3 Appositive Errors

Image from blog.extreme-advice.com

Confusion often arises as to how or whether to punctuate appositive phrases, which are descriptions that identify someone or something named in the same sentence. Here are three statements with punctuation problems that illustrate the peril of improper punctuation, with explanations and suggested revisions.

1. “The fog arrived unannounced — ‘on little cat feet,’ as the American poet, Carl Sandburg, put it.”
Framing Carl Sandburg’s name with commas implies that he is the American poet — the only one. The accurate revision is “The fog arrived unannounced — ‘on little cat feet,’ as the American poet Carl Sandburg put it.” (In this case, the, preceding the epithet, is optional — and American is included only because the source sentence is from a book published in the United Kingdom, where Sandburg’s name is not as well known as it is in the United States.)

2. “But he had another particular passion, and that was water, ‘especially dramatically moving water,’ writes his biographer Robert Jones.”
It’s quite possible for a famous personage to have more than one biographer, but in this context, only one, the source of the quote, is referred to, so his name should be set off in apposition to the epithet biographer: “But he had another particular passion, and that was water, ‘especially dramatically moving water,’ writes his biographer, Robert Jones.” (In other contexts, “writes biographer Robert Jones” — which from its lack of commas denotes that more than one biographer exists — might be correct.)

3. “Here’s what the CEO of World Wide Widgets John Smith said to his employees in a blog post.”
The identification of the subject of this sentence is incorrectly ordered. Four solutions present themselves: “Here’s what World Wide Widgets CEO John Smith said to his employees in a blog post” is journalistic style, in which the simple affiliation-title-name syntax erases the need for punctuation, but formal writing favors a more relaxed arrangement.

“Here’s what John Smith, World Wide Widgets’s CEO, said to his employees in a blog post” helpfully sets the subject’s affiliation and title off from his name, but it’s better yet to reverse the order to title, then affiliation; either that combination or the name can come first (“Here’s what the CEO of World Wide Widgets, John Smith, said to his employees in a blog post” or “Here’s what John Smith, the CEO of World Wide Widgets, said to his employees in a blog post”; in the latter example, the is optional).

“Like” Serves Nouns and Pronouns, Not Verbs

Like has suddenly become a noun with the rise of Facebook

 

Like is associated with various uncouth usages — “They were, like, all over the place”; “I was, like, ‘Really?’” — common in speech but easily avoided (except for comic effect) in writing, but many people are unaware that another widespread usage is considered improper in formal writing.

As a preposition meaning “similar to,” like is associated with nouns (“She entered the room like an empress”) and pronouns (“I don’t know anyone like him”). However, when the word connects one clause (a segment of a sentence that includes a subject and a verb) to another, it impersonates a conjunction: “He started dancing like his pants were on fire”; “I arranged the furniture like it had appeared before.”

Note, though, that this usage, though ubiquitous in conversation and in informal writing, is not considered acceptable in formal writing; like should be replaced, respectively, by “as if” (He started dancing as if his pants were on fire”) or as: (“I arranged the furniture as it had appeared before”). Replacing as with “the way” is also acceptable: “I arranged the furniture the way it had appeared before.”

(But beware of hypercorrection; as is erroneous when, with the same intent, it precedes a noun: “She entered the room as an empress” means that the subject literally became, rather than merely resembled, royalty. But “She entered the room as an empress would” is correct, because the emphasis is then on the subject’s action, not on the type of person the subject is compared to.)

In the case of a sentence such as “Like many first-time visitors do, I stared, dumbstruck, at the vista before me,” either change like to as (“As many first-time visitors do, I stared, dumbstruck, at the vista before me”) or delete the verb at the end of the introductory phrase (“Like many first-time visitors, I stared, dumbstruck, at the vista before me”).

8 Sneering Synonyms for “Obvious”

Image from http://laurencehunt.blogspot.in/

 

When we refer to something as being obvious, the connotation is often negative. Here are some synonyms for obvious that sometimes or always connote an uncomplimentary attitude about the subject at hand.

