More Words You’re Probably Using Wrong
By Tiffany Yates Martin | December 6, 2022 |
I see you, word nerds. I know who you are. You’re the ones who can’t drive by a billboard with a grammar mistake (“In a class of it’s own”) without visibly cringing. Who have memes like this as your screen saver. Who keep Dreyer’s English in your nightstand and regularly reread and analyze passages like it’s the King James Bible.
I see you, and I feel you.
As an editor I may or may not derive an inordinate amount of amusement from malapropisms, dangling modifiers, quotation marks misused for emphasis that call the author’s “authority” into question, and comically clumsily translated signs like these…but I know I am not alone.
A few posts ago I wrote about words you’re probably using wrong, and from the comments it seemed to hit a chord with my fellow word nerds, so here’s another ridiculous helping of word nerdery to delight you, enlighten you, and perhaps let you bask in superiority, chortling at those poor benighted fools who violate the vernacular. (Spoiler, though—judging from my 15 years at the beginning of my editing career as a Big Six copyeditor, that’s most of us at some time or another.)
Misusing our language commits a cardinal sin of writing, which is to muddy your intentions and the readers’ experience of your story. Knowing how to use the main tool of our business, language, allows you to be a more effective storyteller.
So with that lofty goal in mind…let’s get down and nerdy with it.
Picking Apart Parts of Speech
You don’t “feel badly” for someone, unless you’re trying to have a feeling for them and you just can’t swing it; you simply feel bad for them. (Probably because of their substandard grammar, I’m betting.)
And you don’t cap a list of progressively important things with “most importantly,” unless you’re saying it with the air of a self-satisfied douchebag—it’s just “most important.”
I might wonder hopefully if you already knew that, but I wouldn’t write “Hopefully you knew that” unless I’m referring to the optimistic quality of your knowing.
Something can be “on top of” something else, or “over it,” or even “over-the-top” (as this post, in fact, could be accused of being), but not “overtop” unless you’re using it as a colloquialism in a character’s point of view. “Overtop” is not a preposition, any more than “underbottom” or “throughmiddle” are.
While we’re on the topic, “any more” referring to quantity should be two words, not one, in usages such as the last sentence. “Anymore” is only for time, despite that for some philistines these usages are supposedly interchangeable (but never supposably).
My examples have taken a turn for the worse—which is a worst-case scenario for some readers, if worse comes to worst.
If you haven’t as yet tuned out (never “as of yet”—but you already knew that, didn’t you?), let’s move on to other troubling misusages.
Fallacious phraseology
If you’re offering someone an ARC of your book, it’s an advance copy, not an advanced one (unless you are distinguishing it from a remedial edition you give to your less erudite friends).
If you’re letting it all hang out you’re buck naked, not butt naked (no matter how intuitive the latter may seem, given the fundamental involvement of one’s derriere). And no judgments if you do like to get nakey on the regular—that’s perfectly all right (but never alright).
Less refers to amount; fewer to number. For that matter, “number” delineates the numeric quantity of something, and “amount” its volume. By this time, though, maybe you couldn’t care less (not “fewer,” of course)—not “could care less,” because if you can still care even less than you already do, there’s work to be done yet in getting you good and fed up.
If you’re lousy with cash, you may be flush, but you’re flushed only if you’re also feeling embarrassed about it, or overheated from earning it. (Or if the school bully has shoved your head into the toilet to take it from you.)
On that note, you may flush out something from your eye, but if you’re expanding on a topic (such as flushing), then you’re fleshing it out—even though that sounds like the scene of a grisly murder (but not a gristly one, unless the corpse is also quite tough to the tooth). That might land you in dire straits (not straights, unless you’re around a bunch of nihilistic heterosexuals).
I’ve taken a tortuous route to arrive at some of these metaphors…which might be feeling torturous to some of you. So shall we move on to a final lightning round?
Pesky Peccadilloes
If you’re a charmingly innocent little naïf, you may be ingenuous, but if you’re only pretending to be, then you’re being disingenuous.
If you see something shaking, it may be quivering; but if you hear it, it’s quavering.
Your lover may be discrete from your spouse, but if so for the love of matrimony be discreet about it (unless you’ve given each other free rein to roam—not reign).
If you’re annoyed that your climbing partner is flagging before you reach the summit, you might feel a fit of pique if you take a peek up at the peak.
Your QAnon uncle’s ridiculous jive talk about conspiracy theories may not jibe with the facts, but your harsh teasing about it is a gibe (and your taunt might draw the tension taut).
A finicky artist who likes to create his paintings from a crude makeshift bed (or flat shipping container) is a painter with a delicate palate using a palette on his pallet.
If you’re still enjoying this pedantic nonsense, then perhaps I’ll continue to add to this series I started with the previous post I alluded to (but I didn’t elude it unless I ran away from it and it couldn’t find me again).
