Job Discussion Forums

[nomad soul]

24 Things You Might Be Saying Wrong
By Melissa DeMeo and Paul Silverman | Reader's Digest, Sept 2010
(Source: http://www.rd.com/family/24-things-you-might-be-saying-wrong/)

You never mean: Could care less / You always mean: Couldn�t care less
Why: You want to say you care so little already that you couldn�t possibly care any less. When the Boston Celtics� Ray Allen said, �God could care less whether I can shoot a jump shot,� we know he meant exactly the opposite because 1) God has other things on his mind, and 2) God is a Knicks fan.

You might say: Mano a mano / You might mean: Man-to-man
Why: You don�t speak Spanish by adding vowels to the end of English words, as a columnist describing father�teenage son relationships seemed to think when he wrote, �Don�t expect long, mano a mano talks.� Mano a mano (literally, �hand to hand�) originated with bullfighting and usually refers to a knock-down, drag-out direct confrontation.

You might say: Less / You might mean: Fewer
Why: In general, use fewer when you�re specifying a number of countable things (�200 words or fewer�); reserve less for a mass (�less than half�). So when you�re composing a tweet, do it in 140 characters or fewer, not less.

You never mean: Hone in / You always mean: Home in
Why: Like homing pigeons, we can be single-minded about finding our way to a point: �Scientists are homing in on the causes of cancer.� Hone means �to sharpen�: �The rookie spent the last three seasons honing his skills in the minor leagues.� But it�s easy to mishear m�s and n�s, which is probably what happened to the Virginia senator who said, �We�ve got to hone in on cost containment.� If you�re unsure, say �zero in� instead.

You might say: Bring / You might mean: Take
Why: The choice depends on your point of view. Use bring when you want to show motion toward you (�Bring the dog treats over here, please�). Use take to show motion in the opposite direction (�I have to take Rufus to the vet�). The rule gets confusing when the movement has nothing to do with you. In those cases, you can use either verb, depending on the context: �The assistant brought the shot to the vet� (the vet�s point of view); �the assistant took the shot to the doctor� (the assistant�s).

You might say: Who / You might mean: Whom
Why: It all depends. Do you need a subject or an object? A subject (who) is the actor of the sentence: �Who left the roller skates on the sidewalk?� An object (whom) is the acted-upon: �Whom are you calling?� Parents, hit the mute button when Dora the Explorer shouts, �Who do we ask for help when we don�t know which way to go?�

You almost never mean: Brother-in-laws, runner-ups, hole in ones, etc. / You almost always mean: Brothers-in-law, runners-up, holes in one, etc.
Why: Plurals of these compound nouns are formed by adding an s to the thing there�s more than one of (brothers, not laws). Some exceptions: words ending in ful (mouthfuls) and phrases like cul-de-sacs.

You almost never mean: Try and / You almost always mean: Try to
Why: Try and try again, yes, but if you�re planning to do something, use the infinitive form: �I�m going to try to run a marathon.� Commenting on an online story about breakups, one woman wrote, �A guy I dated used to try and impress me with the choice of books he was reading.� It�s no surprise that the relationship didn�t last.

You almost never mean: Different than / You almost always mean: Different from
Why: This isn�t the biggest offense, but if you can easily substitute from for than (My mother�s tomato sauce is different from my mother-in-law�s), do it. Use than for comparisons: My mother�s tomato sauce is better than my mother-in-law�s.

You almost never mean: Beg the question / You almost always mean: Raise the question
Why: Correctly used, �begging the question� is like making a circular argument (I don�t like you because you�re so unlikable). But unless you�re a philosophy professor, you shouldn�t ever need this phrase. Stick to �raise the question.�

You might say: More than / You can also say: Over
Why: The two are interchangeable when the sense is �Over 6,000 hats were sold.� We like grammarian Bryan Garner�s take on it: �The charge that over is inferior to more than is a baseless crotchet.�

You almost never mean: Supposably / You almost always mean: Supposedly
Why: Supposably is, in fact, a word�it means �conceivably��but not the one you want if you�re trying to say �it�s assumed,� and certainly not the one you want if you�re on a first date with an English major or a job interview with an English speaker.

You might say: All of / You probably mean: All
Why: Drop the of whenever you can, as Julia Roberts recently did, correctly: �Every little moment is amazing if you let yourself access it. I learn that all the time from my kids.� But you need all of before a pronoun (�all of them�) and before a possessive noun (�all of Julia�s kids�).

You might say: That / You might mean: Which
Why: �The money that is on the table is for you� is different from �the money, which is on the table, is for you.� That pinpoints the subject: The money that is on the table is yours; the money in my pocket is mine. Which introduces an aside, a bit of extra information. If you remove �which is on the table,� you won�t change the meaning: The money is for you (oh, and unless you don�t want it, it�s on the table). If the clause is necessary to your meaning, use that; if it could safely be omitted, say which.

You never mean: Outside of / You always mean: Outside
Why: These two prepositions weren�t meant for each other. Perfectly acceptable: �Wearing a cheese-head hat outside Wisconsin will likely earn you some stares and glares (unless you�re surrounded by Green Bay Packers fans, that is).�

You might say: Each other / You might mean: One another
Why: Tradition says that each other should be used with two people or things, and one another with more than two, and careful speakers should follow suit: �The three presenters argued with one another over who should announce the award, but Ann and Barbara gave each other flowers after the ceremony.� (By the way, if you need the possessive form of either one when writing that business letter, it�s always each other�s and one another�s; never end with s�.)

