"sight" and, in a photo caption, reference to a beachcomber using a
"mental" detector. Probably wasn't finding much. Another contributor
spotted two miscreants, including a "heard" of bison. The other was a
description of someone watching the Harry Potter movie "...perched on the
edge of her seat for the movie's CLIMATIC scene." Unless said scene had
something to do with the weather, the word was probably CLIMACTIC, as in
coming to a climax. |
|
Versus |
| Climactic |
|
| Colon |
In formal and "scholarly" writing it
is often appropriate to introduce a series of important items with a
phrase ending with a colon and to then separate the items with semicolons
rather than commas. Something like, "The major principles of tertiary
rotorooting are: Identification of the area to be rooted; selection of the
appropriate rooter; and operating at a speed to allow precision rooting."
But those who are forced to do this kind of writing sometimes carry it too
far. Like in, "I went to Safeway and purchased: Bread; milk; and
broccoli." Know when to turn it off and loosen up. Write to EXpress, not
to IMpress. |
|
Versus |
| Semicolon |
|
| Complement |
Another of the many confusing word
pairs is complement and compliment. I see these misused often in
manuscripts but only rarely in the media. Most Trained Professionals seem
to have this one down.
My suspicion is that errors with this pair occur
not because of confusion about which is which, but because of a failure to
realize that they are two different words. The error is almost always
using "compliment" for "complement," not the other way
around.
Compliment, the most common of the two, of course is an
expression of respect, admiration or flattery, while as a verb it is the
act of paying a compliment. As in, she was pleased by the compliment from
the director, or, the director complimented the staff.
Complement means
to make complete, or to supplement, or as a noun the number needed to make
something complete. As in, this new effort complements our existing
program, or, with this addition we now have a full complement of
staff.
If you need an aid to keep these straight, just remember that
complement is related to complete. |
|
Versus |
| Compliment |
|
| Comprise of |
"Comprise" is a word that can bring
mild-mannered grammarians and copy editors to blows. Most purists, and
even many not-so- purists, insist that "comprised of" (as in, The
committee is comprised of seven members) is absolutely wrong. To comprise
means to contain, as in, The campus comprises 50 buildings, so nothing is
ever comprised of something else. Instead of "comprised of," say these
authorities, use "composed of" or "made up of." Others maintain "comprised
of" is perfectly acceptable and cite examples back to the Round Table
being comprised of King Arthur's knights. My take: with substitutes
readily available, it's much easier to avoid using the word at all. (I
have this nagging suspicion that many writers use it because they think it
sounds more important than "made up of.") |
|
Versus |
| Composed of |
|
| Conscious |
Your Humble Correspondent's constant
search for errors committed by Trained Professionals in the media bagged a
real trophy this time. Miscreants usually go unidentified, but this one
appeared in an A.P. release on the New York Times Web page. How
Professional, presumably Trained, can you get? The line appeared in a
quote from an announcement by President Clinton: "Unfortunately as it is
now drafted I cannot in good CONSCIOUS add America's name to that treaty."
The right word is of course CONSCIENCE, a sense of moral goodness or a
feeling of obligation to do right. In its simplest sense, conscious just
means being awake. These two aren't quite homonyms, but sound enough alike
to cause confusion from time to time. |
|
Versus |
| Conscience |
|
| Devote |
An interesting (well, maybe not, but
bear with me) misuse of words appeared in a local sports writer's profile
of a student athlete, in which he wrote, "She is DEVOTE in her religion."
The word "devote" just doesn't work here. She might be "devoted to" her
religion, or she might "devote herself to" her religion. But I think the
writer meant to say the young woman is DEVOUT in her religion. |
|
Versus |
| Devout |
|
| Diffusing |
The Trained Professional watch caught
the following in a national publication: "... the European Union approved
three varieties of genetically modified corn, temporarily DIFFUSING the
situation." If this is what the writer meant, the situation was
temporarily spread or scattered. Most likely the writer meant that the
action DEFUSED a controversial situation, rendering it less likely to
explode by removing the "fuse." |
|
Versus |
| Defused |
|
| Dissembling |
The Trained Professional Watch found a
syndicated columnist guilty of two communicative sins. The columnist was
taking a federation CEO to task for being (in his opinion) less than
truthful, saying the CEO's "...trick is called DISASSEMBLING, or 'spin.'"
