Click on any of the links below to sort the list as you see fit. Click on the name of a category to view all the errors that fall under that category.
| Error |
Date Added |
Error ID Number: 12
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=12> Problem(s):- Alright, all ready! Eat your ice cream!
Solution(s):- All right, already! Eat your ice cream!
Explanation:- The expression "All right, already" should be enough to convince any prescriptivist that most every they believe is nonsense. Both "all right" and "already" have the same history (i.e., the word "all" plus either "right" or "ready"), but, for no good reason at all, they're spelled differently. Supposedly, the fact that "already" is spelled "already" and not "all ready" is to show the difference between the two expressions, as in the following:
- We already ate. (We ate some time in the past.)
- We are all ready to eat. (We're prepared to eat.)
You can't use the two the same, so, supposedly, we need two different spellings. If you follow that logic, then we should have two different spellings for "all right", as shown below:
- Did you get the answers all right? (Were each of your answers correct?)
- Did you get the answers alright? (Did you have trouble getting the answers?)
There is, indeed, a difference between the two variants, but, unfortunately, the spelling doesn't reflect it. Journey attempted to remedy the situation with their "smash" hit "I'll Be Alright without You", but sticklers across the English speaking world so far remain intransigent. Chances are, they probably don't even realize there are two different variants. So it goes.
So, what are you to do? Well, until the revolution comes, you should probably continue to spell "all right" and "alright" as "all right". It'll take you a second longer, but no one will look at you askance. Nevertheless, feel free to admonish the prescriptivists who hold fast to their irregular spellings for being foolish.
Incidentally, if, for example, in dialog, you ever wanted to use the emerging variant of "all right" "aight", there are two ways to spell it (in my opinion). If the word really does sound monosyllabic, I'd spell it "aight", but often if you listen to someone pronounce it, the first vowel is quite a bit longer than an ordinary "a" to compensate for the loss of the liquids (the "ll" and the "r"). In that case, I would indicate that the word is being pronounced as if something has been lost, like this: "a'ight".
[Note: For another discussion of the al(l )right controversy, go here.]
Categories: | 3 / 10 / 2007 |
|
Error ID Number: 63
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=63> Problem(s):- An euphoric end to a bittersweet Olympics (AP)
Solution(s):- A euphoric end to a bittersweet Olympics (AP)
Explanation:- No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!
Ack! You have got to be kidding me! This is an actual headline (hence the lack of punctuation) from the Associated Press—and to prove it, here's a screenshot:
Ahem. So. Let us start by reviewing the appropriate way to use the English indefinite article—again.
In English, words that begin with a consonant sound are preceded by the "a" variant of the indefinite article. Words that begin with a vowel sound, on the other hand, are preceded by "an". It's that simple.
Turning our attention to this problem sentence, the word "euphoric" begins with a vowel letter, but does not begin with a vowel sound. The distinction is crucial. As such, it should be "a euphoric", just as one would say "a yellow banana" and not "an yellow banana".
But this is no simple typo. No indeed: I know the secret behind this error.
Returning to a previous error, stuffshirts and blowhards think it sounds hoity-toity to say "an historic" instead of "a historic". It's wrong, of course (just as wrong as it would be to say "an hoity-toity idiot"), but they think it's "proper", and so they go about making asses of themselves by saying "an historic event".
Now let's look at our problem sentence. The context is the conclusion of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. In summing it up, one simply had to pay tribute to the memory of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili who died tragically in a freak accident during a training run literally hours before the opening ceremony. As such, the article needed a bit of solemnity, even in discussing the national high experienced by Canada after the Canadians' victory over Team USA for the gold medal in hockey.
When dealing with solemn or serious matters, all writers have a tendency to "write up"—that is, to try to use more formal language than they would ordinarily. Knowing that writing something like "an historic" has a kind of solemn and prestigious air, this writer (David Crary, in case you're curious), no doubt, looked at the similarity between the words "historic" and "euphoric" (both trisyllabic, both end in "-oric"...) and thought, "Gee, you know what? If it's formal to say 'an historic', I'll bet it's formal to say 'an euphoric', too!"
And that's how we got the headline quoted above.
If David Crary ever happens to read this, I offer this advice: Trust your gut. Your first reaction (hopefully to write "a euphoric") is often the correct reaction when it comes to usage. Don't let that internal editor confuse and bamboozle you. Chances are he's had one too many and is up to no good.
(And no, in case you were wondering, I will not consider seriously the possibility that we're intended to pronounce "euphoric" as the Greeks do. "Euphoric" is now an English word, and we're not giving it back!)
Categories: | 3 / 1 / 2010 |
|
Error ID Number: 8
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=8> Problem(s):- Beyond the fact that he is a great lover of ice cream is the fact that he has the ability to command the stars and reorder the cosmos.
