 |
How Well-Spoken Are You? |

- Q: The newly renovated home was expensive,
but it's features justified the cost.
The most frequently misspelled word in the English language
is three letters long: its. Not it's, or the
obscene its' — simply, its. This ordinary
personal pronoun means "belonging to it" or
"pertaining to it"; it is used no differently than
its relative, his. The construct it's
is a simple contraction meaning "it is" or
"it has". No ambiguity exists, and no confusion
is warranted; yet this error is disgustingly prevalent. Not one
person in a hundred (a thousand?) seems to understand the correct usage
of its and it's. On the Internet one can
regularly observe those two items being spelled both correctly and
incorrectly even within the same sentence! This error
is found even on sites hosted by alleged experts, such as those
providing instruction in grammar. Go figure.
- Q: In this article, I have inferred that many writers
have little pride in there work.
{two errors} Even my most well-spoken of friends have been caught
using the verb infer when they meant imply.
This is especially strange in light of the fact that the two words are
functional opposites. Imply means to hint or
suggest (something stated); infer means to
deduce or surmise (from something heard or read).
Although some dictionaries support an overlap of the usage of
infer, the well-spoken person makes a careful distinction
between the two words. Today's intended meaning was
"...I have implied..." Secondly, the adjective
their has been misspelled.
- Q: Are we supposed to faithfully accept everything that
the media says?
Splitting an infinitive is not wrong. Although the British
tormented themselves over this issue for centuries, they failed to convince
modern grammarians that our ability to express ourselves should by
compromised by some mythical requirement of conformance to Latin
protocols. So there is no error in "to faithfully
accept." However, the word media is plural (that's
right), and it is correct to reference what "the media
say". The singular form of the word is
medium. Don't expect much company on this one; but then,
it should not be your goal to match the bad habits of others.
- Q: Carry out your recently-assigned duties, irregardless
of the consequences.
{two errors} The hyphen is incorrect. Assigned
is a past participle properly functioning as an adjective modifying
duties. Recently is an adverb which properly modifies the
adjective assigned. The grammar is valid without adjustment;
hence, no corrective hyphen is appropriate. This is another example of
over-correction by those who don't understand the relationships among the
various parts of speech. Secondly, there is no such word
as irregardless; it's in the same class as ain't.
Even if it were permissible, it would have a nonsensical
meaning. The prefix -ir is a negation (think
irresponsible or irreverent); yet the offending construct
is used as having the same meaning as its logical opposite,
regardless. Doubtless the confusion stems from a dim
awareness of the attractive alternative, irrespective.
- Q: Sometimes the existing set-up is better than its
alternatives.
Many computer programs are installed by the user. Equally many
software vendors don't have anyone on their staff who understands English,
because they use setup as a verb —
instructing us with such messages as "You will need to setup the
program." Sorry, folks, but setup is a noun.
Period. These same writers often use set-up as the noun form.
Others use either setup or set-up as verbs, all of
which are incorrect: "You may set-up the system
tomorrow." Where do they get this stuff? It's
"monkey see, monkey do", I fear. If one were
to say, "You may need to take down that poster," I doubt that
anyone would choose to hyphenate between take and down,
yet that sentence construction is identical to "You will
need to set up the program." There are dozens of such
noun-verb relationships: payoff (noun) and pay off
(verb), layout (noun) and lay out (verb), etc.
In none of these cases is it proper to hyphenate anything.
In the quiz, our sentence properly reads, "...the existing setup
is better..."
- Q: The payment on our newly acquired mortgage consists of
20% principle and 80% interest.
Recently I was solicited by a lender to refinance my home; the printed
application form misspelled the firm's own product as principle
in half a dozen places. That, to me, was sufficient reason to reject
any association with that company. Any dictionary has the answers:
there is the word principle, meaning "code of
conduct" or "fundamental law"; then there is
principal, an adjective meaning primary or
foremost, or a noun meaning "school administrator",
key person", or "outstanding balance of a
loan".
- Q: The supervisor instructed Carl and I to backup the
computer network.
{two errors} Illiterate people use the personal pronouns me
and him when they should be using I and he.
Countless better-spoken folk, being aware of this common error, have overly
compensated to the point that now they frequently use I and
he when they should be using me and him!
These people fall into the half-conscious category; rather than
make an effort to assimilate the reason for choosing one tense
over another, they seem content to mimic the actions of others.
In fact, the rule is remarkably simple. I, he, she, we,
and they are first-person pronouns; they function as
subjects. Me, him, her, us, and them
represent the third-person, objective case. (The pronoun
you does not change.) It remains only to determine the word's
usage in context. In today's sentence, "Carl and I"
are direct objects of instructed; therefore, "Carl and
me" is correct. One never would say, "the supervisor
instructed I to ..."; pluralizing an object does not change
its tense. Secondly, backup, is a noun being
improperly used here as a verb; "back up" is
correct. I put this one in to see whether you understood
Answer #5.
- Q: It's alright to play the piano poorly as long as no
one is around to hear you.
There is no such word as alright. Use two words:
"all right". A similar favorite is alot,
which is not a word.