The columnist could have meant the CEO's argument was coming apart, but
adding the definition, "spin," proved he was just plain wrong. The word he
wanted was DISSEMBLING, meaning putting on a false appearance or
concealing facts. So, he was guilty of using an incorrect word, but the
correct one was totally unnecessary. Why use a word you feel you have to
define when there is a handy alternative? Guilty on a second count-- using
big words you don't need and can't even spell. |
|
Versus |
| Disassembling |
|
| Eek |
The Trained Professional Watch has
been paying especially close attention to the sports section lately, as
the Twins, the Head Watcher's favorite team, are off to a good start.
Twins manager Tom Kelly was quoted in a wire service story as saying "we
were able to EEK out a win." I watched the game in question on TV, and it
was pretty scarey. But I believe the homonym the writer should have used
is EKE out a win. Eke out can mean to supplement or to make last, or, in
the sense that TK intended, "to make by laborious or precarious
means." |
|
Versus |
| Eke |
|
| Every One |
Every one and everyone are not
interchangeable. Use two words when it means each individual item, as in:
Every one of the members attended the meeting. Use as one word when used
as a pronoun meaning all persons: Everyone at the meeting was in favor of
the motion. |
|
Versus |
| Everyone |
|
| Exasperated |
The Trained Professional Watch caught
a misuse of "sound alike" words in a nearby newspaper. In a major story on
farm finances and commodity prices, an agricultural economist known by
most of us was quoted as saying, "This whole problem of low prices is
being EXASPERATED by the fact we've had relatively poor crops." There is
no doubt farmers are exasperated by low prices and poor crops. Definition
one in my desk dictionary is "to excite or inflame the anger of." What the
economist obviously meant, and most likely said to the reporter, is that
the price problem is being EXACERBATED, meaning made more severe, by poor
crops. Maybe reporters aren't used to hearing such big words. They should
interview economists more often. |
|
Versus |
| Exacerbated |
|
| Farther |
Don't confuse farther and further.
Farther refers to distance. It is FARTHER from Fargo to Dickinson than it
is to Bismarck. Further refers to time or degree. This question requires
FURTHER study. |
|
Versus |
| Further |
|
| Flower |
And, in case anyone missed it, there
was the recent regional wire service story that referred to "...wheat
midds--a byproduct of the FLOWER milling process..." This had to be a case
of temporary mental vapor lock, though it is just possible that a
spellchecker was involved. A typing error rendering FLOUR as, say, FLOER?
A spellchecker suggesting FLOWER as a substitute? A stressed out writer
absent mindedly agreeing? Could happen. |
|
Versus |
| Flour |
|
| Have |
In a local newspaper, "A cop crunch in
Fargo and Grand Forks HAVE top police brass looking for a long-term
solution." A common error, but not one a Trained Professional should make.
The subject of the sentence is the singular "cop crunch," not the plural
"Fargo and Grand Forks," so the verb should be HAS. |
|
Versus |
| Has |
|
| His |
And while I'm still not totally
comfortable with it, I have come to accept the singular "their." Consider
a sentence like, "A homeowner should keep HIS insurance up to date." In
the interests of gender neutral language, there is no reason to assume a
hypothetical homeowner is a him. Or a her, for that matter. So current
common usage is to use, "A homeowner should keep THEIR insurance up to
date," because there is no singular gender neutral alternative. Language
scholars say there is long standing precedent for this usage going back to
the time of Shakespear. Language, especially the English one, changes over
time; sometimes it goes to back to old forms that for some reason became
uncommon. |
|
Versus |
| Their |
|
| Hone in |
Another misuse commonly seen in the
media that defies logic (at least to this curmudgeon) is to "hone in" on
something. The correct term, is "home in," as in homing in on a target.
Hone, of course, is a stone for sharpening cutting tools, or to use such a
stone. "Hone in" doesn't make any more sense than "reign in." |
|
Versus |
| Home in |
|
| However |
"However" is a perfectly good word
that most of us use; however, it can cause problems if not used correctly.