1. Blatant: crassly or offensively noisy, obtrusive, or obvious (possibly from the Latin word blatire, meaning “to chatter”)

2. Brazen: contemptuously bold (from Middle English brasen, meaning “brassy,” from the harsh, loud sound brass makes when it is struck)

3. Conspicuous: reflecting a lack or violation of good taste; the meaning can also neutrally refer to what is obvious (from the Latin term conspicere, meaning “to get sight of”)

4. Egregious: see conspicuous and flagrant (from the Latin term egregius, meaning, literally, “out of the herd” and figuratively connoting something outside of social norms)

5. Flagrant: demonstrating contempt for societal standards (from the Latin term flagrare, meaning “to burn”)

6. Glaring: Obtrusively obvious, with the connotation of embarrassment for the perpetrator (from the Middle English term glaren, related to the Old English word for glass)

7. Gross: reprehensibly obvious, plus other negative (and a couple of neutral) meanings (ultimately from the Latin term grossus, meaning “coarse”)

8. Rank: marked by a shocking display of poor taste; the term also has senses mostly related to coarseness or offensiveness (from the Old English term ranc, meaning “strong”)

Grammar-Checking Software Is Soft on Grammar Errors

Image The Fremd High School English Ning

 

You want to improve your grammar, but you’re disinclined to invest time and energy to laboriously study print or online resources about sentence construction. You’ve seen ads on the Internet about grammar checkers, and you decide to check them out. How useful is grammar-checking software?

After visiting five grammar-checker websites and using (the free versions of) their products, my conclusion is that software is no substitute for wetware (otherwise known as your brain). Here are my brief reports about the software I sampled.

Grammarbase.com
Grammarbase.com fallaciously flagged “ought to be” and “may be” as examples of passive voice — a common misunderstanding of the topic. (Passive voice is a backward-facing construction such as “This sentence was written by me”; “I wrote this sentence” is the active alternative. Verb form is not the primary issue.) Worse, there were several real grammatical and syntactical errors in the site’s introductory text (which I used as a test sample for this and the other sites); the grammar-checking tool found none of them.

GrammarCheck.net
When I copied and pasted the sample text into GrammarCheck.net’s tool, it showed the same poor results as Grammarbase.com’s. However, when I clicked on the site’s Advanced Report button, it took me to . . .

Grammarly
Grammarly found nearly fifty errors (or, more accurately, instances of concern), mostly involving what the site terms “writing style,” in the introductory text taken from Grammarbase.com. (The free version did not specifically identify the errors.) When I then plugged in the raw, error-laden version of a copyediting test, it found fewer mistakes than revealed in the Grammarbase.com text but gave the test text a lower score.

PaperRater
PaperRater found no errors in Grammarbase.com’s text and only two in the text for the copyediting test — both concerning misuse of hyphens.

Spellcheckplus.com

Spellcheckplus.com was stymied by the phrase “not only should the structure of your writing be solid,” reminding me about noun-verb agreement (irrelevant in this case) and by the phrase “your basic default word processor grammar checker,” alerting me that if by using your I meant “you are,” it should read you’re (again, irrelevant).

However, it advised changing you’ll to “you will” and noted that a letter space should both precede and follow an ellipsis and that the first two words in “run on sentences” should be hyphenated — all valid but superficial corrections.

My tests were not rigorous, and I did not purchase any of this software — I merely took a test drive of each company’s freeware trial. However, the only difference I can see between the free and paid versions of these software products is that the paid versions not only flag your errors but also analyze them. The problem is that, whether in simple or advanced mode, these tools missed just about every error that matters in a grammatical review.

These tests confirmed my suspicion that grammar-checking software can at best note only the most elementary errors (and sometimes marks valid constructions as mistakes). Grammar is much too complicated and nuanced to trust to technology. If you want to write well, learn to write well. If you want to have your writing reviewed and evaluated, access the brain of another human being. But don’t even think of relying on software.

How Do You Determine Whether to Use Who or Whom?

Image from www.ragan.com

 

Even the boldest, most confident writers can cower in fear and sob with frustration when confronted with the problem of whether to use who or whom in a sentence. Heck, I know it confuses me.

Here’s the distinction: Use who to refer to the subject of the sentence (“I am the person who you are looking for”) and whom to refer to the object of the sentence (“Whom have you invited?”)

