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.