A couple of blog posts ago, I gave you a top-ten list of mistakes that bug me. At that time I asked for things that bug you. So this post — is about you. Please keep the peeves coming in because I am not done yet! Send them as post comments or in an e-mail to me: info@bigwords101.com.
In no particular order, here are just some of things that bother you:
Bring and Take: These two words, like imply and infer, go in different directions. You take things away, but you bring things back.
- Please take these suits to the dry cleaner.
- If you are going to the ice cream shop, please bring me a chocolate cone.
Its/It’s/Its’: Yes, it seems as if now there is yet a third variation, the nonexistent its’. So don’t ever use that one; it will be incorrect! As far as the other two options, it’s easy. If it means it is, use it’s because all contractions have an apostrophe. If it is possessive, use its, because possessive pronouns (like ours, hers, theirs, etc.) don’t have apostrophes.
- It’s raining again today.
- My dog likes to wear its boots in the rain.
Here is the keys: Keys is plural, and is is singular. They need to match. Here are the keys. When you have the” to be” verb, like is, you should be able to turn the sentence around: The keys is here. Nope.The keys are here. There is is the same: There’s plenty of toys here. (The ‘s means the same as is). Plenty of toys is here. Nope. Plenty of toys are here. Watch that one. It can definitely get away with you in speech.
Apostrophes in Plurals: You’ve all seen it: “Apple’s on sale” at the grocery store. “Served with a side of vegetable’s: on the menu. “Have you seen my photo’s?” on Facebook. Wrong. Save those apostrophes for when you really need them: possessives and contractions. The only time you use an apostrophe in a plural is for letters and numbers, and you don’t even need the apostrophe for those unless it would be confusing without one: a’s, i‘s, o’s, u’s, abc’s. Not ABCs, HMOs, 1960s.
Then and Than: The difference between these two words is pretty easy, and I think most of the time the mistake is just a typo or brain slip. I think of the time I found a then in a book of mine where there should have been a than. I certainly know the difference between the two, and I was appalled at my mistake!
- Than is used for comparisons: This cake is better than the one I baked.
- Then is an adverb used to express time: We are eating lunch, and then we are going out.
- NOTE: Please keep in mind that then is NOT a conjunction and should not really be used to separate sentences with just a comma: We are eating lunch, then we are going out. (incorrect)
So, used at the beginning of the answer to a question: It is becoming common to hear peopoe begin a sentence with So. Even though it is now okay to begin a sentence with a conjunction — sometimes (usually and or but), there is no good reason to begin a sentence with so. As a conjunction it generally talks about a result from the earlier part of the sentence: It is raining, so we won’t go. Therefore, starting a sentence with so does’t make a whole lot of sense, and so seems more like a placeholder — like uh or um.
- What did you just say to my friend? So, I said that she couldn’t come with us. So, you see that SO is really a nonword there.
Irregardless: Yes, we know. It is in the dictionary. But it is nonstandard, so why not just use regardless, which is shorter anyway. Irregardless is a double negative. Ir- is a negative prefix meaning not, and less is a negative suffix.
More Than and Over: Many grammarians and other language authorities have advised us not to use over with numerals: There are over 100 accidents on this road every year. They would prefer: There are more than 100 accidents on this road every year. The two terms, however, are now thought to be interchangeable. However, sometimes one does sound better than the other, so use whichever sounds better.
- She must be over 50 sounds better than she must be more than 50 to some people.
- I am inviting more than 50 people to the party sounds better than I am inviting over 50 people to the party to some people.
Dangling Participles: How we all love these nonsensical turns of phrases!
- While still wearing diapers, my mother remarried. Mother is near the participle wearing, so it sounds as if it goes with mother, which is obviously not true. The word that the phrase while still wearing diapers goes with is I, which isn’t even in the sentence, so the participle is dangling.
- I heard about the meeting in the men’s room. Meeting is near in the men’s room, so it sounds as if they must go together, but they likely don’t. The phrase in the men’s room modifies heard (where I heard about the meeting), so the prepositional phase in the men’s room is in the wrong place. This is called a misplaced modifier.