If you’re still unsure about which form to use in a sentence, try this test: Restate the sentence with a personal pronoun, or, if it is a question, answer the question with one word. If the personal pronoun in the restatement or response is he or she, who is correct. If it’s him or her, whom is correct.

Statement: “I have a friend who can help.”
Restatement: “He can help.” (Who is correct.)

Question: “Whom have you invited?”
Response: “Him.” (Whom is correct.)

Note, however, that sometimes you can avoid the problem of determining which form to use by omitting a relative pronoun altogether, and the result is often an improvement. For example, the sentence “I am the person who you are looking for” is better rendered as “I am the person you are looking for.”

Also, beware of these pitfalls: “They’ll complain to whoever [not whomever] will listen” is correct, because whoever is the subject of “will listen.” However, “Whomever [not whoever] you hire is fine with me” is correct because whomever is the object of hire.

Furthermore, use of whom in a sentence such as “It was Smith and Jones whom we had to contend with” is a hypercorrection. (“It was Smith and Jones who we had to contend with” is correct, though the sentence is better with the pronoun omitted: “It was Smith and Jones we had to contend with.”) Append a phrase containing the same pronoun to realize how awkward this form is. (“It was Smith and Jones whom we had to contend with, whom some among us feared.”)

These complications, and others, make traditional rules regarding use of whom problematic; when even experienced writers have to repeatedly pore through a grammar text to remind themselves about the details, the distinction has ceased to be practical. The fusty who/whom distinction is fading in conversational usage, and it is my fervent hope that the use of whom except in unambiguous “to whom” constructions will likewise atrophy.

I’ll let legendary language maven William Safire have the last word: Of this issue, he said, in effect, when the question of whether to use whom or who arises, revise the sentence so that you don’t have to puzzle over which form is correct.

One Word Can Mar Your Meaning

Image from www.mysoti.com

Each of the three sentences shown below contains a minor error that nevertheless muddles the intended meaning. The discussion following each example identifies the problem and sets up a resolving revision.

1. “Instead of focusing on rebuilding the Republican Party, she said that party leaders should focus on rebuilding the middle class.”
This sentence implies that the person referred to opted to make the recommendation to party leaders in lieu of focusing on rebuilding the party; the action of focusing is erroneously assigned to her. What the writer meant to write is that the subject recommended that party leaders rebuild the middle class rather than the party. Omission of that after the attribution “she said” clarifies this meaning: “Instead of focusing on rebuilding the Republican Party, she said, party leaders should focus on rebuilding the middle class.”

2. “The project would cost $250 million to $300 million to build and receive a $400 million endowment upon opening.”
According to this sentence, the project’s $250–$300 million budget would be used to build and receive an endowment. But two distinct facts are mentioned about the project: It would require $250–$300 million to build, and it would receive an additional $400 million as an endowment after completion of the building. To clearly state this meaning, the sentence’s parallel structure must be bolstered with a second use of would, between the conjunction and and the verb in the second clause: “The project would cost $250 million to $300 million to build and would receive a $400 million endowment upon opening.”

3. “If you’re interested in learning more about her work, the scholar who has delved most deeply into it is John Smith.”
OK, this revision involves swapping in two words for one, but the mistake is as small and as easy to overlook as those in the examples above. This statement illustrates a subtle error known as a false conditional: The sentence is structured so that the identity of the most deeply delving scholar is contingent on your interest in learning more about someone else’s work; if you’re not interested, apparently, John Smith loses that distinction. By changing the way the sentence refers to your potential interest, this logical fallacy is erased: “In case you’re interested in learning more about her work, the scholar who has delved most deeply into it is John Smith.”

7 Types of Narrative Conflict

Image from africanmosaic.blogspot.com

Every work of literature, and much nonfiction narrative, is based on at least one of the following conflicts. When you write a story or a biography, or relate a true event or series of events, you need not focus on such themes, and there’s no reason to state them explicitly (except in passing, perhaps, to provide insight about a biographical subject), but you’re wise to identify the conflicts inherent in your composition and apply them as you write.

1. Person vs. Fate/God
This category could be considered part of conflict with self or with society (many people count only four types of conflict, including those two and conflict with another person or with nature). That’s a valid argument, as one confronts fate as part of an internal struggle and religion is a construct of society, but explicitly naming fate (Oedipus Rex) or God — or the gods (The Odyssey) — as the antagonist is a useful distinction.