Solution(s):- In addition to the fact that he is a great lover of ice cream, he has the ability to command the stars and reorder the cosmos.
- Not merely a great lover of ice cream, he also has the ability to command the stars and reorder the cosmos.
Explanation:- This is kind of a complex structure that requires some fancy footwork. The second option under "solutions" is probably the best, though the first serves the intended purpose. The problem with the error sentence is that it's a bit too wordy, and almost a bit too...literal to be taken as natural, if that makes sense. It's also a bit clumsy-sounding to use "the fact" twice in one sentence—especially given how near to each other the two are. The error sentence may not technically be ungrammatical, but it seems to me to be, at the very least, non-optimal.
Categories: | 3 / 6 / 2007 |
|
Error ID Number: 32
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=32> Problem(s):- By eating ice cream allows me to get my work done more efficiently.
Solution(s):- Eating ice cream allows me to get my work done more efficiently.
- By eating ice cream, I'm able to get my work done more efficiently.
Explanation:- The problem sentence illustrates what can be called a garden path effect. The sentence begins just fine, but by the time you get past "ice cream", you forget that you wrote "by", and so you proceed as if you hadn't. Thus, you get an ungrammatical sentence.
There are, in reality, three ways to avoid an error such as this one in your writing:
- Hire a full-time editor to edit everything you write (even e-mails, memos and grocery lists).
- Write to the director the English language and have him recognize the grammaticality of the problem sentence above.
- Proofread.
I know it's a pain in the tukhus, but usually if you just reread what you've written, you'll catch stuff like this.
Conversely, though, I'd like to add that if you come across a sentence like this written by somebody else, I implore to be understanding. I guarantee you you have written (and will once again write) a sentence like this. It just happens sometimes; it's nearly unavoidable. So don't be all up in they grill about it, or whatever; just point it out, and move on. When it comes to typos (or write-o's), we're all in it together. We humans are allies in the fight: our enemies are our lousy brains and clumsy fingers and hands. Always remember that, and we shall prevail!
Categories: | 12 / 10 / 2007 |
|
Error ID Number: 39
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=39> Problem(s):- David L. Roth
5150 Mean Street
Ice Cream CA, 95150
Solution(s):- Sammy Hagar
5150 Mean Street
Ice Cream, CA 95150
Explanation:- You want a hardcore, real-deal punctuation rule? You've got it! Ready for it? Here it is: When writing up an address, the comma goes after the city, not the state. If you think about it, it almost makes sense. If you don't put something in there to separate the city from the state, you might confuse the state as being a part of the city. After all, there are tons of cities in the US that are composed of two words, the latter being two capitalized letters without any periods. Tons of 'em. Like...oh, I don't know...Chicago IL, located in Nebraska? Miami FL in Ohio? These are reasonable city names, right...?
Okay, even though there is no logical or practical reason for there to be a comma anywhere in the last line of an address, it's supposed to be there. Why? Because the government says so. And since the government has kindly stepped in to tell us when and where to use commas, they also have the right to tell us when and where not to use them—in this case, after the abbreviation for the state. So, the next time you address an envelope, remember our government, and be thankful that they're thoughtful enough to let us know where exactly our punctuation marks should and shouldn't be.
By the by, when it comes to Van Halen, Hagar is the superior singer. (Note the period.) There's nothing wrong with liking David Lee Roth era Van Halen music, but, let's face it, he's not the wheels of that hot rod (more like the exhaust pipe).
Categories: | 2 / 22 / 2008 |
|
Error ID Number: 61
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=61> Problem(s):- Hopefully I'll be able to eat some ice cream tomorrow.
Solution(s):- I hope that I'll be able to eat some ice cream tomorrow.
- It is my hope that I'll be able to eat some ice cream tomorrow.
- I live hopefully knowing that it may come to pass that I'll be able to eat some ice cream tomorrow.
Explanation:- What's wrong with the problem sentence above? Let's see what the internet has to say:
Everyone uses "hopefully" as a shortcut for "I hope." It is not. Yes, the dictionary allows it, but that's just bending to popular usage. In my book, there is only one correct use for "hopefully." It's a synonym for "prayerfully"—as in, "She looked up hopefully and said, 'Dear Lord, please make it rain soon, or we'll have no harvest.'" Do you want to say "I hope"? Then say "I hope."
This quote comes from an essay by Jesse Kornbluth, founder of HeadButler.com. Jesse is a journalist, a writer, a contributor to several magazines (their titles don't matter—they're magazines), and the holder of a BA in English from Harvard. He is not, however, a linguist.
The funny thing about non-linguists is that they fall into two categories: regular folk, and grammarians. Both camps know next to nothing about language that instinct hasn't taught them, but what distinguishes grammarians is that they insist (stridently? Sure, why not: stridently) that they know more about language than both regular folk and linguists.