- Q: In order to insure the boss's respect, I decided to
forego an untimely vacation.
{two errors} The word insure means "to guarantee
against loss"; that's what insurance companies and blackjack
players do. The proper verb here is ensure, meaning
"to make certain of". The word boss's
is correct. One drops the final 's' when making
a possessive of a plural ending in 's', but boss
is not plural. It invariably is correct to write things just as one
would say them (which makes perfect sense), and one always
pronounces that second 's' after a singular noun; otherwise,
the spoken meaning could be ambiguous. Try it. Secondly,
forego means to "go before" or
"precede" (think "foregone conclusion").
"...I decided to precede an untimely vacation"?
Nonsense. The intended word here is forgo, meaning
"to abstain or refrain from". Were you aware that
that word even existed?
- Q: That's a real good idea; it won't effect the company's
image.
{two errors} The phrase "real good" is a favorite
among partially literate folks; it also ranks among the most repulsive.
The adjective real, meaning actual or genuine,
cannot modify the adjective good. "...actual
good"? "...genuine good"? Idiotic.
Why is it that so few seem to be aware of the existence of the perfectly
appropriate adverb, really? Secondly, affect and
effect have both noun and verb forms; we are interested in the
verbs. To effect means to accomplish or
"make it happen". So, "... accomplish
the company's image"? Ridiculous. Today's proper verb is
affect, meaning to influence or "produce a change
in".
- Q: If the strike would have been avoided, the cargo that
laid on the docks would not have perished.
{two errors} This usage of would is nonsensical, yet
rampant. What the user invariably intends to say is, had
rather than "would have". Secondly, laid
is the past tense of the verb "to lay" (to put or place),
and that is not what was meant here. The desired word is
lay, the past tense of the verb "to lie"
(to be in a state of inactivity). The complete sentence would
properly read, "If the strike had been avoided, the cargo
that lay on the docks would not have perished."
Even better than that would be, "Had the strike been
avoided..."
- Q: It looks like the Jones's are hosting a party.
I take serious exception with this usage of like which, over the
centuries, has been the most commonly misused word in the English
language. Originally, like had two proper functions — as a
verb meaning "to have affection for", or as a
preposition meaning "similar to". It was
not a conjunction meaning as, the most forgotten English
word. In any context, if as or as if made
sense, then like did not. Those times seem to be gone,
however, as the incessant misuse of the word has rendered it
"correct," according to some dictionaries. Nowadays,
nearly everyone will go to any lengths to avoid the usage of
as; nevertheless, as far as this diehard purist is concerned,
like sounds crummy in this context, and the whole purpose of
speaking well is not to sound crummy. The same opinion applies to
the hideous ways in which the word get now is used.
Something such as "you've got mail" not only sounds
stupid, but is redundant. I hope that I am not the only one
shedding tears over the rape of our language. The quiz sentence
does not get off the hook on a technicality, however.
A singular word ending in 's' is pluralized by adding
'es'. The fact of its being a proper name is
irrelevant. The proper spelling is Joneses.
- Q: The highly regarded committee was content to rest
upon its self-evident laurels.
This sentence is correct as it stands. The term
"self-evident" must be hyphenated to satisfy the
requirements of grammar. Self is a pronoun, which cannot
modify evident. The compound word
"self-evident", functioning as an
adjective, does properly modify laurels.
I find it interesting that "self-evident" is the
only hyphenated term in the entire Declaration of
Independence! That is not surprising, however, since English was
written far better two centuries ago, before the masses
contracted hyphenitis.
- Q: Where is that information coming from?
Nearly everyone harbors the superstition that it is incorrect to end a
sentence a preposition with (sic). In fact, there is no such
rule. This is another case of misguided attempts to deprive
us of a valuable idiomatic resource on the basis of archaic Latin standards.
Some thoughts simply cannot be adequately expressed in a better way.
There also is the matter of the two-word verb combinations that cannot be
sensibly separated. Examples are "come down" and
"go out", which have unique collective meanings.
Although it invariably is possible to rearrange a sentence ending in a
preposition, the result might be undesirable. "What movie
are you going to?" could be reworded as "To what movie
are you going?" Unfortunately, no one tends so speak that
way anymore, so listeners might think that it sounds funny, or even
pretentious. In this case, perhaps a better choice of words is in
order: "What movie will you see?" In any case,
since many people perceive the ending of a sentence with a preposition
as an error, one would do well to avoid the practice — at least in
print.
- Q: I'm interested to know whether the stock market will go
down for awhile.
{two errors} This usage of interested means "to have an
interest". One does not have an interest to something;
one is interested in something (or perhaps by something).
Our sentence properly begins, "I am interested in
knowing..." Secondly, awhile is an adverb meaning
"for a short time". So the existing sentence reads
"... down for for a short time." Ludicrous.
Moreover, that adverb cannot function as the object of the preposition
for. There is a choice of valid constructions: "... go
down there for a while" or "go down there
awhile". It's so simple.
- Q: San Jose was the first officially designated capitol of
California.