2. Person vs. Self
A person’s struggle with his or her own prejudices or doubts or character flaws constitutes this type of conflict (Hamlet).

3. Person vs. Person
Any story featuring a hero and a villain or villains (The Count of Monte Cristo) represents this type of conflict, though the villain(s) is/are often representative of another antagonist in this list, whether a villain is in essence an alter ego of the protagonist (thus representing the conflict of person versus self) or stands in for society.

4. Person vs. Society
When the protagonist’s conflict extends to confronting institutions, traditions, or laws of his or her culture, he or she struggles to overcome them, either triumphing over a corrupt society (I draw a blank here), rejecting it (Fahrenheit 451), or succumbing to it (1984).

5. Person vs. Nature
In this conflict, the protagonist is pitted against nature (Robinson Crusoe) or a representation of it, often in the form of an animal (Moby Dick).

6. Person vs. Supernatural
Superficially, conflict with the supernatural may seem equivalent to conflict with fate or God, or representative of a struggle with an evocation of self (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) or nature (The Birds). But this category stands on its own feet as well.

7. Person vs. Technology
Humanity’s innate skepticism about the wonders of technology has resulted in many stories in which antagonists use technology to gain power or in which technology takes over or becomes a malign influence on society (Brave New World).

10 Ways to Avoid Gender Bias

How do you write around the outmoded usage of the pronoun he or him when a male is not necessarily the subject of the reference? Here are ten strategies — none ideal in every circumstance — for achieving gender neutrality.
 

1. Use He or She

Before: “Ask the student whether he is prepared to give a presentation.”
After: “Ask the student whether he or she is prepared to give a presentation.”
This solution is stiffly formal and is awkward in repetition; use sparingly. Using he/she, s/he, or any such alternative (or an invented neutral pronoun like ze) is not advised.
 

2. Alternate Between He and She

Before: “Ask the student whether he is prepared to give a presentation. If he is ready, tell him that he may begin when he is ready.”
After: “Ask the student whether he is prepared to give a presentation. If she is ready, tell her that she may begin when she is ready.”
This solution works only in the case of two or more references to a hypothetical subject of either gender. In the proximity of the references in the examples, this solution is awkward, but when the references are at some distance from each other, it can be effective in moderation.
 

3. Omit the Pronoun

Before: “Ask the student whether he is prepared to give a presentation.”
After: “Ask whether the student is prepared to give a presentation.”
This revision does not clearly indicate whether the student or another person is being asked; writers must recognize and respond to such lack of clarity if it affects comprehension.
 

4. Repeat the Noun in Place of the Pronoun

Before: “Ask the student whether he is prepared to give a presentation.”
After: “Ask the student whether the student is prepared to give a presentation.”
When the noun is repeated in the proximity shown above, the sentence is awkward; in a more complex sentence, the repetition may not seem so obvious.
 

5. Use a Plural Antecedent for the Pronoun

Before: “Ask the student whether he is prepared to give a presentation.”
After: “Ask the students whether they are prepared to give their presentations.”
Employing a plural noun and a plural pronoun may change the meaning somewhat; writers must be alert as to which other nouns, if any, should be made plural as well.
 

6. Replace the Pronoun with an Article

Before: “Ask the student to prepare his presentation.”
After: “Ask the student to prepare a presentation.”
 

7. Revise the Sentence to Use the Pronoun One

Before: “A prepared student is more likely to succeed than if he has not done sufficient research.”
After: “A prepared student is more likely to succeed than an unprepared one.”
 

8. Revise the Sentence to Use the Pronoun Who

Before: “A student is more likely to succeed if he does sufficient research.”
After: “A student who does sufficient research is more likely to succeed.”
 

9. Revise the Sentence to the Imperative Mood

Before: “A student must be well prepared for his presentation.”
After: “Be well prepared for the presentation.”
 

10. Use a Plural Pronoun

Before: “Ask the student whether he is prepared to give a presentation.”
After: “Ask the student whether they are prepared to give a presentation.”
Many writers reject this solution because traditional grammar rules frown on using a plural pronoun when the antecedent is a singular noun. However, the bewildering absence of a gender-neutral plural pronoun in English calls for a radical solution. This one is widely used in informal writing and in conversation, and it’s commonsensical to welcome it in formal writing. That welcome, however, has not yet been forthcoming, and, regrettably, writers should use the plural pronouns them and they in place of singular pronouns with caution.