However is often used as a conjunction in compound sentences and
mispunctuated, as in, "I went to the auction sale, however, I didn't buy
anything." The problem here is that "however" could refer to either end of
the sentence. You need a more definite "stop" than a comma, as in, "I went
to the auction sale; however, I didn't buy anything." Actually, a better
way to fix this sentence is, "I went to the auction sale, BUT I didn't buy
anything." In other usages as well, be sure the placement of "however"
clearly shows the contrast you want to emphasize. You may have been told
sometime in your school years to never start a sentence with however. Not
true. It's perfectly acceptable. (Back when I used to copy edit many
journal articles, I dreamed of getting a manuscript in which the whole
article started out, "However,..." Never did see one, but it may have
happened somewhere!) |
|
Versus |
| But |
|
| Illicit |
The Trained Professional error watch
caught one in a sports columnist's tongue-in-cheek account of a football
coach's press conference: "We did everything we could to ILLICIT some type
of controversial response." I believe what the gathered scribes were
really trying to do was ELICIT a response. Elicit means to draw out or
bring forth; illicit means unlawful or not permitted for moral or ethical
reasons. |
|
Versus |
| Elicit |
|
| Intents |
A local newspaper item quoted a city
official as saying, "For all INTENSIVE purposes..." The official may have
said exactly that and was quoted correctly. The reporter may have made a
mistake. But the phrase most likely should have been "For all INTENTS AND
purposes..." "Intensive purposes" doesn't make any sense. But really,
"intents and purposes," although commonly used, doesn't make much sense
either. It's just unnecessary word padding. Your writing, and especially
your speaking, will be much crisper if you eliminate empty phrases like
this even if you use them correctly. |
|
Versus |
| Intensive |
|
| Irradicatated |
The Trained Professional Watch found
this one a tough call. It was not in the commercial media but in the
alumni magazine of a major land-grant university the head watcher has some
ties to. But anyway, the sentence in question reads, "For the first time
in the nation's history, brucellosis has been IRRADICATED from domestic
cattle." This isn't a case of misusing a word, because irradicated isn't a
word. The intended word was obviously ERADICATED. This is one a
spellchecker should have caught. Mine first offers forms of IRRADIATED as
substitution choices, then includes eradicated. The writer was obviously
delving in unfamiliar territory and should have been more alert to
possible errors. Spelling by ear may be injurious to your
credibility. |
|
Versus |
| Eradicated |
|
| Its |
A group of citizens wants the district
to change it's name to "Devils Lake Public Schools - Home of the Satans."
(from an Associated Press story)
"It's" is a contraction for "it is" or "it has." "Change it is name?" I
don't think so. Never use an apostrophe unless "it is" or "it has" can be
substituted. And by the way, "wants" is correct even after "citizens"
since the subject of the sentence is the singular "group." The test? Leave
out the prepositional phrase. "A group wants the district..." |
|
Versus |
| It's |
|
| Led |
To show that The Trained Professional
Watch pulls no punches, we must expose a usage error in a release from the
NDSU Ag Comm weekly news service, written by (this is so painful!) your
Humble Correspondent. The passage in question reads, "This has LEAD to
some sentiment for placing milkweed on the state's prohibited noxious weed
list." The correct word would have been LED, the past tense of lead. Of
course there is a word spelled LEAD and pronounced LED, but that refers to
a metal used in storage batteries and bullets. So was this my first
mistake this year? Hey, I'm not even sure it's the only one in that story.
The whole point to this TPW silliness is to demonstrate that we all, even
those who should know better, make mistakes. Just be conscious of possible
errors and take steps to avoid or correct them. Here in Ag Comm we keep
the published ones to a minimum by having everything proofread by another
editor. This one happened to slip by two of us, but having a fresh set of
eyes look over a written piece before you show it to the public is always
a good idea. |
|
Versus |
| Lead |
|
| Lend |
A reader requested comments on misuse
of "lend" and "borrow." This misuse is one I rarely see in written form,
but it does crop up now and then in the spoken vernacular. I lend you my
pen. You borrow my pen. Something like "Borrow me five dollars" is an
obvious illiteracy. More subtle is the distinction between lend and loan.
