Happy Thanksgiving

No grammar lesson today. Spend time with your family and friends, and focus on all the things for which you are thankful.

Besides, I don't have time to come up with a lesson today. The wife is working me to death in the kitchen -- but I love her and am very thankful for her.

Happy Thanksgiving! My snarky self will be back tomorrow.

liable/likely

As is the case with many pairs of words I've discussed in the past, there is some shade of difference between the two.

"I'm liable to go crazy if you don't be quiet." Well, not really. You're using it in the wrong context here.

Likely is used when an event is probable or expected to occur. You're likely to go bonkers if that person doesn't shut up.

Liable can have two uses. One use relates to a point of law or an obligation of some sort. You may be liable for damages. It can also be used when an event involves some degree of risk. If you hit the slopes but don't know how to ski, you are liable to break your leg.

I refuse to be held liable in the unlikely event that you learn nothing from this blog and roam the countryside an illiterate oaf.

oral/verbal

You might think these two words are the same. Think again, my good friend.

Oral, obviously, refers to the mouth, so anything that is oral is spoken. An oral exam could be one of two things. It's either a closer look at your mouth conducted by an oral surgeon, or it's a test in school whereby all your answers are spoken.

Verbal, on the other hand, could be spoken or written. I guess that means, if you look at it more closely, anything oral is automatically verbal, but not everything verbal is automatically oral. My head is starting to hurt.

What if you were to enter into a verbal contract? Is it spoken or written? It could be either. That's up to you to decide.

I would have to advise against such a contract, however. That's my legal advice for the day. See, you get more than just grammar tips here. I've got it all. I should probably refrain from giving medical advice, though.

morbid/moribund

This lovely pair of words has often been confused, but there is a shade of difference between them. There's just a tad of overlap, but not enough that they should be considered interchangeable.

Morbid, of course, means "sullen, gloomy, depressed, dark, morose, gruesome, or grisly." Okay, I think you get the idea. When you pass an accident, you just have to look because of a morbid curiosity. You know you want to. We all do.

Moribund, however, means "on the verge of death or extinction." The bald eagle has long been considered a moribund species.

It never ceases to amaze me when I hear this used incorrectly. Broadcasters are notorious for this. I'm watching a professional football game, basketball game, etc. A certain team is having just a horrendous season -- bad coaching, team turmoil, hideous play. The announcer suddenly refers to the team as "a moribund franchise."

Unless everyone on the team is about to drop dead or the team will soon be extinct, it's the incorrect usage. I must admit, however, that is something I'd like to see.

Call me morbidly curious.

nauseated/nauseous

Have you ever felt nauseous? That's interesting. Technically speaking, that's not even possible.

The difference between these two is a matter of semantics, really. If you're not feeling well, you're nauseated. The thing causing the sickness is nauseous. That could be a horrible smell or your brother. In some cases, those two could be interchangeable. Sorry.

I was nauseated by the nauseous smell emanating from the manure factory. I know they don't manufacture manure. It's just an example.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to think of another non-nauseous post for tomorrow that hopefully won't leave you nauseated.

discomfort/discomfit

Recently, dictionaries have come to accept these two as almost synonymous. Purists, however, disagree.

It should be fairly obvious (even to you) that discomfort refers to a mild pain or a slight uneasiness. Failing the test was very discomforting because he thought he had prepared well.

Well, what about discomfit? Glad you asked. This one actually means "a rout or a total defeat." Notice the difference? I thought so.

Now that you are aware of the difference, stop using them as synonyms.

It is discomforting to think that if you continue using these words interchangeably, their correct uses will become completely discomfited. You don't want that on your conscience, do you?

stationary/stationery

When you go to the gym, do you ride the stationary bike or the stationery bike? By the way, it's good that you're getting some exercise.

You're actually riding the stationary bike. This version of the word means "fixed, in one place, or not moving." When you're sitting at your desk working, you're stationary.

Stationery, with an "e," refers to paper, envelopes, etc. Do you know how I remember this one? The word "envelope" begins with an "e," so that's the version to use when referring to paper goods. Pretty nifty, huh?

As you can see, if you're riding a stationery bike, you're riding one made out of paper. I'm no expert, but I don't think you can get a good workout on a bike like that. It seems as though it would be kind of flimsy.

As I said, though, it's good that you're exercising. Keep it up. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

learn/teach

I know this distinction may seem overly obvious, but you'd be surprised at the number of students who have confused this pair. Amazing, I know.

To learn is the act of receiving knowledge. You can learn to ride a bike, learn how to bake a cake, learn how to tie your shoes, and learn the difference between these two words.

To teach is the act of giving knowledge. I can teach you all these grammar rules, teach you how to sew (but I don't know how), teach you how to fall out of a tree, and teach you nuclear fusion.

By the way, the past tense of learn is learned. It's not learnt, and the past tense of teach most certainly is not teached. It's, of course, taught. Go ahead and laugh. I've seen it firsthand.

Now, aren't you glad I learned you well today? I know it's incorrect. Just checking.

flounder/founder

You've undoubtedly heard of flounder, but founder is one of those words you don't hear very often. Maybe because a lot of people don't know what it means. Well, I'm here to change that.

If you flounder, you stumble or flail around like a fish on a pier. Speaking of fish, a flounder is a type of fish, but we're referring to it here as a verb. Since it was his first time on skates, John floundered all over the ice.

You can also founder, but you probably don't want to do that. Foundering isn't a good thing since it means "to fail miserably." Given the current state of the economy, many businesses unfortunately are foundering.

I guess since John floundered all over the ice, he foundered at his first attempt at skating. Don't worry, though. He'll get better.

Did you ever notice that there seems to be a disproportionate number of guys named John who can't skate? All right, you got me. I made that one up.

principal/principle

Let's make this one short and sweet. I'm a little behind today, so time is at a premium. Don't get so upset. I'm not blaming you. Geez!

The word principal means "the highest or most important." What is your principal argument? This is my principal reason for not going. I still see my middle school principal every once in a while. Do you remember the way you were taught this one? The principal is your pal. Hokey I know, but it works.

A principle is a basic truth or law. Chivalry was the principle all knights followed during the Middle Ages. I love King Arthur tales, don't you?

Now that you know the difference, your principal goal should be to not forget, which would obviously compromise your principles.

I don't know what that means either.

capital/capitol/Capitol

I have a capital idea. Let's clarify the proper way to use this trio.

Capital refers to something that is "the best" or "the most important." You can have a capital letter, a state capital (as in a city), capital punishment, or, as in my case, a capital idea.

The word capitol (without a capital letter) is the actual building that houses the state legislature. Senators called an emergency meeting at the capitol in the capital city of Des Moines.

Then we have Capitol (with a capital letter). Yikes! I'm tired of saying capital, capitol, and Capitol. In this instance, we are referring to the building that houses the United States legislature in Washington, D.C.

Representative Smith left the Capitol to head back to the capitol building in the capital city of his home state.

Come to think of it, maybe this wasn't such a capital idea after all.

avert/divert/revert

I'm just sitting here thinking how quickly this year is going. I can't believe it's almost Thanksgiving. That means Christmas is just around the corner. Usually, I have my shopping done by now, but since I have to play grammar educator, I haven't had time. Thanks, everyone.

Now for today's lesson -- three words that sound similar but certainly aren't. To avert is to avoid something. The strike was averted when both sides agreed at the last minute.

To divert something or someone is to cause a temporary distraction. My attention was diverted by the blue, one-legged jaguar I saw out my kitchen window. He certainly didn't move very quickly. I'm not sure why he was blue. Anyway. . .

If you revert to something, you essentially go back to an earlier time. An adult who likes to play with toys is reverting to his or her childhood.

By the way, please do not use the phrase revert back. I hear that all the time. When you revert, you are going back. You people and your redundancies. . . I've addressed this before, and I'm sure I'll have to address it again.

e.g./i.e.

Okay, so you want to sound like a boorish snob in your use of the language. That's fine. Just be sure you use these correctly.

If you like e.g., be sure to use it in place of for example. There are many places I'd like to visit, e.g., London, Paris, Vienna, and Pahrump, Nevada. Nothing against Pahrump. I'm sure it's a wonderful town. I just like the way it sounds.

If i.e. seems to be calling your name, use it to replace the phrase that is. He has one unusual physical characteristic, i.e., his left foot is three times larger than his right. That's the reason for the clown shoe.

You'll notice that when using these in written form, there is a comma both before and after. You already noticed that? Fantastic.

Time to go. I have things to do, e.g., watch some college football, do some yard work, and pet my dog. I'm trying to postpone the inevitable, i.e., grading papers.

than/then

This pair is a grammar classic. Show me an English teacher who hasn't seen this: "I'm smarter then my sister." No, you're obviously not. If you were, you'd have better control of the language. Now go sit down. You've forfeited your chance to participate the remainder of the day.

Than is used when you're making comparisons or contrasts. "I'm smarter than you." "You're dumber than me." "My dog is better looking than yours."

Then is correct when one thing results from another. "We washed the car, and then we waxed it." "We'll go to dinner, and then we'll go to the movie."