Some writers reject the notion that one should avoid gender-specific pronouns in universal contexts at all. After all, why change long-standing usage that has only recently been challenged? But these writers, though sensible in the logic of their argument, are culturally insensitive and, ultimately, are on the wrong side of linguistic history. I hope, too, that integration of the singular they and them in any usage will eventually occur.

3 Answers to Questions About Capitalization

Image from commkit.gsu.edu

 

1. Would you write, “I study algebra,” or “I study Algebra”? “I’m enrolled in algebra II,” or “I’m enrolled in Algebra II”? Is the following sentence correct? “The school offers algebra, French, physics, Spanish, Geometry, and english.”

When you refer to an academic subject, write, for example, “I study algebra.” (Capitalize only names of languages and other proper nouns.) However, when the reference is to a course in which an academic subject is taught, write, for example, “I’m enrolled in Algebra II.” The terms in this revision of your final sample sentence are styled correctly: “The school offers algebra, French, physics, Spanish, geometry, and English.” 

2. One of our counties considers itself “the birthplace of prohibition.” My question is whether prohibition should be capitalized. I’ve seen it done that way before but can’t remember if it may have been only in the context of references to the era or the Eighteenth Amendment.”

When referring to the principle rather than the era or the legislation, I’d lowercase the word: “The nonpartisan organization focused on the single issue of prohibition.” But in reference to the specific US government policy during the 1930s (or any other similar official policy in another country), capitalize the term. And if the county actually markets itself with the slogan “The Birthplace of Prohibition,” acknowledge that epithet by writing, “The county considers itself the ‘Birthplace of Prohibition’”).

3. What are the rules for saying something starts with a capital letter? Which one is correct: “The word God has a capital G,” or “The word God has a capital g”?

No resource I know of refers to this specific point about naming a letter as a letter, so in this case I must defer to usage. “The word God has a capital G” may seem redundant, but that’s the prevailing style. Otherwise, when the reference is not specifically to an uppercase letter, the lowercase form should be used.

There’s a Word for That

Why is that despite the fact that the English language has hundreds of thousands of words, we have no single-word term for many emotions and other concepts that are specifically represented in other languages and that would be beneficial for everyday use?

For example, English has no word equivalent to gianxi, a Chinese term akin to but not the same as goodwill. (It refers to the social stock one accumulates by doing favors and bestowing gifts.) Nor is there any succinct translation of forelsket, the Norwegian word for the ecstasy of love in its early stages. (A concise definition is “the state of being enamored,” but even if enamoration were a word — and why isn’t it? — it doesn’t incorporate the context. Infatuation comes close but is not quite equivalent.)

My conclusion, after a bit of research, is that English speakers just aren’t trying hard enough. It’s true that the parent language of English, Anglo-Saxon, lets us down in matching single words to concepts, but English is very receptive to new vocabulary. (One comment attributed to a dictionary, though I couldn’t identify the specific source, is that “English acquires new words with the delicacy of a vacuum cleaner.”)

It is this adaptability that we must, for the most part, rely on. (I write “for the most part” because formation of new words is effortless: See enamoration above.) All we have to do is “borrow” from other languages. (I enclose borrow in raised eyebrows of irony because steal would be more accurate; we don’t give the words back.)

Turn to any page of a dictionary, and you’ll find at least one word acquired from a foreign language: Souvenir, from French. Contort, from Latin. Gymnast, from Greek. More recent acquisitions abound as well: Honcho, from Japanese. Cafeteria, from Spanish. Trek, from Afrikaans.

But our loanword word-hoard is woefully incomplete. From German, we have schadenfreude, referring to the enjoyment of other’s misfortunes. But why hasn’t English appropriated pena ajena, an expression from Mexican Spanish that denotes embarrassment about another person’s humiliation? That would certainly come in handy.