The words capitol and capital are similar to principle
and principal; the pairs sound nearly the same, but the meanings
differ. Capitol refers solely to the building and its
grounds. Capital is an adjective meaning excellent or
"first-rate", or it is a noun meaning "governing
city" or "monetary wealth". Today,
"...capital of California..." is correct.
- Q: The economically inept Federal Reserve has lead our
economically inept politicians down the garden path.
The past tense of the verb "to lead" is led.
This is almost a no-brainer; yet half the writers on the Internet seem to
have lead on the brain.
- Q: Antiques are popular collectables.
The proper spelling of the noun is collectible. I personally refuse
to patronize any so-called "antique" store that does not correctly
spell its product. Although it is not in my dictionary, spelling the
adjective form as collectable has become commonplace, as in "This book
is a collectable item."
- Q: The status of our credit induced economy involves a
number of complicated factor's.
{two errors} Credit and induced are properly
hyphenated in this context, for the same reasons as in Answer #13.
The grammar just doesn't stand by itself. Secondly, the plural of
factor is factors. English words never are
pluralized by the use of an apostrophe, despite the proliferation of signs
in rural America proclaiming, "Pig's For Sale."
(Sometimes — rightly or
wrongly — abbreviations or acronyms are
pluralized in this fashion to reduce ambiguity; but in any case those constructs
are not words.)
- Q: The heavily laden truck was involved in a near-fatal
accident.
Technically, this sentence satisfies the rules of grammar, but its
structure has been manipulated unnecessarily. Being analogous to
question #10, there is a perfectly good adverb, nearly, which
the competent writer/speaker always would prefer: "...a nearly
fatal accident". Eschewing a valid choice of words in
favor of a bandage on the grammar is not behavior suggestive
of a well-spoken person; so this one qualifies as an error.
This error is similar to the one in Answer #10.
- Q: Some shoppers feel that saving 10% off an item's price
is not that big of a deal.
{two errors} Despite its incessant usage in advertisements, there is
no such verb form as "save off". One does not save
a portion off something; one saves a portion of
something. One may "take 10% off", but not
"save 10% off". Secondly, there is no way to make
sense of the consecutive words, "big of" in any
context. Big is an adjective; but it has been left dangling,
as the noun it was intended to modify has been placed inside the
prepositional phrase, "of a deal". Moronic.
Correct usage is simply, "...that big a deal..."
Some similar illegitimate constructs are "...that good of a
thing" and "...not that bad of an idea".
All three examples feature an adjective that modifies nothing, and a
prepositional phrase that modifies nothing. Another common improper
addition of the word of is in the phrase
"as of yet"; here, the adverb yet is wrongly
functioning as an object. The appropriate construction is simply,
"as yet". Contrast that with
"as of now", which is correct; now
is functioning as a noun meaning, "the present time or
moment".
Well, how did you fare? Congratulation is in order for catching all but
a couple of errors, and for not fabricating any; that feat places you well up in
the 99th percentile. Others writers could benefit from the services of a
competent proofreader — if they could find one.
A grammar primer would be helpful as well.
This article was all about common errors; but those are for common
people. I hope that you aspire to a higher standard!
I leave you with some final thoughts on speaking and writing:
- Arbitrary insertion of apostrophes or hyphens is no more correct than a
random placement of periods or question marks. It is improper to use
them outside the domain of their prescribed functions. Even some
self-professed experts falter in this area. As an example, one online
grammar reference features a section titled "Most-commonly
misspelled words". That hyphen, being redundant, is
therefore incorrect; adverbs do properly modify other adverbs.
- Bad grammar never is cute; it merely is bad. Speaking and
writing well always is correct (albeit not necessarily in style), and no
self-respecting writer would do otherwise, except perhaps to illustrate bad
grammar or to quote someone. It is a pity that one could not be spared
the anguish of incessant repetitions of such phrases as "I wish I
would have gone" or "that's real good" or
"it's déjà vu all over again". That last phrase is
grammatically tolerable, but its patent redundancy was cute only
when originally uttered by Yogi Berra, who was renowned for his nonsensical
yet hilarious spontaneous utterances.
- The fact that an improper usage of a word or phrase has found its way
into some dictionaries, does not necessarily justify it. The
American Heritage Dictionary stands above its
peers by featuring a Usage Panel of competent
grammarians. One would do well to avoid any construct or usage that is
rejected by a significant percentage of that panel.
Unfortunately, the proper function of a dictionary is to reflect the state
of a language as it is, not as someone believes it ought to
be. If a word or phrase is misused for a sufficient length of time,
it eventually finds its way into the reference books. It is most
unfortunate that the illiterates of our society are the unwitting
principal contributors to the changes in our language.
- It always is possible to express a thought using correct
English! That insight might seem trivial to you, but it
seems to have eluded the attention of many writers.
- "Monkey hear, monkey do" is not a
worthwhile strategy. The idea is to rise above the masses,
not to emulate them. The average American's English is about as
good as her/his math skills — that is to say, pathetic.
But that's the stuff of another Soapbox.
Good day!