Whenever a student makes a hideous error with these, I get madder than a hornet. Then I have to take some aspirin to cure the headache I've incurred from banging my head against the wall.

Excuse me. I have to go clean my erasers. I'm sure I'll be clapping my head with them soon.

compliment/complement

Compliment or complement? It's an interesting pair of words, don't you think?

If you tell your husband, wife, or significant other that his or her dinner didn't suck tonight, that wouldn't be very nice; therefore, that's not much of a compliment. Telling her she looks good, telling him he is a master with a crescent wrench, or telling her she plays the harp well are all nice compliments. When you want to be nice, this is the form to use.

Complement is used when one person or thing has a characteristic that another doesn't, but the two together make more of a whole. Huh? Calm down. Let me give you an example.

If you're a master macaroni and cheese maker but aren't exceptionally neat, and he or she loves to load the dishwasher, those two actions complement each other.

You're a great athlete but you're significant other isn't. He or she loves to watch sports, however. That's a perfect complement. Is it clear now? If so, compliments are always appreciated.

hyper-/hypo-

Have you ever seen a hyperactive kid at the grocery store? I sure have. In fact, I've seen more than my share right in my own classroom. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? How do they get like that? Well, that's not the topic for today. Come to think of it, that won't be the topic for any day.

Today we look at the prefixes "hyper-" and "hypo-." I used the example of the hyperactive kid because we all know it means he or she has too much energy; consequently, "hyper-" refers to "too much" or "more than normal."

"Hypo-," on the other hand, means "too little" or "not enough." If you are hypoglycemic, your blood sugar level is too low. A hypodermic needle goes under the skin -- maybe to inject something that is hypoallergenic. I don't know. I'm not a doctor.

Hey, that gives me an idea. Maybe we can put something into the hypodermic needle and give it to the hyperactive kid. That might work. At least it's worth a try.

On a serious note, thank you to all our veterans. We truly appreciate everything you've done.

empathy/sympathy

Like many other pairs discussed previously, these are used interchangeably, but they shouldn't be.

If you hear about someone getting injured in an accident are you empathetic? Not so much, especially if you don't want to find yourself in the same tragedy. . .and I don't think you do.

You're empathetic if you see yourself in the same situation as another. You're putting yourself in his or her place.

You're sympathetic if you feel sorry for another. Unless you can understand the plight of the accident victim because you were there at one time, you're sympathetic.

If you feel empathy for me because I'm a teacher, you better have been in a classroom at some point. Instead, you feel sorry for me. Man, you had better feel sorry for me.

flout/flaunt

Have you ever heard of someone "flaunting the rules" before? I know I have. I'm not even sure that's possible.

This pair may sound similar, but they are not interchangeable.

"Flout" means "to ignore." As a kid, you probably flouted the rules of your parents once or twice, correct? That's what I thought. I know a lot of people around here flout the traffic laws because nobody seems to know what a speed limit is. . .or thinks it doesn't apply to him or her. Frustrating.

To "flaunt" is to "show off." A wife, for example, will flaunt the enormous wedding ring her husband so thoughtfully purchased. A child might flaunt a new toy, and your dog might just flaunt his bone. I'm not sure, however, to whom Fido is showing off.

Well, it's time to stop flouting my other responsibilities while flaunting my astounding intellect. Enough for today.

beside/besides

Are you ready for today's lesson? I know you are. This one is really easy, so I won't need to take up too much of your valuable time.

"Beside" means just what the word implies -- next to or by the side of. An alligator in a Buick pulled up beside me at the red light. I'm still amazed how he could reach the steering wheel with those short arms.

"Besides" has a much different meaning -- in addition to, furthermore, moreover, etc. Tom knew he was going to have a bad day when he got a flat tire. His favorite team lost besides.

I told you this one was easy to digest. I guess it's time to take the dog beside me for a walk. I've got dinner to prepare besides.

No rest for the weary. You don't even care, do you?

there/their/they're

Just as misusing "your" and "you're" makes an English teacher want to cry in his or her Cheerios, this triumvirate of words causes the same hysterical reaction.

I know you people are aware of the correct usage of each word, but, for some reason, you don't go back and make sure you've used the correct one. For the love of all that is sacred, will you do that for me? Pretty please? Let's review.

"There" is an adverb. It tells "where." Correct uses would be, "Put the box over there," or "Stand there," or "I'm not going there, or anywhere else, with you."

By itself, "their" is a possessive pronoun, but it is used as an adjective. "Their books," "their car," "their elephant," or "their whoopie cushion" all indicate which one.

"They're" is simply a contraction meaning "they are." If you don't mean to say "they are," then please don't use it. Can it be any simpler?

Just slow down and think about which form you want to use.

They're going to pick up their new car at the dealership over there.

Done.

subject

For today's post, I subject you to the word "subject." Depending on how you pronounce it, this nifty little word can be one of three parts of speech.

If I pronounce it SUB-ject, it can be a noun or an adjective. As a noun, you can take a subject in school, be the subject of a sentence, or be the subject of the king.

If it's used as an adjective, it precedes the word "to." You can be subject to a bloody nose, subject to long, boring lectures, or subject to torture, which I guess is the same as the lecture thing.

If I were to pronounce it sub-JECT, however, I have now made a verb. I can subject you to a bloody nose, subject you to a long lecture, or subject you to torture. . .but why would I do that? I'm a nice person.

Okay, I won't subject you to any more on this subject since I have to find a new subject to subject you to tomorrow.

present

I am proud to present to you today the word "present." Let's look a little closer, shall we?

With the accent on the second syllable, pre-SENT, we have created a verb. Goody for us. In this sense, it means "to issue or to give forth," as in, "I present to you the keys to this new car."

When I change the stress, however, I have now created a noun and an adjective. Aren't we amazing? Double goody for us.

"PRES-ent" as an adjective means "to be here," as in, "I was present for the meeting." As a noun, it refers to a gift, such as a Christmas present.

You know, I didn't want to mention it, but Christmas is quickly approaching. I'm pretty easy to please, so if you need any suggestions. . .

desert

Same principle here as the previous two posts. Change the stress on one of the syllables, and you change the entire meaning of the word.

If you de-SERT something, you abandon it. Hopefully, when you were a child you didn't come home to find the house deserted. . .or did you? That would explain a lot.

If you live in the Southwest as I do, you know all about the DES-ert, that arid bit of territory that seems to get hotter every year.

Speaking of which, do you know that we broke a record here yesterday of 96 degrees? That's right. . .96!! It's November for crying out loud.

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset those of you in the East and Midwest suffering sub-zero temperatures and endless snow. I guess 96 doesn't sound so bad after all. I think I'll stay right here.

produce

Here's another word that falls into the same category as "refuse" from yesterday.

If you go to the supermarket, you will find all kinds of fruits and vegetables in the PRO-duce aisle. Speaking of supermarkets, is it just me, or do you find that they seem to be twice as cold as they used to be? Why is that? I can understand frozen foods having to be frozen and dairy and produce need some level of coldness, but does it have to be the entire store? I smell a conspiracy.

Back to the matter at hand. To pro-DUCE something means "to make it." So I guess it goes without saying that farmers produce the produce. . .or does Mother Nature actually produce it and the farmer is just her vehicle?

By the way, if it goes without saying, why did I just feel compelled to write it?

refuse

For the next several days, we're going to look at one word per day which, when you put the stress on a different syllable, drastically changes its meaning, even though both forms are spelled exactly the same. That's a long sentence, isn't it? I'm not fond of that. Anyway. . .

This is one of those oddities that makes English such a difficult language for non-native speakers to learn.

The first one is "refuse." If I pronounce it "re-FUSE," it means "to reject" or "to turn down." Hey, "reject" is the same type of word -- "RE-ject" and "re-JECT." Funny.

If, however, I put the stress on the first syllable, "REF-use," it means "trash" or "garbage." There are a whole host of words in the language such as this.

We'll look at four more common ones, so don't refuse to read because you think this is just a bunch of refuse. You figure out which is which.

your/you're

From a teacher's perspective, this one's a classic. I'm not sure whether or not any pair of words is more often misused.

"Your driving me crazy," and "Is this you're book" are examples of sentences teachers see day in and day out. I would assume this is the kind of thing that drives many of them into early retirement.

If you're trying to figure out which one to use, the solution is simple. Since "you're" is a contraction meaning "you are," just say the phrase in the sentence. If it makes sense, use it. If it doesn't, use the pronoun version, "your."

Let's use the examples above. Does it makes sense to say, "You are driving me crazy"? The answer is obvious; therefore, use "you're."

Does it make sense to say, "Is this you are book"? Not only does it make no sense, it's just plain stupid.

The same problem exists with "their," "there," and "they're." That's an issue for a different time. I can only handle so much stupidity for one day.

prophecy/prophesy

Happy Halloween. Don't be mean to little kids tonight, and, for Pete's sake, don't give out candy corn. If candle wax could be eaten, that's what I imagine it would taste like.

Anyway, I present a rather scary pair of words for you today.