The answer to my thesis question is this: There’s a word for almost everything, but it isn’t necessarily in the English lexicon — yet. English is constantly enriched by the accumulation and integration of vocabulary from other languages, but the only reason you wouldn’t say to me, expecting others to understand, “You’re such a pochemuchka” — that Russian word means “a person who asks too many questions” — is because we haven’t (yet) decided that the word’s useful enough to assimilate. Start introducing more foreign words into your writing, and you’ll build gianxi with me.

How to Revise Bullet Lists for Grammatical Consistency

Image from www.internet4classrooms.com

 

Bullet lists — distinguished from numbered lists in that they do not imply a priority or chronology in the order in which the list items appear — are useful for when a list becomes too unwieldy to be formatted in line (within a sentence), but just as in a sentence’s in-line list, the bullet list’s grammatical structure should be coherent.

Here are three bullet lists I obtained from a job listing (a format that frequently exhibits grammatical infelicities and thus amuses job-seeking wordsmiths attuned to irony), each followed by a syntactically sound revision:

1. Original
“This position is responsible for:
• Writing and/or editing in all media
• Assures quality for engaging audience
• Coordinates flow of information to achieve news cycle deadlines
• Creative Designer
• Contributes to high-performing teamwork
• Continuously seeks and applies learning to enhance skills and performances”

1. Revision
“This position is responsible for
• writing and/or editing in all media.
• assuring quality for engaging the audience.
• coordinating flow of information to achieve news-cycle deadlines.
• creatively designing presentation of content.
• contributing to high-performing teamwork.
• continuously seeking and applying learning to enhance skills and performances.”

Note that the colon in the introductory phrase has been omitted because each bullet-list item independently completes that phrase, and the resulting statements should therefore not be interrupted; to support that structure, each item now also begins with a word in lowercase form and ends with a period. Most important, however, the verb(s) in each item now take an identical inflectional ending (-ing).

The list could also, by revision of the introductory phrase, allow a simple verb form (-s), requiring alteration only of the verb form of the first item and an extension of “Creative Designer” into a complete thought:

“The content manager
• writes and/or edits in all media.”
(etc.)

2. Original
“Job Requirements:
• Applicants should have at least three years of daily newspaper copy editing and design experience.
• Exceptional Writing Proficiency
• Strong Proofreading and editing skills
• Experience in page design and layout on pagination systems like Quark or InDesign.
• Must understand that journalists are held to a higher standard and must follow strict ethical rules, such as not accepting gifts from sources; not putting political bumper stickers on their cars; etc. — all outlined in The New York Times Co.’s ethical policies.
• Knowledge of best practices in page design, typography, use of space and photography.

2. Revision
“Applicants must have
• at least three years of daily newspaper copyediting and design experience.
• exceptional writing proficiency.
• strong proofreading and editing skills.
• experience in page design and layout on pagination systems like Quark or InDesign.
• knowledge of best practices in page design, typography, use of space, and photography.

Applicants must also understand that journalists are held to a higher standard and must follow strict ethical rules such as not accepting gifts from sources and not putting political bumper stickers on their cars — all outlined in The New York Times Co.’s ethical policies.”

The original introductory phrase is correctly punctuated because it is a fragment that sets up but is not syntactically continuous with each of the items that follow it. However, the items are inconsistent as to whether they are phrases or complete sentences and in terminal punctuation. In my revision, I created a new introductory phrase that can apply to all bullet list items (except the one about ethical rules, which I broke out as a separate paragraph because of its length and nonparallel structure — and note the revision of its own in-line list), and I lowercased several words that were gratuitously capitalized. This scheme now matches that of the first bullet list.

3. Original
We are looking for candidates that have the following qualities:
• Quality Orientation
• Strong Work Standards
• Exceptional Communication Skills
• Ability to manage work
• Contributing to team success
• Proven decision making skills
• Building strategic working relationships
• Active Learning

3. Revision
“We are looking for candidates that have the following qualities:
• quality orientation
• strong work standards
• exceptional communication skills
• ability to manage work
• desire to contribute to team success
• proven decision-making skills
• aptitude for building strategic working relationships
• active learning”

This list was easier to fix: The introductory phrase, a complete thought, is correctly punctuated, and the items were mostly consistent in their phrase form. (Inconsistency in grammatical form between one list and another in a piece of content is acceptable, but lists should be internally consistent.) I simply removed unnecessary capitalization and rephrased two of the items to describe qualities rather than actions.