The case of "hopefully" is a fine example. If you break it down (ooh, morphemically! Ha. Take that, Marantz!), what you get is "hope", a verb, which means what it means (to believe, falsely, that one's thoughts and silent protestations are able to effect some sort of change in the world [note that it need not be in the future, e.g. "I hope he got home okay." That subtle distinction—in this case, the difference between the deontic and epistemic use of "hope"—is something the grammarian usually fails to pick up on (or have a name for, for that matter)]), followed by the suffix "-ful" (no longer spelled "-full", even though its etymology is rather transparent), which indicates (metaphorically, mind you) that the modified noun is "full of" whatever is specified, the combination of which gives us the adjective "hopeful": roughly, "to be full of hope". To this is then added the handy "-ly" suffix (cognate to German "-lich", which is cognate to English "like", etc.) which makes an adverb out of the whole monstrosity, leaving us with a meaning something like "to act/behave in a manner that is characterized by being full of hope", or perhaps something even more prolix that need not be written down.
The problem, then, is that as it is written in the problem sentence above, the word "hopefully" is devoid of content. Who's doing what hopefully? Is it "I", the subject? If it were, the literal meaning would be "Tomorrow, I will be able to eat ice cream, and I will be able to do so in a hopeful manner." Given that meaning, it's a bit odd that the adverb is preposed, but stranger things exist in print.
Unfortunately, there's one little problem: That's not what the sentence means. Instead, "hopefully" functions as an optative marker. In plain English (man, there's an expression, if I've ever heard one!), what this means is that the word "hopefully" is there solely to indicate to the reader or listener that the content of the sentence is something that has not happened yet, but which the speaker wishes to happen. Some languages (Ancient Greek among them) encode this grammatically. English, though, at some point in time decided to borrow the word "hopefully" to fulfill the purpose, and it's done a fine job ever since.
"N-now, just wait a minute, there!" cries Jesse K. Prescriptivist. "That's not what the word means! You can't do that!"
Jesse K., I gots two words for you: BOOOO HOOOO! Or, to put that in 1337: qq moar n00b.
Let's examine the "logic" of the prescriptivist's argument. "Everyone says x to mean y, but they ought not, because it means x." Everyone, you say—even you? (I bet you do.) If that's the case, by what authority can you claim that x means x and not y? The response is simple enough: "It used to mean x, and we have documented proof that it did."
Okie doke. Let's go with that. For fun, let's take a look at another function adverb: "already." Its etymology is pretty darn clear: it's a combination of the words "all" and "ready". In fact, you can see it acting as it ought in a sentence like, "Are you all ready?" (In this sentence, the subject is addressing multiple people.) Somehow or other, though, the two words got jammed together—respelled, too (they complain about "alright", but not about "already". Why, I wonder...?)—and the meaning was "corrupted", so that now it's used as a kind of emphatic completive marker (if you say "I ate", surely it means that the action was completed some time in the past, but it simply doesn't carry the force of "I ate already").
I don't see any grammarians claiming that "already" is an abomination any longer. Why? Presumably because its innovation predated their existence. Is that, then, the prerequisite for acceptance? Clearly the history of "they" being used as a singular third person pronoun contradicts this, but we'll stick with it for now.
Logically, then, there's but one thing to do: Wait for everyone who's bothered by the optative usage of "hopefully" to die, and then we'll have no more bother. If you're a student, use "hopefully" to your heart's content. If your teacher gives you trouble, send them here. If they still give you trouble, find a new class. Certain things you simply do not need.
But let's back up a moment. Just how on Earth did "hopefully" come to be used as an optative marker, anyway?
What the grammarian probably did not notice in reading this write-up is that I've committed the exact same "error" with words other than "hopefully" several times already. Do a search for the word "unfortunately", for example. Just what's up with that? "Fortune" is chance; "fortunate" is an adjective used with a noun that has benefited by chance; "unfortunate" is the opposite (someone who's been afflicted by bad luck, let's say); "unfortunately", then, is someone who has acted in a manner that can be characterized as unfortunate. If you take a look at that sentence, whose action is being characterized as unfortunate? No one's? Then why is that sentence fine and a sentence beginning with "hopefully" wrong?
And it doesn't end there. Consider: "Sadly, there is no more ice cream to be had."
Or, "Happily, there's an ice cream parlor just around the corner."
Or, "Malheureusement, je ne sais pas le mot française pour 'ice cream'."
What's going on here? Even the French betray "common sense"?!
Of course, that's not what's happening. What is happening is a process common to human languages everywhere. Specifically, an adverb's meaning is being extended metaphorically to convey the attitude of the speaker. You might think of each adverb as modifying the phrase, "I say", in which case "hopefully" fits right in (think about it: "I say hopefully that I'll be able to eat ice cream tomorrow"). Rarely does a speaker explicitly inform the hearer that they are in the process of speaking, though, so what the adverb modifies is an idea.