A "prophecy" is a thing, a noun. It is what is foretold or predicted. It's pronounced "prophe-see."

"Prophesy" is an action, a verb. It is the act of foretelling the future and pronounced "prophe-sigh."

There you go. All nice and neat. Remember what I told you about the candy corn. Some people tell me they actually like it. I know they're lying.

copywrite/copyright

I see this one misused all the time, especially among my students when they need to provide a "copywrite" date for a book they've read.

Once my blood pressure approaches normal, I then very calmly explain to them that is the incorrect form.

It has nothing to do with "writing." Whether you're referring to a book, a song, or anything else that has been published, you're referring to the securing of "rights" to that work.

From now on, please refer to it as "copyright," and everyone will be happy. I'm not even sure what "copywrite" would be. It seems to violate some law of physics or something.

raise/rise

Here's a classic pair of commonly confused verbs. Aren't you lucky that you'll never misuse them again?

The difference is really very simple. If you are bringing up something (a child) or physically picking something up, you are raising it. You can raise a curtain, raise a shade, raise a flag, and raise money.

If the object in question is capable of doing it itself, the correct usage is rise. You can rise for the national anthem at the same time the sun rises. I'm not sure why you would want to sing at dawn anyway, but that's your problem.

By the way, I know the sun doesn't technically rise. It's a static object around which we revolve. I remember my elementary school science. I'm just looking at it from a grammatical perspective.

If you're going to raise the issue, my irritation level will rise.

ought/ought to

Which one is correct? As long as it's not a negative statement, ought to will always be acceptable.

You ought to go away. You ought to jump off the roof. You ought to shut up now. Get the picture?

If you utter a statement in a negative sense, then you want to go with ought. For example, you ought not be seen in my presence, you ought not stick that screwdriver in your ear, and you ought not play with matches.

This pair of words doesn't really require a whole lot of additional explanation.

I ought to go now and decide what I wish to tackle tomorrow. In the meantime, you ought not be criticizing me or my posts.

differ from/differ with

Obviously, dogs and cats are different. Duh! Do you really need me to tell you that?

Here's the issue. Do they differ from or differ with each other? Good question.

When you're trying to point out the different characteristics of things, use differ from. For example, dogs differ from cats because they bark. You can show how one painting differs from another, how one book differs from another, or how one car differs from another.

Speaking of paintings, I've never really understood art. You can listen to two people commenting on the psychological statement of a work of art or some similar drivel. Give me a break. They have no idea what they're talking about. They're making it up. I digress.

When two people have a disagreement, they differ with each other. People often differ with each other in areas such as religion and politics, among others.

Many of you may have differed with me on some of the points I've made in past posts, but you know I'm always correct. Right?

tortuous/torturous

They differ by only one letter, but their meanings couldn't be more different.

Can you have a "tortuous" job or a "tortuous" workout? Not unless either involves a lot of twists and turns -- and not metaphorical ones.

"Tortuous" refers to things that are full of turns or crooked. You can drive a tortuous road or draw a tortuous line. You can, I suppose, even build a tortuous house, especially if you're not very handy with a level.

"Torturous," on the other hand, is the adjective form of "torture," which refers to pain-inducing. That means your job and your workout are torturous.

Next time you take a ride on a tortuous mountain road, make sure it isn't too torturous.

I don't think I've ever written these two words so often in such a short space -- ever. I hope I don't have to do it again.

loath/loathe

Both words in this pair are synonymous with "dislike." The difference here is simply knowing which part of speech you wish to use.

"Loath" is an adjective and, when used as such, should be accompanied by "to." For example, you can be loath to eating your grandmother's meat loaf, you can be loath to watching home movies, or you can be loath to taking banjo lessons.

"Loathe," however, is the verb form. You loathe taking a bath, you loathe watching your little brother eat, and you loathe your neighbor's cat that keeps coming into your yard and sending your dog into a tizzy. I don't really dislike the cat. I just wish it would stay in its own yard.

By the way, your grandmother's meat loaf isn't that bad. I think I've had it.

Well, I am loath to saying farewell for the day, but I must do what I must do. Tomorrow is another day.

excess of/excessive

The problem here, as is the case with others I've discussed recently, is they sound very similar. Not to worry. I'll set you straight (as I always do).

Having an "excess of" simply means you have too much. . .an excess of widgets, an excess of pencils, an excess of motor oil. When you add the "of" to the phrase, "excess" is now a noun.

While "excessive" has a somewhat similar meaning (and pronunciation), it is used as an adjective. . .excessive noise, excessive pollution, excessive body odor.

Oops! Did I just say that? You really don't. Well, not that much.

I thought you should know.

exercise/exorcise

"He has to exercise his demons." Well, that's not necessarily true unless he wants them to be physically fit. If that's the case, then I guess it stands to reason you want them to be in the best shape possible.

Obviously, to "exercise" is "to work out" or "to carry out." For example, you can exercise by jogging or exercise by lifting weights. Here, you're "working out" your body. You can also exercise an option. In this instance, you're "carrying it out."

If you want to get rid of something, you're "exorcising" it. Priests "exorcise" spirits, and people can "exorcise" habits and, I suppose, even "exorcise" aspects of their pasts.

I guess it's time to exercise my option to go get some exercise. Thankfully, I don't have anything to exorcise. I don't think so, at least.

bi-/semi-

I know this pair is a source of confusion for a lot of people. You know what they mean, you're just not sure which is which.

"Bi-" means "two." Plain and simple. If something is biannual, it happens every two years. Something bimonthly takes place every two months.

"Semi-," on the other hand, means "half." Something semiannual occurs every half year, or every six months, or twice a year if that sounds better. A semimonthly event would occur every half month, roughly every two weeks, or twice a month.

Are we straight now? Good.

I'm kind of bummed because I realize there wasn't too much snarky to say here. "Bi-" and "semi-" are pretty straightforward. I could have gone for a cheap laugh by using "bisexual" as an example, because someone in this field of endeavor is equally attracted to two genders. . .but I'm above that.

funny joke

"Do you want to hear a funny joke?" I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of any other kind. Just ask me if I want to hear a joke. Period.

The word "funny" is implied in the word "joke." That's what a joke is -- funny -- or at least it's supposed to be. If it isn't, it's not really a joke; therefore, I don't want to hear it.

It's not necessary to insert "funny" into the sentence. It's another one of life's redundancies. I told you there were a lot of them. Now do you believe me?

Now go ahead and tell me your joke. I'll determine whether or not it's funny.

Something tells me it's not.

vapid/vacuous

Is a person "vapid" or "vacuous"? Well, that all depends. I guess if you're a cannibal then, yes, that individual can be vapid.

Technically, the word means "without flavor or very bland." Food can be vapid. Conversation can be vapid. If it's not very in-depth, I guess a book can be vapid, too. A person? Let's not even go there.

If your intended meaning is that the person is intellectually challenged, or, better yet, just plain stupid, then you want to go with "vacuous." Things generally are vapid, and people are vacuous.

Now that I think about it, I know quite a few vacuous people.

I have to change my circle of influence.

RBI/RBIs

Being both a sports fan and somewhat of an English purist, this one has had me perplexed for quite a long time.

Let's examine it more closely. What does the abbreviation mean? As far as I know, it means "Runs Batted In." Hmmmm. It seems to me that once you get past the first word, it's already plural.

Oh, that's right. I forgot. How you people love your redundancies!

When you listen to the nightly sportscaster say, "Joe Underpants had a great game with a total of six RBIs," what he's really saying is Mr. Underpants had six "runs batted ins." What a dope.

Now doesn't that sound just a tad idiotic? I think so, too. Do you think that will ever change? I don't either, but at least now you know the truth.

wet/whet your appetite

Do you eat hors d'oeuvres to "wet" your appetite? Not unless you intend to slobber all over them.

The reason for eating these goodies in the first place is to prepare your palate for the really good stuff to come.

In this context, then, what you are doing is sharpening your palate or your taste buds just as a whetstone sharpens a blade.

Now you know. From now on, please refer to it as "whetting" your appetite, unless, as I mentioned earlier, you have a salivary gland problem.

I hope this whets your appetite for what is to come tomorrow.

fortuitous/fortunate

Is it better to be fortuitous or fortunate? Let's find out.

"Fortuitous" refers to matters of chance. It does not necessarily have to be lucky, just random. You'll often hear a football announcer say, "The ball took a fortuitous bounce." Actually, the bounce was "fortunate" for the other team. Running into someone can be fortuitous but not necessarily fortunate, especially if you hate that person's guts.

Certainly a fortunate event can be fortuitous. You were lucky for winning the lottery, but that was definitely a matter of chance.

The accepted usage now, when referring to "lucky," is "fortunate."

By the way, congratulations are in order for winning the lottery. You do, of course, remember we're related, don't you?

fearful/fearsome

Do you want to be considered a "fearful" person? Probably not, unless you want others to think you're some kind of weenie.

"Fearful" means you're "full of fear." Maybe you're afraid of the dark, afraid of your spouse, afraid of the cat, or afraid of your own shadow. Say, you are a weenie, aren't you?