It’s not an illusion—that last allusion was a bit of a stretch. I hope this silliness has left you amused…but if I’ve simply left you lost in confusion you’re bemused.
All right, my grammar geeks, you’re up! Let’s hear your favorite vexations of verbiage.
Tiffany Yates Martin has spent nearly thirty years as an editor in the publishing industry, working with major publishers and NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, and USA Today bestselling, award-winning authors as well as indie and newer writers, and is the founder of FoxPrint Editorial and author of the Amazon bestseller Intuitive Editing: A Creative and Practical Guide to Revising Your Writing. She leads workshops and seminars for conferences and writers’ groups across the country and is a frequent contributor to writers’ sites and publications. Under the pen name Phoebe Fox, she’s the author of six novels.
My pet hate is people who say, “mental health” when they mean “mental illness.” I have heard “There’s no history of mental health in my family”, “I’ve suffered from mental health for 20 years” and “being admitted to hospital can protect you from mental health,” And don’t start me on “literally” meaning “metaphorically,”
Ha! I haven’t heard the “mental health” misuse, but it does lend itself to unintentional comedy, doesn’t it? 😁 Of course I’ve heard “literally” misused quite often. Perhaps literally hundreds of times. 😉
That’s like people saying “I think I’ve got a temperature.” Everyone has a temperature. You have a fever.
I tend to be fairly relaxed about these things, having grown up among different geographical usages, and with descriptive not prescriptive linguists for parents.
The one that really gets my goat, however, is people using bought and brought interchangeably. Yes, there are occasions where either would be correct, but then there are…others. For example, “I went to Thailand and I brought my wife.”
Ha, good point! In casual or colloquial usage I’m far from a stickler about things like this…and in fact I greatly enjoy bastardizing language for humor or impact in conversation. But I think as writers it’s incumbent on us to know our tools, as Stephen King says–and language is chief among them.
I LOVE your example about “bought” and “brought.” As Emily Litella might say (if I may date myself), That’s very different! :)
Hey Tiffany — Another fun one! Although I mostly felt amused, there are several examples that curbed any feeling of superiority. You got me thinking about a movie we watched last night, and how even slightly misused words in a story can be amplified with repetition. The movie was British, so we had closed caption on (we started the habit with Derry Girls–keeps us from missing half of the jokes!). When the protagonist let out a huffing-style of laugh, the CC said that he “scoffed.” He didn’t seem to be feeling any sort of derision, and it didn’t seem mocking. It was pure mirth. I shrugged it off. But it turns out this guy laughed in this way often, and CC used the word scoff repeatedly. I’m not sure whether most people would say it was over-the-top, but by the fourth scoff, I was over it.
Thanks for keeping us on our toes. Or toeing the line? Or keeping our writing careers from going toes up?
Well punned, my friend. 😁 English is SO WEIRD.
I know just what you mean with “scoff”–sling with “smirk” and “quip,” it’s right up there with misuses of affect (not “effect”!).
Last night a friend blew my mind with words that contradict themselves–like “sanction” means to give permission and also to revoke it. English…weird.
What a fun way to wake up! My 10th grade English teach always said, “Alright is never all right.” But there were a few in here that I use so infrequently I always have to look them up to know which way is correct. The one that I look up every time (I don’t think you mentioned it?) is he “chocked it up” vs he “chalked it up.” I think the latter is correct, right?
Oh, am excellent one I will add to my file! Which I do in fact keep… literally. 😉 I’m endlessly entertained by the vagaries of our language.
I believe chocks are the things they put around a plane’s wheels to stop it rolling, as in the expression “chocks away!” So unless the subject of the verb is preventing something from moving, I’d say chalked it up is the correct one. I think that dates back to the days when innkeepers would keep the tally of each customer’s drinks on a chalkboard. So if you’re chalking it up to experience, say, you’re putting it on experience’s account.
I didn’t know its derivation, Deborah…but you’re dead right about the usage. I forgot to address this in my earlier comment.
I was happy to read “alright” is not all right. Drives me crazy, not mental health. But why, why, why do I read “alright” in books that have been published by big publishers???? My critique partners think I’m prissy when I correct them.
The big publishers’ house style sheets specify “all right” (or at least did as of 15 or so years ago when I was still copyediting for them). Sometimes smaller houses will let “alright” go, or British ones.
And sometimes it’s just sloppy copyediting…a personal pet peeve. 😡
I was taught “all right” was correct, but now on Google Docs it shows as incorrect. “Alright” shows as correct. Maybe the language has changed, as languages do.
They do indeed evolve…but Webster’s still gives only “all right,” I think, as standard usage.
Lol omg what a fun post. So much wordplay, which I love!