(End of article)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hey! Where's irregardless? Uh, maybe that should be regardless...
So, whaddya think, teachers? Do you have some of your own to add or take issue with any of those listed? (I'm guilty of misusing one of the examples shown. Oops!)

[johnslat]

Dear nomad soul,

How about "would of," "could of," "should of," etc. (the first of which I saw used not too long ago on this forum?)

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

I think the article does not display enough in the way of peevedness! Shocking restraint!

[Sashadroogie]

And I think that the which/that item is a uniquely American one. It's more about writing style than grammar, as which and that are interchangeable in defining clauses. Not sure what the author meant here though...

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

I'm not sure if it's strictly American English - but it might be. I've always thought of it as the same as the distinction between who/whom and that (i.e. restrictive versus nonrestrictive clauses.)

"Restrictive Clause--That

A restrictive clause is just part of a sentence that you can't get rid of because it specifically restricts some other part of the sentence. Here's an example:

Gems that sparkle often elicit forgiveness.
The words that sparkle restrict the kind of gems you're talking about. Without them, the meaning of the sentence would change. Without them, you'd be saying that all gems elicit forgiveness, not just the gems that sparkle. (And note that you don't need commas around the words that sparkle.)

Nonrestrictive Clause--Which

A nonrestrictive clause is something that can be left off without changing the meaning of the sentence. You can think of a nonrestrictive clause as simply additional information. Here's an example:

Diamonds, which are expensive, often elicit forgiveness.
Alas, in Grammar Girl's world, diamonds are always expensive, so leaving out the words which are expensive doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. (Also note that the phrase is surrounded by commas. Nonrestrictive clauses are usually surrounded by, or preceded by, commas.)"

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/which-versus-that.aspx

Regards,
John

[Zero]

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

I'm fairly sure this is a typical example of an American style preference. It's not actually a grammar rule. I'd happily use either which or that in the defining clause. And I'm annoyed that my spell and grammar check always says it is wrong. Neither Swan nor Murphy would agree with it so I have to turn it off. Sadly, disabling colleagues that are bent on upholding this pseudo-rule proves more difficult...

Sasha

[Sashadroogie]

...and her own phrasing is suspect:

Nonrestrictive clauses are usually surrounded by, or preceded by, commas.)

Preceded by commas? How many of them exactly?

[Mikalina]

Disagree with 'begs the question', beng wrong.

You are not begging the question but using the verb 'beg' as a way of saying 'demanding' the question.

Kids I've been teaching in England for the last ten years actually say, 'cud've' and wud've' so they write them, 'could of' and 'would of'. They think I'm completely crazy when I correct their written work and then promptly forget.

My particular bete noir is 'perspective' instead of 'prospective'. Listen out for it - the perspective candidate...... Aaaargh...

[johnslat]

Dear Zero,

Well, your examples are all possessive pronouns, but the quote says this:

"and before a possessive noun (�all of Julia�s kids�).

Dear Sasha,

"Nonrestrictive clauses are usually surrounded by, or preceded by, commas.)

Preceded by commas? How many of them exactly?"

Ah, but the phrase, "or preceded by," set off by commas, is non-restrictive, which means that the "or preceded by" should not affect the word "commas."

However, it does seem to be a "Mercan rule" - "Also, it's important to know the difference between "which" and "that" when introducing dependent or independent clauses. In American English (but not British), "which" is generally preceded by a comma; "that" is not."

http://gtotd.blogspot.com/2007/08/set-off-non-restrictive-phrases-or.html

and

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/

Regards,
John

[johnslat]

Dear Mikalina,

That (mis)usage is so common that it must seem to be correct to many people. However, it IS a logical fallacy, not a rhetorical device.

What is "Begging the Question?"
"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

What is it Not?
To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.

http://begthequestion.info/

Begging your pardon,
John

[Mikalina]

Thank you.

Keep fighting.....

[Sashadroogie]

Dear Johnslat

What exactly is the connection between them then?


Ah, but the phrase, "or preceded by," set off by commas, is non-restrictive, which means that the "or preceded by" should not affect the word "commas."

Are you saying that there is no meaningful connection at all? Can't say that I'd go along with that fully. It is still poor writing on the part of Grammar Girl in any case.

But I am at least happy that we have clarified a little pet peeve of mine re the difference between a style guide and actual grammar. The which/that debate is about as real as the no preposition at the end of a sentence chestnut...


Best wishes

Sasha

[johnslat]

Dear Sasha,

It's rather like subject/verb agreement when the sentence has a non-restrictive clause:

My mother, who has three sisters, is . . . .

The "three sisters" does not, of course, affect the verb "is."

" . . . the difference between a style guide and actual grammar. The which/that debate is about as real as the no preposition at the end of a sentence chestnut... "

Umm, do you mean that if it's a "Mercan rule" it's just a "style guide" whereas if it's a "British rule," it's "actual grammar?"

Regards,
John

[Phil_K]

Hopefully, the sun will shine today! X

The adverb "hopefully" qualifies the verb "shine", therefore the sun will shine full of hope. Not what we mean!

Correct: I hope the sun will shine today.