It's preferable to be "fearsome." If that's the case, you instill fear in others. That's better. That's what I want.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want people to cower in fear at the mere sight of me, but I also don't want them to think I'm some dork who's afraid of the cat, or, more importantly, afraid of my spouse.

I hope she doesn't read this.

prima donna/pre-Madonna

"Prima donna" comes from the world of opera (not a big fan), and it means "leading lady." The phrase has taken on somewhat of a negative connotation and is now generally associated with someone having a high sense of self-importance.

An athlete who enjoys being the center of attention, for example, often is referred to as a "prima donna."

The problem here is that, as is the case with many errors, it's written the way it sounds; therefore, you may occasionally see it as "pre-Madonna."

Unless you're referring to the period of time preceding the pop singer or something having to do with the Virgin Mary, it's always "prima donna."

As I said, I'm not a big opera buff. I've tried. I just don't get it. It's difficult to get into something when you don't understand the language. I'll stick with English. I know that really well, and if you've been reading some of these posts, you already know that, but don't call me a prima donna. I'm not.

bad/badly

Just as you can't feel "good," you can't feel "bad" either. Why not, you ask? Don't you people pay attention? I just told you a couple days ago.

"Bad" is an adjective. If you're describing how you feel, you're modifying a verb. If that's the case, please use the adverb form, "badly."

Therefore, you're feeling "badly," just as you play badly, practice badly, sing badly, and act badly. Come to think of it, you're a mess, aren't you?

However, you can see a bad play, have a bad practice, hear a bad song, and conduct a bad act.

What's wrong with you? You need to just relax for the rest of the day. Tomorrow's another day.

guess what/guess what?

This one you probably never even thought about, but it's surprising how often it occurs.

Can you spot the error here? "Guess what she told me?" You probably can't, and that's why it's incorrect.

Saying something such as, "Guess what?" is not a question. Why do you insist on putting a question mark at the end? You're telling someone to guess. You're not asking. If you said, "Can you guess. . .?" now you're asking. See the difference?

While I'm thinking of it, here's another one that's related: Stop saying you're going to "ask a question." Can you ask anything other than a question? You're either going to "ask," or you have "a question."

Guess what. You're now a whole lot smarter. Lucky you.

good/well

Ah, yes. This one is certainly a classic. If you are in a state of good health, please don't say you feel "good." You don't.

The difference is really quite simple. "Well" is used as an adverb. It should be used to describe a verb, adjective, or other adverb. Since it's describing how you feel (verb), "well" is correct.

"Good," on the other hand, is an adjective. It describes a noun or pronoun. You can do a "good job" since "job" is a noun, or you can be a "good person."

You can be a "good" tennis player, but you play tennis "well." Got it? There's your grammar 101 lesson for the day.

Those of you old enough no doubt remember the James Brown song "I Feel Good." If only he knew.

tad bit

"He was just a tad bit off on that throw." I heard that one this afternoon on an NFL telecast. Unbelievable.

This one doesn't require a lot of explanation. It's simple, folks. A "tad" and a "bit" are essentially the same thing. You can't have a "tad" of anything and have it be a huge amount. It has to be a "bit."

Therefore, what he should have said was, "He was a tad off on that throw," or, "He was a bit off on that throw." Tad bit? Yuck!

How much more money do these guys make than the average Joe? He worked for the network (not a local guy), and he wasn't even that good. Hmm. . .I wonder why.

emigrate/immigrate

Other than the United States, what's your favorite country? Okay, let's say it's Paraguay. The difference between these two words is fairly straightforward.

If a very nice Paraguayan moves to Mobile, Alabama, then he has "immigrated" there because he has moved in.

However, he has "emigrated" from Paraguay because he has moved from there.

To put it simply, to "emigrate" is to leave and "immigrate" is to enter. Likewise, our friend is an "emigrant" from Paraguay and an "immigrant" to the United States. There you have it. That wasn't so bad.

I've actually never met a Paraguayan, but I imagine they're very nice people.

B.C./A.D.

As you can tell, I discuss grammar and usage errors that cover a wide range of topics. This is a perfect example.

I would wager that the vast majority (yourself included) assumes A.D. means "after death." Am I correct? Of course. You know that. Well, I'm here to tell you it doesn't mean what you think. I love doing that. It actually stands for "anno domini" or "in the year of the Lord." Again, not to focus on religion here, but this would be the year Jesus was born.

Think about it. If the calendar began after His death, how would we account for the years He was alive? We would go from the year 1 B.C. to the first year after Jesus died. What about the years in between?

I bet you never even thought about that, did you? That's why I'm here. It's my life's work. Okay, maybe not an entire life's work, but it's pretty darn important.

By the way, B.C. does mean "before Christ." Give yourself a point.

fiance/fiancee

Here's one I bet you didn't know. I was also kind of amazed when I first learned this one. It happens to be gender-specific.

If you're a male and you send your parents an email or text message indicating you want them to meet your "fiance," are you ever in for a shock.

A woman would introduce her "fiance," but a man would introduce his "fiancee," assuming, of course, we're referring to traditional marriages. . .but that's a whole other issue we won't tackle in this blog.

To avoid future embarrassment, just make sure you're aware of the difference.

By the way, I didn't know you were getting married. Congratulations, but don't try to hit me up for a gift.

near miss

"Wow! That was a near miss!" I'm not exactly sure how that can be. I understand the premise. It's supposed to mean a "close call."

The problem I have with this is if it's a miss, it's a miss. Does it really matter if the miss was near, far, or anything else? The fact remains it's a miss. . .plain and simple.

Wouldn't it be better to say "near hit"? I mean, you almost hit it, but you didn't almost miss it. You missed it!

Next time you have a close call, do me a favor and call it a "near hit." Together we can make the language purists proud. Everyone will thank you for it.

koala bear

What did the fuzzy koala ever do to you? Why do you insist on changing its genetic makeup?

Let's get this straight right out of the chute. A koala is not a bear. It's a marsupial. I guess some bonehead once looked at it, saw that it resembled a bear (which it kind of does), and then tried to clarify what it was by adding "bear" to the phrase.

Even if it was a bear, why do you need to identify it as such? It's like saying "puppy dog," "kitty cat," or "bunny rabbit." A bunny is a rabbit. Do you have to say it twice? Here we go with those blasted redundancies again.

Stop saying "koala bear." "Koala" is sufficient. The people of Australia will thank you.

slow/slowly

I love to travel. I especially like driving trips. Here's one that irks me every time. You're driving along, and sure as anything, you run into road construction where traffic is narrowed to one lane going in both directions. Obviously, to avoid collisions, traffic has to be stopped in one direction so traffic moving the other way can proceed.

Here's my issue. You know that guy holding the sign that reads "Stop" on one side and "Slow" on the other? It's grammatically incorrect (of course). The nice man flips the sign from "Stop" to "Slow" when he wants me to continue on my merry way. . .but I don't know if the "Slow" part refers to my driving or to me.

You see, the word "slow" is an adjective as in "That is a slow car," or "Timmy is really slow." It should read "Slowly." Its intended meaning is that I am to proceed with caution; therefore, it's referring to my driving. If it's related to my driving, then it's modifying an action and should be the adverb form.

Besides, I'm not slow, and who is he to be making judgments such as that? He doesn't even know me.

bound/headed

You people and your redundancies. I told you we had a ton of these to cover. Here's another good one.

How many times have you said, "I'm headed southbound on the freeway right now"? I'm guessing probably about a bazillion. Well, knock it off.

The word "bound" indicates you're headed in a specific direction and vice versa. If you're headed north, then you're northbound.

What you want to say is either you're headed north or you're northbound. That's sufficient. I don't know why people think extra words and/or syllables make their points so much clearer. It's maddening.

I'll give you another redundancy in a couple days since I know you like them so much. You must like them. You use them all the time.

backward/backwards

I've got a quiz question for you. Which of the following statements is correct? "I put my pants on backward." "I put my pants on backwards." I fooled you. It was a trick question. Actually, both are correct.

Why? The word is used as an adverb in each instance. It's modifying the verb telling how I put my pants on. If that's the case, either one is perfectly acceptable.

In the case of an adjective, you must use "backward" only. For example, you would say, "The golf ball took a backward roll." The word is now modifying the noun "roll." No, "roll" in this context is not an action, it's a thing. Doesn't it sound stupid to say, "The golf ball took a backwards roll"? Duh!

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I put my pants on backward. That's really strange. I'm not sure I want to know now.

statute/statue of limitations

If you look for a common thread among some of my past posts, you'll see that many of the usage errors occur because of incorrect pronunciation (see "row/road to hoe," for example). Here's a perfect example.

In a legal sense, the phrase refers to the amount of time from which a crime is committed to the time in which it can be prosecuted.

Of course, if everyone spoke correctly, we wouldn't have the errors we have; hence, I would have nothing about which to write. I guess I owe you one for that. Thanks.

By the way, it's "statute of limitations." Who ever heard of a "statue of limitations"? It's ridiculous to think an aspect of our legal system could be based on a sculpture. Amazing.