Strictly speaking, lend is the verb and loan is a noun. The bank lends
money; you get a loan from the bank. American usage seems to allow using
loan as a verb--the bank loaned the company two million dollars--but it
often offends the ear. Would you say, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, LOAN
me your ears"? Or even, "Loan me your pen." |
|
Versus |
| Borrow |
|
| Less |
A word pair that often gets mixed up,
including by Yours Truly from time to time, is less and fewer. Less refers
to quantity; fewer refers to number. "We had LESS work this year because
we had FEWER bales to haul." But don't overanalyze. We don't say "fewer
than $50," because we don't break "$50" into fifty individual parts. |
|
Versus |
| Fewer |
|
| Maid |
A sharp-eyed marketing specialist
joined the Trained Professional Watch Posse by pointing out what can only
be called a silly mistake. A short item about smuggling honey bees into
Canada (not a major issue on my personal radar screen, but...) contained
the statement: "No charges have been MAID." The correct word is obviously
MADE. But the story does contain such other silliness as "dealt a stinging
blow" and "created a buzz," so it just might have been done on purpose; if
so I don't get it. So we have two possible lessons: Get the word right,
and don't let "cuteness" interfere with your message. |
|
Versus |
| Made |
|
| Mute |
A commonly confused pair of words is
mute and moot, as in referring to a "mute point." In its adjective form
"mute" means incapable of speech, or an absence of speech. I suppose a
point could be silent, but the correct term is "moot point," meaning a
point that is debatable, or one that is of no practical significance,
abstract, or academic. |
|
Versus |
| Moot |
|
| Mutated |
The Trained Professional Watch got a
boost this month from a reader who passed along from a Florida newspaper,
"Intellectual debate has basically been MUTATED by 40 years of military
rule." Mutated is a word, though it sounds a tad clumsy, meaning to have
undergone mutation. I suppose a case could be made that intellectual
debate could be mutated, or undergo a significant change, but the intended
word was almost certainly MUTED, meaning silenced or subdued. The
contributor was, with proper pomp and ceremony, officially deputized into
the Trained Professional Watch posse. (I'm trying to figure out how to
e-mail the badge.) |
|
Versus |
| Muted |
|
| N.D. |
Should you use N.D., N.Dak., or ND? Or
none of the above? In general, names of states should be totally spelled
out in text. The Chicago Manual of Style even prefers you spell out the
state name when it follows a city, but the Associated Press wishes you to
use abbreviations (those newspaper folks like to save space whenever
possible) in that case. For most writing I'll side with A.P. (Both of
these style manuals list N.Dak. as the preferred abbreviation, probably
thinking someone in Brooklyn or Santa Monica will have to stop and think
about what N.D. means, but we don't need to worry about that.) As for the
two-letter postoffice abbreviations, avoid using them except when actually
giving a mailing address. Those were devised to use with ZIP codes for
machine sorting of mail, not for use in writing. Can a reader tell at a
glance if CO stands for Colorado--or is it Connecticut? Does AL mean
Alabama or Alaska? Better to use Colo., Conn., Ala. and Alaska. (Alaska
and Hawaii are two of the states that are never abbreviated except in
mailing addresses. The others are Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, Texas and
Utah.) In the case of tables, lists or other tightly set material, use
whatever works, including postal abbreviations. |
|
Versus |
| N.Dak. |
|
Versus |
| ND |
|
| Orient |
A word that has exactly the same
effect on my ear as a badly squeaking door hinge is "orientate." Granted,
it seems logical. The reason you subject people to an orientation session
is to orientate them, right? Alas, not so. The correct word is "orient,"
one meaning of which is to acquaint with the existing situation. Orientate
won't generate a spell check error message; it's in the dictionary,
meaning to face toward the east. |
|
Versus |
| Orientate |
|
| Peak |
A reader writes, with tongue firmly
inserted in cheek, "Your 'Write the Right Word' always peaks my interest,"
going on to observe that "peak" is often misused for "pique." Probably so,
though I don't recall seeing it recently--probably more because "pique" is
seldom used than that it is used correctly. Yet another example of
sound-alike words that entered the English language from different
sources. "Pique" is from the French "piquer" meaning to prick. My desk
dictionary says the origin of the more common "peak" is unknown. "Pique"
has different meanings, including a fit of resentment, to arouse anger,
and, what the writer referred to, to arouse interest. |
|
Versus |
| Pique |
|
| People |
I received a query about when to use
"people" and when to use "persons." According to the AP Stylebook,
"people" is preferred to "persons" for all plural uses, and "person"
should be used only when speaking of an individual. An exception would be