Lead and Led: Lead is a present tense verb (to lead), and it can also be a noun for the stuff that is in your pencil or perhaps even your drinking water. As a verb the ea is pronounced like a long E. In the noun, the ea is pronounced like a short E. The past tense of lead (the verb) is led without an a.
Yes, there are more, and they will be coming your way, along with a few posts that you have requested as a result of the peeves.
Grammar Diva News:
Thank you to the Novato Sunrise Rotary for hosting me as guest speaker this past week! Fun was had by all.
Please keep your eyes and ears tuned to conversations, radio, and TV to report any other flagrant mistakes you hear, and let me know! Pet peeves wanted!
A plea: If you have any of my books that you have not reviewed, I would so appreciate a short Amazon (or Goodreads) review. Amazon has some weird policies about putting up reviews, it seems, and I have spoken to them multiple times and cannot figure it out. Reviews sell books, so I would appreciate your honest review of any of my books. Thank you!!!!!!!!
While I love with all I have read, I have two main pet peeves not listed. One is “eating healthy” instead of “eating healthful.” “Healthy” has replaced “healthful” on labels of foods and in speech. Tomatoes can be healthful and unhealthy at the same time. Schools encourage students to eat healthy all the time, when they mean healthful. My milkshake may not be healthful, but it may be much more healthy than the moldy carrots in my refrigerator.
My second peeve, another school institution reference, is the use of “Athletic Department” and the title of “Athletic Director.” Unless he or she works out it should be the Athletics Director working in the Athletics Department. It’s similar to the athletic booster club. I picture all these parents pushing weights around. They belong in an athletics booster club. When I have discussed this with people working at schools, many of them treat me as if I’m just crazy. I usually end up asking them, “Which would you rather be, an ‘athletic supporter’ or an athletics supporter?” I encouraged my daughter’s school district to consult their English department. Now there is at least one school district in the state of MN with an Athletics Dept. led by an Athletics Director.
There is definitely confusion between healthy and healthful. However, you wouldn’t eat either healthy or eat healthful, since both are adjectives and you need an adverb. It is eat healthfully. If you eat healthfully, it means you are eating healthful foods and therefore you will likely be healthy. And yes, athletics director does have a different meaning than athletic director; you are correct. An athletics department manager runs a department concerned with athletics. An athletic department manager could manager any department, but whoever he or she is, is athletic!
Athletic is an adjective, not a noun. Athletics can be either a noun or an adjective.
What bothers me is when people use the object of a prepositional phrase, rather than the subject of the sentence, to choose whether the verb is singular or plural.
Also, I see “since” used instead of “because.”
Since being used for because is pretty common — but not right! The object of the preposition does sometimes determine the number of the verb — in cases in indefinite pronouns that can be singular or plural: All of the cake is gone VS. All of the people are gone. But, otherwise, the subject, not the object of the preposition determines the verb; you are correct: “The paint on these bowls are chipped” should of course be “is chipped”; I can’t think of a better example right now. Can you give me one?
Is “I’ve got” and “We’ve got” now acceptable? Many commentators and media outlets use it.
As far as I know is not correct, but who is to say what is acceptable? I hear commentators say all kinds of things. The ‘ve implies “have” which is the present perfect tense: I have written, I have spoken, I have gotten (get, got, gotten), so it is not correct. They mean “I have” or “we have.” “We’ve got some information” is not right. “We have some information” is. “We have gotten some information” is also correct.
“Snuck” instead of “sneaked”.
Yes. And drug instead of dragged!
>None — It does mean not one.
I have to disagree for two reasons:
1) “None” can be modified by the adverb “almost”; viz., “Almost none of the chocolate remained”. The meaning of this sentence is certainly not, “Almost not one of the chocolate remained” which doesn’t even make sense. If we parse “almost” as an adverb (which it certainly is), then “none” cannot even be a pronoun, as is often claimed by many lexicographers in their dictionaries. Here, “none” must be a kind of adjective — yet a kind of adjective that at times can include the meaning of an understood noun. There actually is such a part of speech; it’s called a “pronominal adjective.”
2) Historically, “none” bore the same relation to the adjective “no” as a word like “mine” bore to the word “my”, or “thine” to “thy”; i.e., it was used for euphony when preceding a word with an initial vowel. This use of “none” for the adjective “no” before a noun beginning with a vowel can be found often in literature of the 17th and 18th centuries.