Just keep on speaking incorrectly and keep on giving me writing fodder. I need something for amusement.

remotely close

I believe this is the first oxymoron I've addressed in this blog. Generally, an oxymoron is an intentional literary device used for the sake of humor or effect. This one, however, is one people use thinking it's perfectly acceptable. Well, I'm here to tell you it isn't. Surprised?

You've probably heard something along the lines of, "I'm not even remotely close to being finished." You never will be. It's not physically possible.

You can't be "remotely close" to anything. Why not? These two words are opposites, that's why not.

A remote location is one that is isolated. . .a cabin in the woods, for example. If it's remote, how can it be close to anything?

I'm sure I'll stumble upon some other oxymorons you're using, and then I can set you straight. Come on. You didn't even know this one was incorrect. That's why I'm here. Lucky you.

PIN number

Here's another of life's wonderful redundancies. These never cease to amaze me. My mission is to wipe these off the planet, but I need your help.

Stop saying you have a PIN number or requesting a new PIN number. Come on, folks. Remember the earlier post when I talked about the ATM machine? You keep making the same mistakes.

If you have a PIN number, what you're saying is you have a Personal Identification Number number. Now doesn't that sound just the least bit idiotic? Of course it does.

Don't think this is the last of the redundancies I'll be addressing. I'm armed and dangerous. You people have given me enough to last for a long, long time. For that, I humbly thank you.

Fortunately, this one is quick and easy. Moving on. . .

reluctant/reticent

Can you be reticent about skiing, reticent about starting a new job, or reticent about trying a new food? Technically. . .no. These two words are relatively close, but there is one distinct difference. Actually, "reticent" is used in only one context.

You're actually "reluctant" to do all the above, or anything else for that matter, except for one thing.

Okay smarty pants, that's the second time you've mentioned "reticent" being used in one context. Do you know what it is, or are you just stalling for time? Of course I know the answer, so you need to just calm down.

Here's the difference: You are only reticent when it comes to speaking, whether it's public speaking or just speaking about a specific topic. For everything else, you're reluctant. . .even though reticence is a form of reluctance.

Wow. That's the most I've ever used "reticent" and "reluctant" in such a short space. I'm definitely reluctant to do it again.

pass muster/pass mustard

This is one of those errors that occurs because you pronounce it the way you hear it. See Saturday's post. . .same type of thing.

To "pass muster" means to have passed the test; to be accepted. Nobody knows what the heck muster is, so it's assumed it must be "mustard" since the words are so close.

"Muster" actually has its roots in the military. It's an assembly of troops awaiting inspection. Obviously, if you're acceptable, you've "passed muster."

"Pass mustard" is something you would say to someone who's been nice enough to give you a hot dog. Of course you wouldn't just say, "Pass mustard." You would need at least an article sandwiched in there, maybe "the," unless you're trying to sound like Frankenstein.

accept/except

"I except your thanks." Wow. That's actually kind of insulting. Here is yet another pair of words commonly misused.

"Accept" means "to receive; to take on." You can accept a challenge, a donation, congratulations, yada, yada, yada.

"Except" means "to exclude; to reject; to leave out." Everyone can go except you.

When you say you except my thanks, it really means you're rejecting those thanks. How dare you. Who do you think you are anyway? What did I ever do to you?

Maybe I just won't post tomorrow. Okay, I will. You're forgiven.

road to hoe/row to hoe

"He's got a tough road to hoe." No, he doesn't. Who ever heard of hoeing a road anyway? That's plain nonsense.

The intended meaning of this phrase is that there's a tough road ahead. That's probably where the incorrect "road" part comes into play.

Its origin, I believe, dates back decades and refers to workers in the cotton fields of the South who found working those fields to be very difficult.

Next time you want to use this phrase, please use the correct form which is "row to hoe."

You wouldn't use the other version unless you truly were hoeing the road or there was a hoe (or "ho") in the road, but that's a subject for another day -- actually, it's probably a subject for a completely different blog. Yikes!

can/may

This one is easy. . .and obvious. Every teacher on the planet has heard, "Can I use the bathroom?" or "Can I get a drink?" It's at this point that you would utter the standard teacher response, "I don't know. Can you?" Then you go to the corner and snicker to yourself because you just made a funny.

"Can" refers to your ability to do something. If you're able to go to the bathroom, then you wouldn't ask if you can. You should already know the answer to that question.

Now if you're asking for permission, that's a horse of a different color. In this instance, it's correct to use "may."

Then, when a student asks, "May I use the bathroom?" the correct response now is, "No. Sit down and get your work done."

Isn't English a beautiful language?

Maple Leafs or Maple Leaves?

Today we venture into the world of professional sports. This one has always perplexed me. Growing up in the Northeast, I was, and continue to be, a huge hockey fan. Even after I emigrated to the desert Southwest a long time ago, I never lost my love for the game.

I grew up in an area of New York not terribly far from Toronto. As a result, I was exposed quite heavily not only to the Buffalo Sabres (my favorite team), but also to the Toronto Maple Leafs.

"Hmmmm," I thought. "How could a major professional sports team be so grammatically incorrect?" I had always been taught throughout my elementary education that the plural of "leaf" is "leaves." Remember? In second or third grade you'd study all the components of "leaves," not "leafs." I mean, come on, the plural of "elf" is "elves." Santa doesn't get all those toys made with the help of a bunch of "elfs." What's going on here?

That being said, shouldn't they be the Toronto Maple Leaves? It doesn't look right to me, either. I guess grammar has no place in professional sports. Oh well. . .

sneaked/snuck

I'm willing to bet you either "snuck" into, or out of, the house some time during your formative years. What's really amazing is that you were able to accomplish something that really doesn't even exist.

"Snuck" is one of those words that has been misused for such a long time. . .so long, in fact, that it's become an accepted version, much like "alright" (refer to an earlier post).

However, the grammar and usage sticklers know that the correct past tense is "sneaked." I know it sounds funny, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Say it a few times and it'll begin to sink into your head. Sneak, sneaked, have sneaked. . .sneak, sneaked, have sneaked. . .see, you're getting used to it already.

Next time you happen to come upon a grammar purist, whatever you do, don't tell him/her you snuck out last night. Please.

By the way, what are you doing sneaking out anyway? Stay home.

bring/take

Is it more correct to say we are going to "take" the dog with us, or we are going to "bring" the dog with us? I have no idea where we're going, but the dog always goes with us, unless it's to the supermarket or some place such as that.

The distinction between the two is pretty simple, really. The word "bring" implies movement toward the speaker, while "take" implies movement away from the speaker. Assuming the dog and I are moving in the same direction, and I have no reason to believe we're not, we are "bringing" the dog with us.

Let me give you another example to illustrate. My wife and I work not only in the same school, but also in the same department. We're together all the time. It's cool. Since we're headed in the same direction, I would remind her to "bring" her lunch. . .but if we worked at different places, I would remind her to "take" her lunch (since her lunch and I would be going in different directions). Weird, huh?

Okay, it's time to bring this post to a close. Take off!

imply/infer

Is it possible for you to imply something from what I say? Can you imply anything from all my marvelous posts? Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no."

If you're going to "imply" something, you're making a suggestion. You're implying a girl is fat if you says she is "generous of proportions." You're implying a man is stupid if he is "intellectually challenged."

To "infer," on the other hand, is to make an educated guess based on information that is available to you. To use one of the above examples, if I say, "Oh, do you mean that because she has generous proportions she's fat?" That's an inference. You didn't come right out and say it. I guessed at what you meant.

To put it more simply, you imply when you speak or write, and you infer from what you hear or read.

I think I'll now go and celebrate another amazing post. I'll let you infer what that means.

ATM machine

Do you really need to say the same thing twice? This one I can't really blame that much on you. This one actually is misused in the business world where you can see "ATM Machine" printed clearly on one of these contraptions.

You probably can't help it because you see the words, so you just normally utter them. Well, it's time for you to stop. Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

When you visit an "ATM machine" to make a deposit or a withdrawal, what you're actually saying is you're going to the Automated Teller Machine machine. Doesn't that sound stupid?

It's the same thing on TV. How many times have you heard an announcer say, "Welcome to NBA basketball"? Really? I'm watching National Basketball Association basketball? I didn't know there was any other kind. It's maddening.

As I said, it's not all your fault because some of these redundancies are shoved down your throats. Now that you know the truth, however, you'll stop. . .won't you?

If you'll excuse me now, it's Sunday, so I have to return to NFL football -- er, I mean. . .

lusty/lustful

If you have the feeling that your boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife is somewhat "lusty," don't get excited. It doesn't mean what you're probably hoping. You guys are dirty.

"Lusty" simply means that one is full of enthusiasm, and it can be for anything. If one is a "lusty liver," he or she is a lover of life and all that it has to offer.

What you dirty-minded people are hoping for is that the aforementioned companion is "lustful." If that's the case, now you have a chance. He or she is "full of lust" which means there is a strong sexual appetite.

I'm second-guessing whether or not I should have touched this one, but I figured it was worth mentioning just to clarify the distinction.