in titles, such as Bureau of Missing Persons. However (there's always a
however), The Elements of Style says, "The word people is best not used
with words of number, in place of persons." The example cited to support
this view is, "If of 'six people' five went away, how many people would be
left? Answer: one people." Although I don't really buy the argument, this
boils down to using something like "many people," or even "thousands of
people," but "nine persons." I lean toward AP on this one. Unless there is
a compelling reason, stick with "people." |
|
Versus |
| Persons |
|
| Percent |
Now for some of that nitpicky stuff we
all love. A recent query asked about how to express percentages in a
non-technical piece for a general audience should it be "85%" or "85
percent?" Spell out "percent." This is Associated Press style; the Gregg
Reference Manual, which also aims at general use, agrees. (There was once
disagreement on whether to use "per cent" or "percent." The two-word
version is rarely seen today.) Use figures (3 percent; 2.5 percent). The %
sign is not likely to cause readers confusion, but it's just best to avoid
symbols in non-technical writing. For "semi-technical" use I can live with
either one, but be consistent--all of one or the other. |
|
Versus |
| % |
|
| Polls |
In a "where are they now" item in
Sports Illustrated, "He now oversees a young crop of more than 260,000
trees, most of them the red pines used to make telephone POLLS." We are
all familiar with telephone polls and usually find them only slightly less
annoying than telemarketers. But obviously the writer was referring to
telephone POLES. |
|
Versus |
| Poles |
|
| Pooh-Bah |
Then, in my habitual foray through
the sports section, I found one that bewildered me for a moment. The whole
(and long) sentence read, "Along with being inducted into the NFL Hall of
Fame, Winslow went to law school, works as an analyst for ESPN and Fox
Sports, is raising a family and now serves as grand PUPA of a fledgling
football league." Is this a mixed metaphor for a fledgling (a bird term)
league changing from larva to butterfly (insect analogy)? No, I think the
intended term was grand POOH- BAH of the league, meaning a person of high
rank (from a character in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera). This COULD be a
spell-checker thing. My Word Perfect checker refuses to even try pooh-bah,
but this is a term you often hear but seldom read. The writer may have
typed PUBA, for example. Moral: The first phonetic spelling you think of
for a slangy term may not be correct. |
|
Versus |
| Pupa |
|
Versus |
| Puba |
|
| Poured |
A word usage mixup I see frequently
involves the difference between pouring and poring, as in this statement
spotted in a regional agricultural magazine: "A whole lot of
ranchers...would like to know what USDA found when it POURED
through...37,000 cattle buying transactions..." (Unneeded verbiage
omitted.) This conjures up an image of a government agency presiding at a
tea party down at the stockyards. What I'm almost certain really happened
is that someone employed by USDA PORED over the transactions, meaning the
reports were read or studied intently. |
|
Versus |
| Pored |
|
| Reign in |
The Copyediting-L listserv (trust me,
unless you are prepared to read a lot more grammatical minutiae than you
ever wanted to know, don't sign up) recently had discussion on the
prevalent misuse of "reign in" for "rein in." The Trained Professional
Watch has noted this as well. In fact, I can't remember the last time I
saw it used correctly. One of the CE-L group did a Google search and got
48,000 hits on "reign in" compared to 47,000 for "rein in." Not
necessarily a sign that the barbarians are at the gates, but perplexing.
Someone suggested that hardly anyone is familiar with horses anymore,
hence most don't recognize what reining in means. But think about it.
"Reign" refers to holding royal authority. To use "reign in" in the sense
of "hold back" or "slow down" makes absolutely no sense. |
|
Versus |
| Rein in |
|
| Re-signed |
The Trained Professional Watch usually
exposes errors in the commercial media, but sometimes something done right
catches our eye. In one of my daily forays through the sports section, I
glanced at an item about a professional athlete who had "re- signed" with
his current team. I don't remember the athlete, or even recall what sport
it was. But it struck me that here we have an example of the power of the
hyphen. Had the writer said the player had "resigned," it would have meant
just the opposite--that he had quit, presumably to return to his first
love of selling encyclopedias. Or the player may have been "resigned to"
staying with his current team, since there didn't seem to be an
alternative. But put that little hyphen in there and the re-signed player
has inked a new contract and is going out to play one game at a time, make
the playoffs, and bring a championship to the great fans of wherever-it-
was. Which is a convoluted way of saying, sometimes hyphens DO make a
difference. Use them with care. |
|
Versus |
| Resigned |
|
| Right |
"It's a right of passage."