The ONLY one I’m not 100% on board with, I think, is “hopefully.” I would argue that the widespread colloquial use of it to be interchangeable with “I hope [that]” makes it de facto correct? Kind of like how slang words or modern terms become so common that the dictionary eventually just adopts them.
It’s true that Webster’s, the industry standard reference, has come to include this use of “hopefully.” But that doesn’t make it less painful in my pedantic little ears. Like “snuck,” which is now in there too, despite that the correct past tense is “sneaked” and NO OTHER VERB CONJUGATES THAT WAY.
Not that I have strong feelings about this or anything. Full confession: colloquially I will also (mis)use “hopefully” this way.
But never “snuck.” I’m not an animal. 😁
Tiffany, you killed me with “I’m not an animal.” [Note: I resisted saying, “I literally died when I read that.”]
HAHAHAHA! Well played yourself, Tom. :)
So much fun, thanks!
One that English seems to have set us up to fail if we don’t watch ourselves is “on a new tact.” A new *tack* is a change of direction, a new *tactic* is a change of plan, but mixing them up with a new “tact” is just being too delicate about it.
Oh, yes. I see that one a lot.
Am excellent point, Ken! Or shall I say, my soul brother? 😉
It’s an honor. And certainly not *sole* brother — it seems to be a large family here at WU.
That was hilarious, thank you! (And, er… informative.)
Ha! My entirely pedantic pleasure. ;)
FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS GRAMMATICALLY HOLY, please forgive my rampant typos in comments. This is what happens when one answers from one’s phone and doesn’t edit comments. Let this be a lesson to you all of the hideous consequences and public shame of grammar mistakes. ;)
Loved these Tiffany! I’ll share.
Thanks, Denise! I figured this would be an avid audience for Fun with Grammar. :)
One’s writing, when it is quick and tumbling from the brain, can often make these mistakes. Thanks for all the reminders, Tiffany. From this, we could all create a small book: Tiffany’s Reminders, Create with Care. Thanks.
I must admit I get a bit jacked from this kind of picayune word tomfoolery… :D
I maintain a file of stuff like this: He realized the axel was broken. (Hopefully the salchow and the triple toe loop were ok,)
They bought a new washer and drier. (Drier than what?)
But more than malapropisms my favorites trend toward fractured prose. Some recent examples:
CNN photo caption: Putin delivers personal show of force firing a sniper rifle at a Russian military base. (Did they fire back?)
Seattle Times: A moving truck will take away…the banner of paper sandwich orders. (Mine tasted like cardboard.)
NPR: D&SNG Railway compensated the train tickets for the passenger who saw the injured hiker and her husband. (The hiker was solo. It was the passenger’s husband.)
Seattle Times: Before his death, Jerry Garcia tried to get clean from his habit of freebasing cocaine. (We assume no postmortem attempts.)
NYT: We’re going to slow down to get him up to speed. (Within limits?)
CBC: Other researchers teamed up to form the “Kelp Rescue” initiative backed by a philanthropist and five universities out of Bamfield. (Neither the philanthropist nor the universities were located in Bamfield.)
MSNBC: Russia will cease to exist if it continues the war by becoming more isolated and destitute. (Apparently, Russia can continue to exist if it continues the war by becoming more inclusive and prosperous.)
CNN: He killed ten people using a semiautomatic rifle and body armor. (Beat to death as well as shot?)
Writer Unboxed: As a fiction writer I am drawn to stories that work within the realities we exist in. (No comment.)
Or we can just go scratch our fingernails on a blackboard…assuming we can still find one.
Glad I’m not the only one who keeps an actual file. Love these, Jay–does anyone revel in silly linguistic mistakes more than writers do?
A word of defense for the WU writer who authored your last example, though–per the Chicago Manual of Style, the industry-standard reference book, a preposition is now a perfectly fine part of speech to end a sentence with…. ;)
Thanks for the laughs!
My critique was focused on the last part of the sentence: “within the realities we exist in”. It’s redundant. We all exist within our realities., don’t we? Why not just say “within our realities”?
Good point!
“Less refers to number; fewer to amount.” I think you have that wrong.
Holy mother of Maxwell Perkins, you’re right–I typed it wrong! Thanks for gently brushing the egg from my face, Victoria–and illustrating the importance of careful editing. :)
No…I think Tiffany got it right. “Fewer “for number; “less” for amount. I just think of how it is applied to the noun it modifies: countable vs uncountable nouns. Less is for quantities you can’t count: water, money, hair (unless you are picking individual hairs off your sweater), oil, sand, etc. Fewer is for those you can count (bottles of water, people, buildings, complaints, etc. Sadly, the distinction seems almost lost today, with “fewer” seen less and less.