Why One Suffix Is More Common Than Another

Image from www.jimloy.com

What is the rationale, if any, for the predominance of one suffix over one that performs the same function? Last week, I discussed the question of choosing between the suffixes -logic and -logical. Here, I take a look at other suffixes that compete with each other when various parts of speech are converted to others.

The suffix -ize is adopted for most multisyllabic words; by contrast, -ify is rarely applied to words of more than one syllable. The rationale given for this rule, that one choice or the other simply feels right, bears out: Even if I didn’t know the adjectival form of apology, I would more likely say apologize than apologify; the same goes for minimize over minimify, revolutionize over revolutionify, and just about any other applicable word I can think of. (Electrify, rather than electricize, is one exception.)

Often, more than one correct adjective exists for a given word, but one form seems more formal than the other. For example, both accountability and accountableness are acceptable (another example is the duo profanity/profaneness), but although -ness is more common, -ity is considered more proper.

Certain suffixes go in and out of style. For example, -th long ago fell out of favor as an option for converting an adjective to a noun, and -ment has essentially been retired as a go-to suffix for new words. The same is true of -ar as a suffix indicating transformation from a verb to a noun; though -ar is common among existing words, -er is not only much more common but is also the default suffix for new coinages.

When a word has more than one possible suffix, the alternatives may develop different connotations. For example, profaneness refers, among other senses, to irreverent or unholy things, while profanity has come to denote the quality or state of being profane, or the speaking or writing of profane language, or such language itself. Another example is the development of cynical when cynic became a noun as well as an adjective.

Some suffixes develop distinct qualities. For example, -ive, based on Latin words ending in -vus but extended to non-Latinate words as well, implies a permanent state, as exemplified by the difference in nuance between attracting and attractive.

Because of the variety of likely suffixes, it’s best to consult the dictionary or an authoritative resource if you’re uncertain about the proper appendage for a particular word.

10 Classes of Careless Usage

Image from legalproblemsnewsmsgs.blogspot.in

If you find yourself making any of the following types of errors, general or specific, brush up on your writing with grammar guides and usage handbooks and/or any or all of the other strategies mentioned at the end of this post.

1. Appending an s to words in which, in most usage, the letter should not be included (for example, regards, as in “in regards to”) or that, in American English, have dropped it altogether (backward). (Using the -st ending in such words as amidst and amongst is a similar sign of poor usage.)

2. Using the incorrect form of pronouns — writing, for example, “My friend and myself” instead of “My friend and I” or “That happened to she and I at the same time” rather than “That happened to her and me at the same time.” (If you don’t like the way that sentence looks, either, write, “That happened to both of us at the same time.”)

3. Using unnecessarily complicated words or phrases in favor of simpler, well-established terms: utilize instead of use, “prior to” in place of before, subsequently instead of later.

4. Using nonwords: irregardless, supposably, theirselves.

5. Using plural forms of words instead of singular ones: “a criteria,” “a phenomena.”

6. Using less when fewer is appropriate: “There are less boxes than I thought” instead of “There are fewer boxes than I thought.”

7. Using euphemisms: “He passed away last year” instead of “He died last year.”

8. Using badly in place of bad in such sentences as “He feels badly about the decision.”

9. Adding extraneous prepositions: “That’s too small of a shirt for you.”

10. Employing erroneous wording of idiomatic phrases: “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes.”

So, how do you know if you’re making such mistakes? Printing this representative list out and tacking it up next to your computer is all well and good for reminding you about these ten pitfalls, but what about the hundreds of others that plague writers?

A combination of strategies is called for:

Do Your Homework
Determine whether the content or presentation style is appropriate for you, then, a few pages at a time, work your way through the ones that work for you.

Read Role Models
Seek out high-quality prose: leading magazines and newspapers and great literature. You don’t have to give up reading your favorite blogs or pulp fiction (some of which is/are very well written), but divide your leisure reading between the exemplary and the acceptable so that you can distinguish between the two and recognize well-constructed prose.

Go Back to School
Take a writing or editing class, whether offered as part of a university’s regular curriculum or as a continuing-education course. Whether you earned an MA in literature is irrelevant. You probably didn’t focus on the mechanics of writing during your college years, but now it’s time to do so.