A few examples from the King James Bible:
“. . . and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of NONE EFFECT: and the LORD shall forgive her.” [no effect] [Numbers 30:8];
“Thou shalt have NONE OTHER gods before me.” [No other gods . . .] [Deuteronomy 5:7];
“. . . and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have NONE ASSURANCE of thy life.” [No assurance] [Deuteronomy 28:66]
“Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave NONE INHERITANCE” [No inheritance] [Joshua 13:14];
“. . . they are sottish children, and they have NONE UNDERSTANDING” [No understanding] [Jeremiah 4:22];
“NONE EYE pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee” [No eye pitied thee] [Ezekiel 16:5];
“Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find NONE OCCASION nor fault;” [No occasion] [Daniel 6:4]
“and there is NONE END of their corpses;” [No end] [Nahum 3:3];
Etc.
There are also many examples in the KJV of “none” agreeing with a plural verb; as in,
“Before him *there were none* such…” [Ecclesiasticus 45:13];
“And the king made of the algum trees terraces to the house of the LORD, and to the king’s palace, and harps and psalteries for singers: and *there were none* . . .” [2 Chronicles 9:11];
Etc.
So, too, in Jonathan Swift’s works from the 18th century:
“The only inconvenience is, that *NONE of these projects ARE yet BROUGHT* to perfection;” [Swift, “Gulliver’s Travels”, Ch. IV];
“The captain had no wife, nor above three servants, *NONE of which WERE SUFFERED* to attend at meals; [Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, Ch. XI]
Etc.
You’ll find many similar constructions in Milton and Pope.
So for the above reasons, I believe “none” is either an adjective (a slightly different form of the adjective “no” employed for euphony), or a pronominal adjective, which, though it can function somewhat as a pronoun, always retains an adjectival characteristic not shared by true pronouns. And since the adjective “no” can modify a singular noun or a plural one, I believe “none” can agree in number with either a singular verb or a plural one, depending on the construction in question.
Always ready to confuse its readers, the American Heritage Dictionary declares that “none” is simply a pronoun, and that it can agree equally correctly with a singular verb or a plural one, but then claims that it can also be modified by “almost”, which it parses as an adverb. “Almost” is, indeed, an adverb, but then how can “none” be a pronoun: since when do adverbs modify pronouns?
There are actually several strange examples of grammatical reasoning in the AHD (specifically, in the Usage Notes), which led me finally to conclude that its compilers were not working from a consistent system of grammatical principles but were, instead, simply repeating what other lexicographers had written about various issues in the past. For definitions, the AHD might be adequate; but for grammatical issues such as determining to what part of speech a word belongs, my advice is, *caveat lector.*
Thank you for the comment. Here is what I know, or at least learned. None is an indefinite pronoun and can be either singular or plural. It is singular when it means “not one.” However, I find that is generally, in use, does mean ” not one.” Thus, I think it is singular. Some of the examples you give are of a language style we no longer use. But more important, why would anyone use “almost none”? What does almost none mean? Why wouldn’t you use “Hardly any” instead? Only a small piece of cake was left? It seems very awkward to me to say “Almost none was left. In that sentence, none is obviously a pronoun, since we need a subject. If almost is an adverb and adverbs cannot modify pronouns or nouns, then perhaps those two words just don’t go together.
>But more important, why would anyone use “almost none”?
Not sure I understand that. If “Almost none” is a solecism, so too is “Almost all”, “Almost every”, “Almost six” (She was almost six years old / He was almost six feet tall / The condo was almost five thousand dollars a month”, etc.).
“Almost none of the chocolate was left” is elliptical for “Almost [no chocolate] was left”. “Almost none of the students attended the lecture” is elliptical and uses a partitive phrase with “of” instead of “Almost no students attended the lecture.” True, it’s more elegant to say, “Few students attended” rather than “Almost none of the students attended” but I see that as a point about style, and not a point about grammar.
I have a couple that used to bother me more than they do now. I guess years of repeated exposure have worn me down. One is “hopefully,” used to mean “I hope that,” as in, “Hopefully, everyone will remember to wear their raincoats.” The correct usage, I believe, is “She looked at him hopefully,” meaning that her look was filled with hope.