Not right -- wrong... or rite. A rite is an event marking an important
stage in someone's life. So... "It's a rite of passage."
|
|
Versus |
| Rite |
|
| Route |
The Trained Professional Watch, as
usual braving any discomfort to bring misuse of language to light, spotted
the following in the sports section of a metropolitan newspaper: "It
looked like a Denver ROUTE...until Orlando Thomas read Brian Griese's
eyes." We'll ignore the dramatics of one player "reading" another's eyes.
Sports writers can get away with stuff like that. But about this Denver
"route." Possible Denver routes include I-70 and I-25. But I believe the
writer meant a Denver ROUT, meaning a disastrous defeat--maybe even a
debacle. |
|
Versus |
| Rout |
|
| Rye |
One more Trained Professional Watch
catch, and this is one for the record books. A national news magazine
(we're talking one of the Big Three here) described vice presidential
candidate Joseph Lieberman as having a "RYE" sense of humor. Does that
mean the candidate tells good jokes when he's been drinking? No, I presume
he has a WRY sense of humor, meaning clever and ironic. Not a damaging
error in the great scheme of things, but enough to lower credibility a
half-notch or so among those picky enough to notice. |
|
Versus |
| Wry |
|
| Sewn |
Twice in recent weeks the
Trained Professional Watch has spotted writers attempting to wax eloquent
by saying the seeds of such and such an accomplishment were "SEWN" at some
happening. SEWN, of course, is the past participle of SEW (a needle
pulling thread, as that annoying little ditty from The Sound of Music
says). Sewing seeds may be possible, but not likely. Seeds are SOWN, as in
planted. |
|
Versus |
| Sown |
|
| Shear |
Some Trained Professional Watch
observations. The first one isn't really fair, because it comes from a
magazine that, although nationally distributed, has no editorial staff. In
a freelance article about moving a large barn, the writer says the workers
were impressed by "...the SHEAR HULK of the structure." Let's ponder.
"Shear" means to trim closely, as in to shear a sheep. The writer meant
"SHEER," one definition of which is unqualified or absolute. "Hulk" could
be correct. One definition is impressively large or massive. But a better
choice might be "BULK," referring to dimension or magnitude. So that gives
us "sheer bulk." |
|
Versus |
| Sheer |
|
| Site |
The first was from advertising copy
that referred to "...sight specific high technology equipment." The
obvious problem here is the word "sight." The copywriter should of course
have used "site." (Not to be confused with "cite.") But there is more. It
would be more correct, and clearer, to write, "...site-specific,
high-technology equipment." In both cases the hyphens combine two words to
form modifiers. The hyphenated terms are much clearer than a string of
words that can lead to confusion. (This must be a company trying to save
money by letting their techies write ads. Bad idea.) |
|
Versus |
| Sight |
|
| Stalemate |
The Trained Professional Watch caught
one on the radio recently, though technically it didn't come from a
Trained Professional. A local car dealer was doing a live commercial on
the air (something that probably should be left to the professionals). He
said something like, "Oldsmobile has been a STALEMATE in the automotive
industry." A stalemate, of course, is a situation in which no progress can
be made. Maybe not a bad description of Olds given the news coming from
General Motors. But the car guy was trying to sell cars and say good
things. My best guess is he meant STALWART, meaning strong and forceful.
Moral: Don't wing it when you are going to be heard by a lot of
people. |
|
Versus |
| Stalwart |
|
| Tact |
Things have been quiet on the Trained
Professional Watch front, but a couple mildly interesting examples have
come up. In a local columnist's weekly effort we find, "(The judge) took a
different TACT with this one." Does this mean the judge used an
alternative means of determining what is proper to say or do? I think not.
The accurate word is probably TACK, meaning that the judge used a
different course of action with this particular case. |
|
Versus |
| Tack |
|
| Than |
A correspondent asked Let's
Communicate to address the almost- homonyms "than" and "then." O.K., let's
say they do sound alike, but on most tongues there is a subtle difference.
