English includes many nouns that end in “-um” or “-on” and are pluralized by changing the ending to “-a.” They come from Latin and Greek respectively. Examples include “medium,” “datum,” “ovum,” “criterion,” and “phenomenon.” As with everything else, the language isn’t consistent; we have museums, not musea; morons, not mora; polygons, not polyga. I wouldn’t complain if the language regularized the endings of all these words. “Bacteriums” and “phenomenons” would sound weird at first, but we could get used to it.
What’s happening instead is that people turn the plurals into singulars. With some words, like “data” and “media,” the change has been firmly established. Others are substandard but turn up often, like “a bacteria” or “a phenomena.” Recently I saw a writer friend who should know better talking about “a criteria.” This doesn’t make the words any more regular, since double-pluralizing “medias” or “datas” is still frowned upon. It leaves us with words that are the same in the singular and the plural.
(more…)
Recently I replied to an online point that said that if the US enacts laws that enforce Christian views, the country will be a theocracy. I pointed out that all or nearly all European countries for most of history have met that criterion and that the USA itself was a “theocracy” by that measure until at least the 1960s. The person making the post rebuked me for being a “prescriptivist” and implied it’s consistent with being a libertarian.
First, it’s not a political issue. I don’t advocate laws requiring people to use words with standard meanings, except in legal documents. Aside from that, I’m not exactly a prescriptivist. I prefer to consider myself a “consistentist.” Whatever meaning you give to a word, stick with it and don’t conflate it with other definitions. If you want to use “glory” to mean “a nice knock-down argument,” don’t use it to mean “splendor” at the same time.
(more…)
Just some more miscellaneous complaints about how people abuse the English language. I’ll avoid ones I’ve already written about, and hopefully the items here aren’t the ones you usually see. To vary things a bit, I’ll include some alleged corrections which I disagree with.
“Free reign.” The term “free rein” means lack of restriction, letting someone do what they want. If it’s applied to a government official or agency running wild, “free reign” could make sense, but in general it’s wrong.
“LOL.” Laughing out loud is appropriate when something is funny or ridiculous, but too many people on the Internet stick it onto everything they say. For some, it’s a cheap way to score a point. Some people seem to think it softens what they say. It doesn’t.
“Illegal” as a noun. People do illegal things. There is no such thing, at least in the United States, as a person whose existence is illegal.
“Begging the question.” I’m losing this battle, but I’ll keep fighting it. Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming the point which is to be proven. Example: “The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.” People often use it to mean something like “leading to the question.” Granted, expressions shift in meaning, but “begging the question” as a term for a fallacy conveys a precise, useful meaning that shouldn’t be watered down.
“Ad hominem.” While we’re on the subject of logical fallacies, here’s another one whose name is often misused. An ad hominem argument attacks the person making a statement rather than its facts or reasoning. We often see it used for insults in general. An ad hominem argument doesn’t have to be insulting; an example of an ad hominem argument could be “X isn’t European and has never been to Europe, therefore his statement about Europe is wrong.” (Technically, this item is about abusing the Latin language.)
(more…)
No one would try to be a carpenter without knowing how to use a hammer and saw. No one would claim to be a software developer without the ability to write syntactically correct code that (usually) does what it’s supposed to. But it’s astonishing how many people on writers’ forums show a basic lack of ability to use their language.
As a writer, you should understand spelling, verb tenses, sentence structure, agreement, and so on. You should have a good vocabulary and know what the right word is. You can break the rules when it’s appropriate, but you should know when you’re breaking them and why. You should know the difference between “rein” and “reign,” between “lose” and “loose.”
Grammar checkers won’t save a bad writer. The best of them are excessively nitpicking, ridiculously permissive, or both in turns. They’re valuable for catching mistakes, but you have to know which of their recommendations are valid.
(more…)
Alexander James Adams has a song which is quite nice yet makes me grate my teeth. Its refrain is “There’s only the music between you and I.” An occasional grammatical violation in a song is OK, but one that occurs in every verse is painful. There are plenty of good rhymes for “me.”
When a pronoun follows a preposition, it has to be in the accusative case, also called the objective case. “With me.” “To them.” “Behind her.” The favorite grammatical error of snobs is to use the nominative case instead.
(more…)
It’s important that you use the present subjunctive properly.
The previous sentence is an example. It’s not an obvious one, since it’s hard to use it wrong in that case. The word “use” is in the present subjunctive, but it’s the same as the present indicative in this case. let’s get a little fancier:
It’s important that a writer use the present subjunctive properly.
(more…)
Yesterday I came upon this video by Steven Pinker. It’s simply the best video talk on writing I’ve ever seen, and I recommend it to all nonfiction writers. (Fiction writers too, but that’s not its main focus.)
Are you plagued by passive voice phobia? Have you been told that the passive voice must never be used? As an antidote, here are some cases where the passive voice is the best choice. Remember them and don’t let yourself be intimidated!
If it isn’t clear who or what performed the action, you can use a subject such as “something,” “people,” or (as in this sentence) the impersonal “you.” If you’re legally minded, you can say “person or persons unknown.” But leaving the actor out altogether is sometimes the strongest choice. If you work at a help desk and customers have been giving you a rough time, you can yell (preferably while off the phone), “I’ve been abused and insulted enough!” It’s not any particular person you’re blowing up about, but the accumulated abuse.
(more…)
“Carthago delenda est!” Do you think the passive voice is weak? That passive-voice construction (“Carthage must be destroyed!”) brought down a powerful nation.
Most writers at least vaguely recognize that the passive voice is often a bad thing. Fewer of them know why, or even what it is. People trying to sound smart use the term “passive voice” for many things that aren’t. It’s just one of several ways that verbs are often weaker than they could be. Let’s take a look at them and learn the differences.
(more…)