The other one is “presently.” That seems to have morphed into meaning “right now” or “at present.” The definition I learned was “occurring soon or shortly,” as in, “Presently, I will be eating dinner”–not “I am presently writing a blog comment for The Grammar Diva’s blog.”
I welcome corrections/clarifications on either of these!
Audrey – You are right about them both. I think the incorrect use of hopefully is not fairly accepted. Another case of either dumbing down because no one can get it right or evolution of language. Take your pick. I pick the former! And yes, presently does mean soon, not at present, but probably because it seems that it would mean “at present” people use it that way.
Some people in my area (southeastern NC) don’t seem to know the difference between sell and sale. This might be a word that is spelled like it sounds, and if the person has an accent, they both sound similar. I see this frequently on Craigslist and Facebook local selling groups. By the way, both words seem to have two syllables, too.
Another pet peeve I have is the use of chester drawers instead of chest of drawers. It’s true! This might have happened by not hearing it correctly as a child and perpetuating what they heard in the spelling.
Thanks for the comment. I have not heard that one: sell and sale! I guess with an accent, the two words could sound the same, but they are certainly not the same, as one is a verb and the other a noun. I am working on a book about confused words and malapropisms, and “chester drawers” is one of those malapropisms. Who is Chester Drawers, anyway?????
One of my misuse pet hates is using “brung” insead of brought! Does that happen in AE too?
Yup – it happens in American English too. I haven’t heard it too much lately though. Bring, brang, brung! And even worse, drug instead of dragged! I heard someone say that recently.
1) The whole *comprises* its parts; it is not “comprised of” them. “Comprise” is better used in the active voice than in the passive.
“The United States *comprises* fifty individual states,” not, “The United States is comprised of fifty individual states.”
If we insist on the passive construction, we should write, “The United States *is composed of* fifty individual states.”
2) The word “than” is a conjunction connecting nouns or pronouns of the same case — “She is taller than I” (connects “She” and “I”, both in the nominative). “They gave him more money than me” (connects “him” and “me”, both in the objective case).
So if “than” is a conjunction, it is therefore NOT a preposition, and it does not control, or “govern”, the case of a word coming after it (again, its function is simply to connect words of the same case). So the construction, “He’s different THAN me” seems to be incorrect since we have to account for the objective case pronoun “me”. The construction ought to be, “He’s different FROM me” since the preposition “from” adequately explains why there’s a “me” after it. British English regularly uses the preposition “to” instead of “from”, which works just as well as far as justifying the appearance of an objective case pronoun after it.
In sum, I think the very common construction in American English, “X is different THAN Y” is a solecism and should always be rendered “X is different FROM Y”. If we look at a similar construction expressing an opposite thought, it’s easy to see the reason:
“X is similar TO Y”.
“To” is a preposition, and “Y” (whether a noun or pronoun) would be in the objective case. The opposite of “similar TO” is “different FROM” (not “different THAN”), since the word following “different” must be a preposition, and not a conjunction.
Thank you for the comment and your explanations. Yes, comprise vs. compose is a real stickler. And many people do say different than, which is not correct. “Than” is used to comparison and would, as you say, be followed by a nominative (subjective case) – He is taller than I (am), although most people use me” there!
Have you opined about “waiting on” vs. “waiting for”? These are commonly misused… One of my own pet peeves. When I am a waiter, I wait on you. When you are late to our meeting, I wait for you. Simple. Yet this eludes many!
I have not written anything about waiting on versus waiting for. Good one. I am wondering if the usage is different in British English. It just sounds to me as if British English might say I am waiting on you. But I might be confused with “I am waiting on line”!
BE we use waiting on exactly the same as in AE.
Don’t you say waiting on line instead of waiting in line???
Less vs fewer: the misuse is common on cable.
Yup! I hear it all the time, and is so misused I hear that “fewer” is becoming obsolete. I so dislike when the language changes simply becuse people don’t know how to do it right! Argh!!!! Why must be dumb ourselves down?
Picking up on the comments about ‘none,’ I’m sensitive to using ‘none’ with a plural verb. For instance: None of the children are going to the party. Or: None of the reasons you give are relevant.