Ask for Backup
Get a friend or a colleague whose writing or editing skills you respect to look over shorter pieces for you and flag grammar and usage errors. (Emphasize that you’d like them to merely call out the problems; you’ll solve them.) This strategy doesn’t work if you’ve completed a novel or a thick report, unless you can pay or trade for services, but when applied to short stories or modest work projects, it will help you develop your skills.

Suffixes That Denote Relation or Resemblance

Image from thethirdgradescoop.blogspot.com

 

When we refer to something suggestive of William Shakespeare’s works, why do we write Shakespearean (or, seldom, Shakespearian) rather than Shakespearesque? Why is an epic tale labeled Homeric rather than Homerian? What’s the difference between Christian and Christ-like? Is there a method to the madness of these suffixes?

The transformation of surnames into adjectives is fairly random, and writers are strongly advised to consult a dictionary or to research online usage rather than rely on common sense. When such a suffix has not yet been bestowed on a name, audition the four forms (-ean, -esque, -ian, and -ic) and select the most euphonious among them, but only after considering whether it’s wise to use any of the options at all, rather than to simply state that something is reminiscent of the works or beliefs of a particular person.

It takes a significant achievement or, more likely, set of achievements to merit this form, and your attempt to honor someone may be interpreted as irony. The good news, however, is that attaching one of these suffixes to a person’s name is, in a satirical context, an effective form of mockery or parody. (Consider, for example, a reference to a vocalist’s Bieberesque stylings. But beware of clumsy constructions like Kardashianian.)

In sincere usage, reserve -esque for the most deserving recipient names, as with Lincolnesque. The suffixes -ean and -ian — the former form dominates, though the choice often seems arbitrary — is suitable for most other references (Sartrean, Freudian). The -ic option is most suitable for classical (Platonic) or historical (Napoleonic) references.

And note the conversion of names ending in vowel sounds: Themes suggestive of George Bernard Shaw’s philosophy or the tone of his work, for example, are called Shavian, and a worldview akin to that of Henry David Thoreau is Thoreauvian.

The seemingly most sensible alternative — to simply append -like to a name — is rarely employed; the only widespread example that comes to mind is in the distinction between reference to Christian theology or values and to Christ-like behavior or appearance. (The suffix -like is usually attached to a root word without hyphenation, but an exception is made for proper nouns.)

The Logic Behind “-logic” and “-logical”

Image source: http://mrsrhodesscholars.blogspot.com/

Why does the English language allow one to select between, say, biologic and biological, neurologic and neurological, and technologic and technological? Why complicate our language lives with the choice? Is the universe malicious?

According to one study, the suffix -ic is preferred over the variant -ical by a ratio of 8 to 1. Curiously, however, when -log precedes the suffix, the ratio is reversed. (In another example of this phenomenon, called potentiation, -ness is much more common than -ity – except when the suffix is preceded by -able.) But that doesn’t answer my questions.

For the most part, the choice seems to be personal or institutional preference, because there’s usually no distinction — no logic, for example, to selection of -logic or -logical. For example, the style guide of the American Academy of Neurology prefers the shorter form, but in other contexts, neurological prevails.

One researcher points out that, as you might have guessed, -ic (from the Greek suffix -ikos) was the original suffix; -ical, formed by adding the French suffix -al, came later. For the most part, usage organically caused a divergence, so that, for example, a historic occasion is memorable, whereas a historical occasion is one that merely occurred.

For another example, economic refers to economics, while economical is used more generally to refer to the quality of economy. In this case, as with some others, the former can mean the same thing as the latter but seldom does. Comic and comical, and geometric and geometrical, are two of the many other sister terms with both (occasionally) identical and (usually) distinctly different meanings.

Sometimes, one form predominates for obvious reasons (fanatical, for example, developed in favor of fanatic because the original form came to be applied as a noun), but in other cases, the variation — for reasons seldom clear — triumphs (botanical versus botanic, for example.)

So, which form should you use in a given context? The dictionary is helpful for most -ic/-ical debates, but the -logic/-logical (and -logous!) issue is an outlier. In such cases, consult an authoritative source.