I think I'll close now before I dig a hole from which I can't emerge. Is it hot in here?

dissemble/disassemble

Have you ever seen anyone "dissemble" a car's engine? Chances are you never will. Not only is it impossible, but I think it violates some law of physics or something.

While these two words look almost identical (they're only two letters apart), they couldn't be more different in meaning.

"Dissemble" means to intentionally hide the truth. You can dissemble a prospective employer into thinking you're qualified for a position you have no business holding. After he finds out you're totally incompetent, however, you may see him "disassembling" your desk.

To "disassemble" something obviously means "to take apart."

As far as you know, I may be "dissembling" you into thinking I know what the heck I'm talking about. Sometimes I wonder myself. Then I think to myself, "How will they know?" I'll just keep on posting so you can think I'm really smart.

anecdote/antidote

Please don't tell me you have a humorous "antidote" to share. You don't, and you never will. Besides, I didn't just swallow poison.

What you mean to say is that you have a humorous "anecdote" to share. That's better. Writers share "anecdotes" while doctors prescribe "antidotes" for poison.

The last thing you want when a rattlesnake bites you is an "anecdote." I don't find anything humorous about that, and if I received a snake bite, I certainly wouldn't be in the mood to laugh.

I wish I had an anecdote to share with you, but I don't. Well, actually, I could probably come up with something, but I want to keep this family-friendly. For that matter, I wish I had an antidote to share as well but, alas, I don't. I'm not sure where I'd get one anyway. I'll look into it.

angry/mad

Chances are, at some point in the past, you uttered an exclamation such as, "I'm so mad I could spit nails!" Well, I guess if you have nails in your mouth in the first place then, yes, you are mad. I'm fairly certain you meant you were angry.

The original meaning of "mad" was reserved for those who were mentally unstable. Mozart was mad, for example. To put it in simpler terms, technically, if you are "mad" your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top, you're a sandwich short of a picnic, you're not playing with a full deck, you're ready for a rubber room, or you're a french fry short of a Happy Meal. You get the idea.

The correct usage in this context is "angry." You're angry that you have extra homework. You're angry that your colleague makes more money than you do. You're angry that it's Monday. . .blah, blah, blah.

Are we straight on this one now? Fantastic.

Of course, it's possible that you're angry at first when you find out your spouse is cheating on you. Then, perhaps, you become mad. Then you end up in the newspaper, and we all get to see a less-than-flattering photo of you. Don't be one of those people.

agnostic/atheist

I don't want to get into a big discussion about religion here. That's not the purpose of this blog. You're all free to believe whatever you wish. Quite frankly, I don't give a frog's fat one what you believe. I'm just here to educate you as to each word's usage, so stop getting your feathers all ruffled.

Okay, are you calm now? Let's proceed.

An agnostic is skeptical that the presence of any higher power can be proven to any degree of satisfaction. In fact, the word has long been associated with religion, but, technically, an agnostic can doubt the existence of, or knowledge of, just about anything. He or she is the type who's always saying, "Prove it. Prove it. Prove it." Aren't those people somewhat annoying?

On the other hand, an atheist flat-out refuses to believe that any higher power exists. Not happening. No way. Period. Even if you were able to "prove it," this person would probably laugh at you and say you've been brainwashed. Whatever.

As I said, you're all free to believe whatever you want to believe. Just don't force those ideas on me. It'll make me angry. I might have to yell. I don't like to yell.

Hmmmm. . .angry. That reminds me of another usage problem. Maybe I'll deal with that tomorrow.

compare to/compare with

It may be a subtle difference, but there is a difference. Isn't there always?

If you're focusing only on the similarities between two things, "compare to" is the correct form. "Her dinner could best be compared to warm puke." You see, I'm showing how her dinner and puke are synonymous. I'm not even sure who "her" is. It's just an example, so calm down.

Now, if you're looking at both similarities and differences, then "compare with" is your man. "Let's see how last year's budget compares with the current one so we can make any necessary adjustments."

It's not complicated. It never is. I don't know why you insist on thinking it's more difficult than it actually is. Compared with brain surgery, this stuff is a snap.

See you tomorrow. Time to figure out what to tackle next. It's not as if I don't have enough fodder for discussion. For that, I thank you.

center on/center around

Whenever someone tells me something "centers around" anything, I want to pull my hair out. Think about it, folks. How the heck can something center "around" anything?

You can center a picture on the wall, for example. For that matter, you can pretty much find the center on just about anything. How, then, can you possibly find the center around something? It hurts my head to even try to come up with an answer. These two words don't even seem to go well together.

Long story short, your speech "centered on" a specific topic. Your primary interest "centers on" something. Get the picture?

I sure hope you all realize how lucky you are I'm here. How did you live without me?

ambivalent/indifferent

No, these two words are not the same. I don't care what you say or what you've been told.

If you are "ambivalent," you may feel as if you are uncertain or are being pulled in two directions. A man may be ambivalent about trading in his old car, especially if he considers it an old friend. . .unless he knows for a fact it's a piece of junk and that it's long since been ready for the scrap heap.

You're "indifferent" if it's impossible for you to care less. If it didn't matter to you whether Barack Obama or John McCain became president, then you were "indifferent." By the way, why didn't you care who became President of the United States? What's wrong with you?

If you have to be one of the two, be ambivalent. At least it shows you care, but don't be indifferent about my blog. It hurts my feelings.

infamous/notorious

"His ability to hit home runs has made him infamous." That's not very high praise. For some reason, down through the ages, the word "infamous" has taken on more of a positive connotation. When we reach some milestone, we've suddenly become "infamous" for it. Not me. I don't want to be infamous for anything.

The word literally means "not famous." So if Grandma is "infamous" for her chocolate chip cookies, what you're really saying is she can't bake worth a lick. Using that adjective is not very complimentary.

Likewise, anyone "notorious" for anything is not someone you want in your circle of influence, especially if he is "notorious" for the strange bodily noises that emanate in church.

Truth be told, both words have essentially the same meaning. . .and it isn't good.

If you still feel the need to be infamous, that's your business. I don't want to know about it.

unique/very unique

"That painting is very unique." I see. So is your grammar.

Okay, let's take care of this one. If something is "unique," it is one of a kind. There are no varying degrees of uniqueness. It's either unique or it isn't. It's like being "sort of pregnant." Either you are or you aren't.

While on the subject, another favorite of mine is when I hear something is "extremely coincidental." Same principle. It's coincidence or it isn't.

The bottom line. . .be extremely careful when you want to add degrees to your adjectives. It's okay to say you're a little late if it's just a few minutes. If you're an hour late, you're extremely late. You can argue that there are varying degrees of lateness.

But a very unique painting? Absolutely not.

if I was/if I were

Class is in session. The "if I was/if I were" debate tends to rouse a lot of discussion. I'm not sure why. I'm here just to inform you as to what is correct, not to discuss why. Those who actually debate the correct usage have too much free time.

Here's where the confusion starts, I believe. People will argue, "Well, isn't 'was' the correct form of the verb for the subject 'I'?" Why, yes it is, but here's the low-down. The key word in this phrase is "if." The word "if" implies something that is not happening or cannot happen. "If I were able to stand on my head, I could make people laugh." The sentence implies that I cannot stand on my head, not that I'd ever want to anyway.

If you want to impress people, use the correct grammatical form. "If I were" should be used when the situation is hypothetical or not possible. I cannot, in fact, stand on my head; therefore, "if I were able to" is the snobbishly correct usage.

That being said, if I were you, but I'm not, I would check back for tomorrow's post. See ya!

envious/jealous

Yes, there is a distinction between these two, although it's slight. Can you be jealous of your neighbor's new car? Not in the correct grammatical sense.

You can't be jealous of it because you didn't have it in the first place. Huh? If it's not yours, you can't be "jealous" of it. You're "envious" of it. You can certainly be jealous that your boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife has a fondness for members of the opposite sex. That's assuming, of course, that the boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife is already yours. I guess you have to make that determination. You know your situation better than I do.

To put it in simpler terms, you're "envious" of the neighbor's car but not "jealous" of it. It's his, for heaven's sake. You're "jealous" that your dog seems to greet your neighbor more warmly than he greets you. Maybe it's because he has a new car. I'm not sure.

Anyway, there is your difference. Make sense? I think I'll kick back and take the rest of the day off. Envious?

plural vs. possessive vs. pronoun

You people sure enjoy apostrophes. It doesn't matter if it's necessary. Just stick it in there. It looks good.

This is an easy fix. An apostrophe replaces a missing letter. Simple. Here's the trick if you're not sure if it belongs there: If you want to use an apostrophe, say the contraction out. If it makes sense, leave it. If it doesn't make sense, get rid of it.

Here's an example: "A leopard never changes it's spots." I see stuff like this all the time. Does it make sense to say, "A leopard never changes it is spots"? Of course it doesn't. Do you need it there? I think the answer is obvious.

Here's a good one. I actually had a student write in a paper, "Rat's!" It was supposed to be an exclamation. Oh, really? "Rat is." That's an interesting expression.

Now don't confuse this with the distinction between words such as "your" and "you're." That's a completely different apostrophe issue. Don't worry. I'll rant and rave on that one a different day.

