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.

a lot/alot

People, people, people! Will you stop misusing this one. . .please? When using this phrase to mean "many," the correct form is always, always, always, 100% of the time written as two words. Therefore, "a lot" is correct in that context.

"Alot" is considered nonstandard. Knock it off!

Okay, so here's my theory as to why it's used so much:

It's probably confused with "allot," which means "to distribute or parcel out" or "to set aside for a special purpose." (Thanks dictionary.com.) Yes, I CAN come up with my own definitions, but I figure it's okay once in a while to take the easy route.

I guess people figure if "allot" can be one word, then "alot" can be one word also. But it's not. . .nor will it ever be. So just get it out of your head. Right now!

No, Smarty Pants, I don't have any hard research to support my theory. It's just that. . .a theory. Got any better ideas? I didn't think so.

Next?

affect/effect

Both of these words are standard English. The problem comes with the way each is used. Here's the deal:

"Affect" is a verb while "effect" is a noun. It's that simple. "What effect has the slumping economy had on you, and how has it affected your bank account?"

As a public service announcement, I'm going to give you a tip on how to remember the difference. The word "affect" begins with the letter "a," and that's the letter with which the word "action" begins; and as we all remember from elementary school grammar, an action is a type of verb.

There you go. Now you'll never confuse the two again. You're welcome. You owe me one.

Moving on. . .

eager/anxious

This is undoubtedly one of the most common mistakes in English. I can't tell you how many times I hear someone say he or she is anxious to be going on vacation. Really? Who doesn't like to go on vacation? Here's the scoop on this lovely pair of words. . .

People who use "anxious" in this context mean they're looking forward to a certain event. Here's the problem with that train of thought. "Anxious" is a form of the word "anxiety," meaning you're looking at something with a sense of fear or trepidation.

If the person mentioned above is, indeed, anticipating a lovely vacation (whether it's to the south of France or to Puddlewater, Idaho), he or she is "eager" to be going. If you're anxious about going to Puddlewater, well, then I guess that's understandable. Not that there's anything wrong with the state of Idaho. I've been there. Lovely state. So no nasty posts from Idahoans, please.

From now on, use "eager" when it deals with a sense of positive anticipation rather than a sense of dread.

That being said, I'm eager to share tomorrow's posts with you (although some of you may be anxious. . .but I can't imagine that).

regardless/irregardless

This one is fairly common, fairly obvious, and fairly irritating.

The word "regardless" is used to mean "without regard or concern" as in the statement, "Regardless of whether or not it rains, we're going anyway."

Adding the prefix ir- changes the word to essentially mean "not without regard." What you've effectively done is created a double negative, circular logic, and I'm fairly certain a few other laws of grammar, far too complex for the purposes of this blog. Just don't do it!

The bottom line is that the word "regardless" is the standard form and the one to be used. "Irregardless" is not considered standard and should be avoided at all cost. That means it should never be used. Never. You people never cease to amaze me.

troop/troupe

This one is easy.

Any organized group of people, with the exception of those in the performing arts, is a "troop." Therefore, the group of actors performing at your local community theater is a "troupe."

So, if a nice group of uniformed little girls has a table set up outside the entrance to Wal-Mart selling cookies, and they have a sign that reads, "Support your local Girl Scout troupe," turn and walk the other way -- and make sure you turn 180 degrees. (See previous post for clarification).

Are we set on this one?

360 degrees/180 degrees

You'd be surprised at the number of times I hear this one misused.

When you want to imply that something is the exact opposite, use the phrase "180 degrees." If you say, "My job is 360 degrees from my old one," what you're really saying is it's exactly the same, since 360 degrees is a complete circle.

Let's clarify. If you turn around and stop at 180 degrees, you'd be facing the opposite direction. By completing the circle, you'd be at 360 degrees, thus back to your starting point.

So wise up, people. When you want to mention a situation is totally different, it's 180 degrees. Otherwise, there are 360 reasons why your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Are we finally clear on this? Good.

hanged/hung

This is one of my all-time favorites. Here's the simple answer:

People are hanged. Pictures are hung. Got it?

So stop saying, "The prisoner was hung at midnight," unless he was actually attached to the wall. Stop it. I mean it!

alterior/ulterior

The word "ulterior" is used to describe something done in a hidden, covert way.
i.e. an ulterior motive

I'm not even sure what an alterior is. . .or does. Enough said.

all right/alright

Okay, I admit this one may be a little picky. Traditionalists (like me) claim that "alright" is nonstandard usage. But it's become accepted by many because it's used so often. Come on, people. Stop altering the language.

In the purest sense, it should always be used as two words: "all right"

I guess the single-word version has slipped into the lexicon because of words such as "altogether" and "already," which are standard uses, not to be confused with "all together" and "all ready."

So please help me in my quest to bring some dignity back to the language and stop using the one-word version, alright? Oops. I mean "all right."

Thank you for your support.

Can I Do It?

I suppose I should have more things to worry about. . .the economy, global warming, the cost of gas, why hot dogs come in packs of ten and buns in packs of eight -- but those are things I have little, if any, control over. But. . .

It never ceases to amaze me how often native speakers absolutely annihilate the language. I'm a teacher and I see it every day.

It's bad enough that I see it from my students, but when I see common errors every day in the newspaper, hear them on radio and/or TV, hear them from colleagues, etc., well, let's just say it really frosts my cookies.

That's my purpose in starting this blog. I want to raise your awareness of words/phrases you're misusing and apparently don't even know it. I'll throw out one every day, and you can use it as you see fit. . .or not. What do I care? Hopefully, within about a year (give or take), we'll see the grammar project take off and I won't be so annoyed by you usage butchers anymore. Fair enough?

I'm somewhat of a random thinker, so I don't want this to be just about grammar and usage. I'll toss in other things from time to time just to make it fun and interesting, and I encourage you to do the same. Let's make this sort of a "language lab." Anything you come across that others might find interesting, language-related or not, toss it into the stew. As I said, I love random musings.

I guess I'll leave this post at the top for a couple days just so people know what the heck it's all about. Then I'll start setting you people straight and correcting your abysmal usage. Who knows? I may actually get someone to read it! Hooray!