In such instances the intrusion of a plural noun between the subject and the verb might lead people to think the situation calls for a plural verb. But one must keep in mind, the subject is still ‘none,’ that is, ‘not one.’
Yes. I would use a singular verb. It does mean not one. Not one of the children is going to the party. Not one of the reasons you give is relevant.
Your/you’re. I know this has been talked to death, but I see this mistake in my grandchildren’s noted. I wonder if the teachers are needing a reminder-so as to remind the students.
Most people do seem to know this one when asked, so I don’t know what is going on. Laziness??
Is there such a thing as a Word Neurosis? I go crazy when people say DID-DENT for Didn’t, or IMPOR-DENT for Important. It’s like hearing someone sing out-of-tune. It hurts.
I guess there’s a thing called correct pronunciation, a thing called “ears sensitive to mispronunciation,” and a thing call “regional speech.” Some of the weird pronunciations are regional. SOME. Yea, that impordent is strange indeed. I remember one from my childhood that was dint, instead of didn’t. Drove me nuts!
My pet peeve is “sit” and “set”. People just don’t seem to understand how to use these two words. So often I hear “I was setting on the couch” or something to that effect. Grrrr
Also, many people spell out the conjunction “must’ve” as “must of”. Example: She must of known about the story in the newspaper. Properly stated, that sentence would read as “She must have known about the story in the newspaper”. Another grrr
I agree with both of those. Sit and set are a combo like lie and lay, but not as complicated. And the must of is related to the “could of, should of, and would have” thing.
What about “none”? Isn’t it a contraction (meaning “not one”) without an apostrophe?
Yes, it does mean not one – and therefore is generally singular.
With two missing letters but no apostrophe, is it considered a contraction?
Is there a specific word you are thinking of? I cannot think of one, so I have no answer. Missing letters and no apostrophe?
Ah! You are talking about none and not one. I don’t think none is a contraction; I think it is just means the same as not one. But I am not certain.
Are you saying in “Not ABCs, HMOs, 1960s” that those are wrong? I hope they are correct!
How about referring to decades? Can it be the 1990s and the ’50s?
Thanks.
ABCs, etc are correct without apostrophes. And, you’re right. It is the 1990s, but the ’50s because there something is left out (19), so we use an apostrophe to indicate something is missing.
All the above plus: I am still not quite sure what ‘doubling down’ means. The US president talks about people ‘that’ instead of people ‘who’. Animals and things take that. People are afforded some dignity.
And then, of course, there’s ‘your’ (possessive) instead of ‘you’re’—contraction of you are. It’s different from. Not different to or different than.
‘Momentarily’ means for a very short time and not in a moment or very soon. ‘Presently’ means soon and not at present or now.
Doubling down. Doesn’t it mean bearing down? I would assume it is a colloquial phrase. Lots of people use which instead of that, but not as many use that instead of which when referring to people. I am not surprised that the “so-called president” shows a lack of respect for people. However, I am sure it is from ignorance. Your and you’re I just don’t understand. Most people do seem to know that one until their hands hit the keyboard! And it is different from, not than, which indicates a comparison. The first definition of momentarily is as you say, but the other is a second meaning. Same with presently. I agree most people use the second meaning.
I think “doubling down” is a gambling term. When you are very confident, you double down. That is, you increase the amount of your wager. Thus, to double down means to express confidence. At least, that’s how I read it.
I, a non-gambler now know what doubling down means!
Having watched a lot of blackjack (my mom was a devotee), I recognized “doubling down” as a particular move in which you double your bet to receive an extra card.
It has since taken on a figurative meaning, similar to “sticking to one’s guns – and more so.” (I’ve seen it used a lot lately in political contexts.)
Here’s a def: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double%20down
1) to double the original bid in blackjack in exchange for only one more card
2) to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position or undertaking
As for personal pet peeves – Have you covered the whole lie vs. lay question? How about the !/me issue (e.g. “She gave it to John and I”)? Those are some of mine…
As a non-gambler, I didn’t know that meaning, so thank you! I just did Lie and Lay last week, I believe,and I and me (which I did a long time ago) is coming soon! Thanks for the comment.