I changed it after Victoria’s comment! She was correct and I typed it wrong, so I went back and made myself look good, thanks to her. I agree–hardly anyone seems to use “fewer” these days…but WE do, by god, and shall hold the line. ;) Thanks for the note, Jeanne.
As a former student of linguistics as well as of creative writing, I firmly believe that language is a living thing and therefore common usage trumps old dictionaries and grammar rules. Consequently, if an expression is commonly used, IMHO it’s quite correct and I don’t fault anyone for using it in their writing. The dictionaries add new words based on usage every year, after all. Language didn’t die the day we graduated from high school. Otherwise we’d still be speaking like the characters in a Shakespeare play. However, I do try to keep my apostrophes straight.
Entertaining article, however. Thanks for posting!
As a copyeditor we were trained to use the most current edition of Webster’s–which is God. :) But yes, each edition updates with new accepted usage and vernacular, which is how we get words like “truthiness” accepted into the lexicon.
The hill I will die on is “snuck,” though. I can’t. Thanks for the comment, R.E.!
My last stand is “woken up”. Aarrrrgggghhhh!
Isn’t it funny how visceral our reactions can be to some of these? :)
Three more for your file, Tiffany! I see these frequently and sometimes in reputable publications:
‘hone in’ instead of ‘home in’
‘would of’ in the place of ‘would’ve’
‘hung’ instead of ‘hanged,’ when referring to a form of execution
Excellent ones, Beth! “Hone” and “home” are among my pet peeves, and I rarely see people use “hanged” correctly.
Speaking of bugaboos–I’m guessing you are/were a journalist of some sort? Or British? Because otherwise those single quotations desperately want to be doubles. ;)
Ha, no. I was just being a lazy typist. Yes, they should be doubles, if one is American. Bad Beth.
This is fun.
May I nominate “shitload” in place of “shipload”?
OUCH.
HAHAHAHA! OMG, you got me! I did not know “shitload” was a bastardization of “shipload”–I thought it was just modern developed slang. THAT IS FUNNY and you have made my day. Thank you!
HEHEHE! Cannot believe I had one you didn’t know! (That made my day.) Even funnier are the supposed synonyms for “shitload” and people’s attempts to write definitions for it. Hilarious. : )
I will never unknow this. I will desperately miss saying “shitload.” “Shipload” lacks something….. :D
Love this so much.
:) Thanks, my friend!
Can I add “three times less” when they mean “A third as much”?
I haven’t heard this one! But it’s funny…. :)
Now, wait a minute! We don’t know if those dire straights are nihilistic. They could be literally thousands of things such as extreme straights or desperate straights (of whom I am one), but we shouldn’t assume they are nihilists unless they are also dead French philosophers.
Ah, friend, thanks for playing along with my ridiculousness. This made me smile. 🙂
I was shocked to see “alright” listed as a no-no. I remember spending an ungodly amount of time in sixth grade drilling on the difference between “alright” and “all right”. It seemed undefinable. You almost had to get it by feel, and I do it that way still. I’m feeling alright about it, too (meaning perfectly fine, as a state of being), but I can look into a room and see that everything is all right (meaning everything is in its place, as it should be). I suppose this is one of those nuances that has gone out the window and what was once wrong is now all right, even though it should be alright. Sigh. I’m back in sixth grade again and apparently I am failing miserably.
I don’t remember there being a difference in nuance between these two! From the time I started copyediting in New York, all the major publishers had a strict prohibition on “alright,” so that was how I learned it. Funny how usages change.
How about wrecked havoc as opposed to wreaked havoc?
And another one that always bothers me: reticence used to mean being quiet, but now apparently the use of this word to express hesitancy is commonly accepted.
Yes–those are good ones! I love keeping a list of them. Why? I don’t know. My own amusement? :)
Thanks for this informative and entertaining article, Tiffany. As a reader and a book editor, the two misuses of verbiage I find most frequently are use of “further” to mean “farther and of “lay” to mean “lie.” I’m gradually grinding my teeth down over these!
Thanks, Ann! “Lay” and “lie” kill me too–I put them in my last post on the topic. (I tell my husband the reason our dog won’t obey him is because he is a grammatically correct dog and doesn’t understand “go lay down.”) ;) “Further” and “farther” are bugaboos as well. But “snuck” instead of “sneaked” seems to be the hill I’m willing to die on. :)
This is such a good article, Tiffany. I didn’t get to read it until today. Thanks. I once offered as ADVANCE copy of my novel to an Instagram book influencer, and when she replied that she’d let me know if it “peeked her interest”, I despaired.
Ha! I remember in high school when I saw that a boyfriend filled out an accident report that he “gaffed his heal,” my heart sank for our future. :) Shallow little pedantic souls that we word nerds are. Thanks for the comment, Liz.