Just take my advice and say out the contraction if you're not sure. The world will be a better place.

pronoun complements

As an English teacher, this is one of my biggest pet peeves. Every day, I read something such as, "Everyone must turn in their homework" or "Neither of the girls brought their lunch." Ouch! It sounds correct, though. . .right? Therein lies the problem.

You see, indefinite pronouns such as "anyone," "anybody," "everyone," "everybody," "each," "either," and "neither" are singular. Just think about the words. . ."anyONE," "everyONE," "anyBODY," "everyBODY," etc. The words "one" and "body" are in there for a reason. Do I really have to explain everything? Okay, I guess I do. That's the purpose of this blog.

If you are using a singular indefinite pronoun, it takes a singular complement. Hence, our earlier sentences should read, "Everyone must turn in his or her homework" and "Neither of the girls brought her lunch." Learn which pronouns are singular and which are plural, and you'll stop making these maddening errors.

That being said, it's time for "each" reader of this blog to continue improving "his or her" grammar. Do it for the ol' professor. Well, I'm really not that old. I'm really not.

kind of/kind of a/sort of/sort of a

The next time someone asks, "Just what kind of a person are you?" laugh at him and say, "I'm the kind of person who enjoys correct grammar. Buzz off!"

It's just a small problem, really, but it's a problem nonetheless. You see, whenever you want to use the phrase "kind of," and it's to be followed by a noun, the "a" is unnecessary. In fact, it's considered nonstandard.

That means you can't be "kind of a" anything. You can't be kind of a saint, kind of a jerk, kind of a lady/gentleman, or kind of a moron. Someone could ask, "What kind of moron are you?" and you would then be forced to answer.

If the word following the phrase is only an adjective without a noun, the "a" wouldn't make sense anyway. You wouldn't say, "My dog is kind of a friendly." If you do, then the person calling you a moron is 100% correct.

Now I know what you're thinking. . .I always do. "What if I said, 'You're kind of a jerk'?" In this instance "jerk" is used as an adjective, not a noun. As odd as it sounds, it's more appropriate to say, "You're a kind of jerk." Be mindful of your nouns.

The same thing applies to "sort of." Got it? You are no longer a kind of moron. Hooray!

continual/continuous

This pair has been confusing for a long time; consequently, people have been using them incorrectly for a long time.

It's quite simple, really. If you say, "My teacher continuously asks me to turn in my homework," you're implying that he/she asks you over and over again without stopping. That may be the case if you are, in fact, a slug who doesn't turn in your work. That's a matter for a different day.

If the intention is that it happens frequently, not necessarily uninterrupted, then the teacher is "continually" asking for your homework.

If you're a couch potato who never gets off the couch and watches TV endlessly, then your television watching is "continuous."

So let's summarize, shall we? "Continuous" occurs without stopping, but "continual" occurs at intervals but not necessarily uninterrupted.

Heck, if not for your continual errors, I wouldn't have anything to write about. Thanks.

close proximity

Remember several posts ago when I mentioned that there were thousands of redundancies that people insist on using? Here's an oldie, but it certainly won't be the last one about which I rail.

The word "proximity" means "close to." Why, then, do you need to add "close" to "proximity" for Pete's sake? It doesn't make any sense. (Who is Pete, by the way?)

If you absolutely must use the word "proximity" to impress your family and friends, please use it the correct way. "In proximity to" would be the appropriate usage here.

See, don't you find it more comforting to be in proximity to the more literate of society? I know it takes time, but you're learning.

Good job. Moving on. . .

ice tea/iced tea

This is one of those common errors that occurs because you write it the way it sounds. If I've told you people once, I've told you a thousand times. . .

The phrase "ice tea" implies what you have is tea made out of ice. I'm not even sure that's possible. Perhaps it is, but I don't have time to figure it out.

In reality, what you have is "iced tea," meaning your tea is iced or cooled.

So next time you're at a restaurant and "ice tea" is on the menu, take a second to laugh at the menu writer, give the responsible party the address for this blog, then give yourself a pat on the back for now knowing the difference.

See how smart you're becoming?

like/as if

"Like" is one of the most overused words in the English language, and it is almost always used incorrectly. It can be a verb as in, "I don't like you," but it cannot be a conjunction, interjection, or any other incorrect part of speech that you people try to create.

So quit saying, "It looks like the rain is stopping." It's not. The correct usage here should be "as if." What you really mean is, "It looks as if the rain is stopping."

Especially as a high school teacher, I hear this word used ad nauseum. I'm not particularly fond of it, and I become less fond of it each passing day.

So would you do me a favor? Would you stop, like, using it this way? Like, please?

nuclear/nucular

This is more a literacy issue than a usage issue, but it annoys me nonetheless. Come on, folks. Even if you don't have a great grasp of English usage, at least sound literate.

Every time George W. Bush enunciated the word "nucular," I shuddered and another gray hair popped up.

I'm going to make this short and sweet. The correct pronunciation is "nuclear" -- plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Nucular" is just one of those words that sounds incredibly foolish. Do the teacher a favor and, if you use it, dump it from your vocabulary. Please?

enamored of/enamored by/enamored with

"I'm completely enamored by the water buffalo." Wrong! No, you're not. I'll explain what you're really implying here in a minute.

If your intended meaning is you find the water buffalo fascinating, you are enamored "of" it. Use "of" when making reference to people or objects.

We can also throw in the phrase "enamored with," as this one is used quite often. In this context, it usually refers to a scene of some sort. "I was enamored with the beauty of the Grand Canyon."

If you really like that water buffalo, use the "of" form. What you're really saying when you use "enamored by" is the water buffalo finds you fascinating and has the greatest amount of admiration for you -- highly unlikely, unless it's a special water buffalo.

Do you really think a water buffalo would find you that interesting? Doubtful.

says/reads

"The sign says, 'Watch Out for Falling Rocks.'" Really? A talking sign. Will miracles never cease? Come on, now. You know you've said this one a zillion times.

Here's the skinny. When referring to the written word, use the term "reads." You should be saying, "The sign reads. . ." since it can't actually speak.

Now I know what you smart-alecky types are thinking. "I know the sign can't talk, but it can't read either." Good observation. Here's the distinction. While it's true the sign can't talk, it's offering the words for you to read. It's doubtful that every time you see a road sign you vocalize the words. If you do, should you even have a driver's license?

Get on with your life and stop talking to road signs. Next. . .

all of a sudden/all of the sudden

As a teacher, I can't tell you the number of times I've come across this one. . .and it annoys me every time.

Simply put, "all of a sudden" is the correct usage in every circumstance known to man. Maybe it's because "the" sounds like "a." I don't know. I'm not sure I even want to know. What I do know is that I clench my teeth and utter some bad words when I see the wrong usage.

So there you have it -- short and sweet. The bottom line is that "all of the sudden" is always nonstandard. Didn't you think it sounded funny the first time you said it or wrote it?

I always thought this was a rather odd phrase to utter anyway. What does it mean? A sudden what?

I guess I'll have to look into that and get back to you. . .or not.

-er/-est

This one is fairly similar to yesterday's post about "among" and "between." It's just a matter of how many people, things, etc. to which you refer.

You're going to learn a couple new terms here also, so just deal with it and keep reading.

When you use an adjective ending with -er, you're using the comparative form. This means you're comparing only two things. So if you have a set of twins and ask someone, "Which one do you think is cutest?" it means you've got another kid hidden somewhere. What you really want to know is which one is the "cuter" of the two. It's entirely possible that neither is, but that's a different story.

There's one more term of significance here. When you add -est to an adjective, you're using the superlative form. You use adjectives such as "heaviest," "ugliest," "cutest" when referring to three or more.

While we're at it, don't EVER say "most ugliest" or "more cuter." It's horribly redundant. You people and your redundancies. "Most beautiful" and "more laughable" are the comparative and superlative forms as well.

So there. Not only do you have this straight now, but also you have two new words to throw around to make your friends think you're intelligent. . .but please use them correctly. It's "most annoying" when you don't.

among/between

"Let's just keep this secret between the members of the team." Ever been hit with this one before? Well, I don't have to tell you, it's wrong. . .unless, of course, you're referring to the world's smallest team.

Yes, I know, two people can make up a team -- tennis, ping pong, lawn darts, Scrabble -- I know. However, if there are, indeed, only two people on the team and they both know the secret, they don't have to agree with each other to keep it a secret with all team members. Make sense? It didn't to me, either.

Here's the easier way to explain it. Use the word "between" when referring to only two things. That means if you say your dog is lying among the trees, you better check on Fido because he's spread out around three or more trees. If your pooch is, indeed, healthy, this is a physical impossibility.

"Among" is used when referencing three or more things. Going back to our earlier example, if there are more than three people on the team, you are keeping the secret "among" all team members.

Since many people are probably unaware of this one, let's keep it between you and me, unless you want to spread it among your friends. See, I was nice enough to assume you had more than two friends.

I'm not that bad.

in/into

Here's yet another classic pair, and I'll just bet a lot of you misuse these, too.