In written form I do see them mixed up, probably most often using "than"
where "then" would be correct. The first definition of "than" in the
office unabridged is "used to introduce the second member of an unequal
comparison," like "Algernon is taller THAN Heathcliff." It is also used to
introduce an alternative, like "I'd rather walk THAN ride a bus." "Then"
most often denotes "at that time," as in "I'll see you THEN," or suggests
immediately or soon after, like "I heard the siren, THEN saw the flashing
light." It also can mean "in that case" or "since that is so" ("If X, THEN
Y.") |
|
Versus |
| Then |
|
| That |
"That" or "which"? They're
interchangeable, right? Not really, though from a practical standpoint
sometimes it doesn't make much difference. But to be most clear and
accurate, "that" should be used to introduce an essential clause, as in,
"The figures that I gave you are accurate." "Which" should always be used
with nonessential clauses, such as, "The figures, which came from the
business office, are accurate." And, the nonessential clause should be set
off with commas. Using "which" rather than "that" with an essential clause
is the less serious error. Some would say it's not an error at all. |
|
Versus |
| Which |
|
| They're |
They're only manufacturer is in Hong
Kong. (from a newspaper article)
Here's where spell or grammar check may point out an error. But did the
writer mean "Their only manufacturer is in Hong Kong" or "They are only
manufactured in Hong Kong"? |
|
Versus |
| Their |
|
| Toward |
A recent e-mail asked which is
correct, "toward" or "towards." A typical unsatisfactory answer is that
both are correct. Perhaps a better phrasing is that neither is "wrong."
"Toward" is the preferred American usage. "Towards" is preferred by the
British. When your Humble Correspondent dons his editor's eyeshade, he
always deletes the "s," since the manuscripts he edits are not destined
for England. |
|
Versus |
| Towards |
|
| Use |
A good piece of advice noted recently:
"Never use utilize when you can utilize use." There is widespread belief
that writers say "utilize" only because it sounds snootier than "use" and
that there is never a good reason for it. In most cases that appears to be
true, but there are subtle differences between the two words. "Use" refers
to performing an action with the aid of something--a tool, a concept, a
procedure or whatever. "Utilize" actually means to make useful, or to find
a use for. "We used the new system to manage the budget." "We utilized the
new system in many ways." In general, however, the advice stands: "use" is
preferable to "utilize." |
|
Versus |
| Utilize |
|
| Weather |
Though not from the mass media, a
reader passed along a letter received by his daughter in response to her
request for information on a college scholarship program. Paragraph three
opens, "WEATHER you make (name deleted to protect the guilty) a career or
not..." Correct word, of course, would have been WHETHER, and it would be
interesting to know how many prospective college scholarship applicants
recognized the error. Reminds me of a radio announcer's line from back
when I was very young (so was radio then, but let's not go there):
"Whether the weather is cold or hot, we'll have weather, whether or not."
Whether that is enlightening or confusing, and exactly what it means, I
have no idea. |
|
Versus |
| Whether |
|
| Well-Healed |
The second came from a sports
columnist in a metropolitan newspaper, calling supporters of athletic
programs at a major university "WELL-HEALED" donors. Just maybe these
contributors were recently cured of some disease and moved to philanthropy
out of gratitude to the university's medical school. But I think not. He
obviously meant "WELL-HEELED," or having plenty of money. This could be
just a typographical error, which of course a spell checker would happily
ignore. |
|
Versus |
| Well-Heeled |
|
| Youth |
The Agricultural Communicators in
Education (ACE) writers' group had some list-serve conversation about the
plural of "youth." The original question was, "Another editor and I were
just reviewing a 4-H-related item when I noticed the phrase 'Twelve youth
participated.' I know 'youth' can be a collective noun, but...in this case
I think an 's' after 'youth' is absolutely essential. Are my instincts
right?" With only minor dissent, respondents agreed that "youths" is
correct in this useage. "Youth" refers to young people as a group, but a
plural of specific young people is "youths." Of course several respondents
referred to the movie scene in "My Cousin Vinny" when Joe Pesci as Vinny
refers to "two yoots." |
|
Versus |
| Youths |
|
If you have questions or comments, or would like to submit information or
make a suggestion, contact:
Agriculture Communication
Attn: Becky Koch
7 Morrill Hall
Phone:
231-7875
FAX: 231-7044
e-mail: bkoch@ndsuext.nodak.edu
|