The word "in" simply means "inside of something." If the dog is in the pool, he better know how to swim.

"Into" refers to something moving from outside to inside. Okay, so here's the problem. How many of you say, "I drove the car in the garage"? Quite a few, I see. I thought so.

If that's the case, there are two assumptions that can be made (and neither of them is good). First, you either have an incredibly small car or an incredibly large garage to be tooling around inside there. You drove the car into the garage.

If you're going to hop in the pool, you're already in it, and you're hopping your little self around in the water.

Now that you have this in your head, why don't you jump into the pool and cool off before tomorrow's lesson?

amount/number

You guys kill me. You really do. Thank goodness there are so many people who incorrectly use the language. Correcting you gives me something to do. It provides a laugh or two along the way, too.

Here's today's lesson. Remember when I discussed "less" and "fewer" not too many posts ago? Of course you do. Unfortunately, the guy at the grocery store who makes those checkout signs still hasn't read the blog. Since you guys have, will you please tell him? Please? If you have no idea what the heck I'm talking about, go back to the less/fewer post and you'll see.

I digress. I mention "less" and "fewer" because today's pair of words is somewhat similar.

"Amount," just like "less," refers to a matter of degree. "What amount of sauce do you want on your spaghetti?" How about, "The amount of work I have is overwhelming"?

"Number," like "fewer," is used when referring to something that can be counted. "A large number of dogs roamed the neighborhood," or "I corrected a number of papers last night."

There you have it. Nice and neat. Now I have to sit back and ponder tomorrow's post. I have a "number" of topics from which to choose.

So many problems to fix, and so little time. . .so little time.

stupid idiot

Remember the 60-some-odd-thousand redundancies I told you about in an earlier post? Here's another one used frequently. I love you people. You certainly make my job easier in keeping this blog rolling along. I may never run out of these.

One of my favorites is when you refer to someone as a "stupid idiot." Let me ask you this. Have you ever come across a "smart" idiot? Perhaps you've recently seen "reasonably intelligent but somewhat misunderstood idiots."

They don't exist. If you're an idiot, you're probably stupid. Unfortunately, that's what the word implies. You just have to live with that. You may very well be nice, but you're an idiot. Accept it.

Come on, folks. Choose your words carefully and think about what comes out of your pie hole. . .even if the guy next to you thinks you're a "stupid idiot." He'll learn. He just doesn't know about this blog yet, but he will. He will.

saw/seen

"I seen him a few hours ago." How many times have you heard this one? It's like fingernails on a chalkboard. All right, let's put this one to rest and make the professor happy.

Remember a previous post when I said the principal parts of a verb are present tense, past tense, and the past participial form? Good. Also, do you remember I said the past participial form uses a helping verb? Wow! You guys really are smart.

This is the long and the short of it. Since you "seen" him a few hours ago, it implies it was in the past. Therefore, you use the past tense form "saw" since there is no helping verb in that statement.

"Seen" is always, always, always the form used with a helping verb. . .have, has, had, etc. That means the correct statement should be, "I had seen him a few hours ago."

Bottom line, never, and I mean never, use "seen" without a helping verb. Don't do it!

By the way, I still have not figured out why I was so short on time as I mentioned in yesterday's post. Very vexing.

farther/further

Do I really need to go on "further" with this one? Okay, I will, since it's my appointed duty. It really is exhausting straightening you people out.

This one is simple. If you're dealing with a measurable distance (inches, feet, yards, miles, etc.), the correct use is "farther," as in, "Tom can throw the ball farther than me." Of course he can.

"Further" is a matter of degree. It can't be physically measured. "How much further do you intend to take your education?" "How much further do I have to explain this?"

This one is simple. I needed one that wouldn't take me 15 minutes to explain. For some reason, I'm short on minutes today, and I don't know why. It's really bothering me.

I'll see you a little "farther" down the road.

a historic/an historic

This one generates quite a bit of debate. Here's how it shakes out.

The general school of thought here is that "an" is used before a word that begins with a silent "h," as in "an honorable man." See? The "h" is silent.

You are to use "a" before words where the letter "h" is pronounced. I don't want to get into a whole linguistics thing with you people here, so just know that if you are referring to "a high ceiling," use "a."

I guess some snobby individual years ago thought that saying "an historic event" sounded highly educated, and lots of people agreed. The funny thing is that it's the exact opposite.

From now on, please make "an honest effort" to use it correctly, and if everybody does it, it truly will be "a historic event," don't you think?

fewer/less

Okay, I wish the guy who makes the signs at the supermarket checkouts would get this right. You know who I mean. He's the one who writes, "Ten Items or Less." How did this guy get such an important job?

Let's set the record straight. Use "fewer" when referring to anything that can be counted -- people, gorillas, lollipops, oranges, hair brushes, etc. "There are fewer people in class today."

Use "less" when it's a matter of degree and is impossible to count. You can't count how much milk is in the bottle, but you can count bottles of milk.

Therefore, there is less milk in the bottle, but there are fewer bottles.

Hopefully, you people will now start making "fewer" mistakes, you will be "less" inclined to annihilate the language, and the supermarket sign guy will repaint all those signs to read, "Ten Items or Fewer."

Hey, I can dream. . .can't I?

reason is because, reason why

You people and your redundancies. You make me laugh. There are so many of these floating around, I could devote an entire blog to them. Trust me. I'll cover quite a few. They're just so darn entertaining.

Okay, here we go. The word "because" implies that you are giving a reason. "I failed the test because I didn't study." That's fairly straightforward, isn't it? You can understand that, can't you?

Now consider this: "The reason I failed is because I didn't study." Do you have to include "reason" and "because" here? No, you don't. They both mean the same thing. . .hence, a redundancy.

"The reason why" is the same principle. If you explain why, you're supplying a reason.

So now that I've straightened you out on one redundancy out of about 62,748 that you're using, I can sleep easily tonight.

So much to cover, so little time. . .

could've, would've, should've/of

This one drives your English teacher crazy. The problem here is that people write the way they speak.

When people write the contractions "would've," "could've," or "should've," the "'ve" part of it sounds like the word "of." So, naturally, when the desire arises to write it out, it becomes "would of," "should of," etc.

The bottom line is it's never correct. Did you hear me? Never!

've refers to "have." If you really feel the need to write out the contraction, it's "could have," etc.

What's wrong with you people? Do you really hate your former English teacher that much? Or were you just asleep on the day he or she went over this?

that/who

This one is fairly annoying, but since you people are so smart, you'll stop your incorrect usage. Actually, "who" is the one you're frequently messing up.

Let's take this sentence: "He is the one that gave me money yesterday." What's wrong with this? Nothing you say? You couldn't be more incorrect.

We have to assume if you're receiving money from him, then "he" must be human, correct? Unless you know a rich chicken, squirrel, or water buffalo that readily donates money, you received it from a person.

Therefore, we always refer to humans as "who." He is the one "who" gave me money yesterday. So can we stop referring to people as "that" now? Thank you.

Class dismissed for today.

craft/crafts

This one is relatively simple, but very misunderstood. So misunderstood.

When referring to a vehicle of some sort, the plural version is always written without the "s." Therefore, if you look into the sky and see two planes, what you actually are looking at are two "aircraft."

Okay, so maybe planes aren't your thing. You're much more into boats. Fine. We'll play your way. Two boats would be two "watercraft." No "s" here.

But you're yearning to add that "s" to the word. You must add it.

The correct context for the word "crafts" would be when you're referring to a hobby of some sort. Perhaps you're into woodworking. That means you like "woodcrafts."

Are we straight on this now? Good. So go wash your three watercraft and take up leathercrafts.

lie/lay

Okay, I can't put this one off any longer. You knew it was coming. I'm not going to rationalize or theorize the logic behind it. I'm just going to give you the explanation and hope you can figure it out. Does that seem fair? It better be.

The verb "lie" means "to be at rest." So, if you're not feeling well, you're going to lie down but not lay down. The verb has three principal parts -- lie (present tense), lay (past tense), and lain (past participial form). Don't freak out on me. All that means is it's the form you use with a helping verb. So it's lie, lay, have/has/had lain. "I have lain in bed for a week." Got it?

It's confusing because the past tense of "lie" is the present tense form "lay." This verb means "to set something down." Its forms are lay, laid, have/has/had laid. "I laid my books on the kitchen table."

See. That wasn't so bad, was it? Just tell yourself over and over again, "I can do this. I can do this. I can do this."

Now, go lie down and compose yourself until tomorrow's postings.

could/couldn't care less

You people sure are lucky to have me. Here's another one that's grossly misused.

How often have you heard someone say, "So my team lost. I could care less." Really? You could? What you're actually saying then is that it is, indeed, possible for you to care less.

If your intended meaning is that it is not humanly possible for you to be concerned about the gravity of a situation, then you couldn't (as in, it's not possible for me to) care less.

There you go. Another one of life's problems solved. You know, if all of you would just speak the proper way from the "git-go," I wouldn't have to do this. . .even if you couldn't care less.

But since I was chosen for this mission, I'll continue on.