To put it bluntly, not only does complaining about the "misuse" of "hopefully" betray a general lack of understanding as to the nature of language, it is, to use the most insulting term available to an academic, misguided. Hopefully the grammarians of the world will come to understand this, but I'm not holding my breath.
If the use of "hopefully" as an optative marker saddens you, though, I sympathize. After all, there are tons of English speakers running around right now pronouncing "important" as if it were spelled "impordant" (it's like nails on a chalkboard to me). But what is one to do? Innovations occur everyday in every language. Some innovations are quashed early on; some are picked up and become features of the language. One can try to predict what will catch on, or even serve as a guide, but ultimately, it's out of our hands. If you're feeling down, though, I recommend Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right. In Bierce, not only will you find a true prescriptivist (and a brilliant writer), but you'll find someone who will criticize your own English (yes, even modern day "grammarians")! Did you know that "obnoxious" doesn't mean "annoying"? Or that one ought not say "as for me" but "as to me"? No? Then go read Write It Right right away! You'll either be horrified at how your own English has been corrupted, or you'll come away with a better sense of just how language evolution works.
(P.S.: Speaking of errors, Kornbluth, I was reading your article here, and was shocked to learn that J.D. Salinger had apparently written a short story I'd never read which shared a title with his 1961 novel Franny and Zooey! I was about to turn to Google to find out more, when I read on and saw that I was mistaken, and that, instead, you simply failed to correctly punctuate the title. Imagine my dismay! In case you hadn't learned this one yet, the titles of shorter works [like short stories] are enclosed in quotation marks; the titles of longer works [like Salinger's novel] are underlined [though thanks to the lazy newspaper industry, italics are also acceptable]. Whoa, hey, did you hear that? That was the sound of you getting OWNED. That one was free. The rest will cost you.)
Categories: | 6 / 10 / 2009 |
|
Error ID Number: 40
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=40> Problem(s):- In the book Great Ice Cream Flavors, lists just about every fantastic flavor you can imagine.
Solution(s):- In the book Great Ice Cream Flavors, the author lists just about every fantastic flavor you can imagine.
- In the book Great Ice Cream Flavors, there is a list of just about every fantastic flavor you can imagine.
- The book Great Ice Cream Flavors lists just about every fantastic flavor you can imagine.
Explanation:- I see this error a lot, and I think it has to do with working memory. The brain is much faster than the fingers, and, in certain cases, it's even faster than the brain—that is, whatever part of the brain actually comes up with stuff is faster and stronger than working memory.
Consider the problem sentence below:
In the book Great Ice Cream Flavors, lists just about every fantastic flavor you can imagine.
If you leave out the first word of the sentence (and ignore the problematic comma. I included it because I see the comma more often than not), you get a grammatical sentence:
The book Great Ice Cream Flavors lists just about every fantastic flavor you can imagine.
Considering that we compose sentences in linear time, we type the first word, then the second, then the third, etc. Thus, each word we type is fresher in our mind. The more we type, the easier it is to forget the earliest words we composed. As a result, it's easy, in the problem sentence, to forget about the "in". Once you do that, you kind of just proceed with the sentence as grammatically as possible.
The best way to fix these is simply to proofread. When you read over your writing, you don't have to worry about composition, so your attention is focused purely on wording. In theory. (Hopefully?)
Categories: | 3 / 6 / 2008 |
|
Error ID Number: 42
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=42> Problem(s):- Is the tightrope walker that stole my ice cream!
Solution(s):- It's the tightrope walker that stole my ice cream!
Explanation:- (Let's pretend I've already been writing for awhile.)
...and to make matters worse, "it's" even kind of sounds like "is", if you devoice the "s" in "is"! I mean, what is one to do?!
For those learning English as a second (or third or fourth) language, you may find something like the solution sentence above—something which comes so naturally to a native English speaker—to be rather perplexing. Allow me to reassure you: it is, indeed, bizarre. Here's the story.
Linguists (wrongly) assumed for many years that all well-formed sentences in all languages required subjects. In a sentence like, "Estoy ocupado", Spanish for "I'm busy", then, there is an implied subject. Never mind that "Yo estoy ocupado" doesn't mean the same thing as "Estoy ocupado": the linguists always know what's best. Why? Because (and this was especially true in the 1950's and 1960's) linguists reasoned that there was a magical thing in our heads called Universal Grammar (important enough to be capitalized). This magical device, identical in all human beings, is what we use to comprehend and produce language. As a result, the actual languages we encounter (Spanish, English, French, Tamil, Georgian, Moro, etc.) are mere manifestations of the underlying mechanism known as Universal Grammar.
Here's what that has to do with anything (this response presupposes I specific question I hope you asked yourself). If (get ready for this) all humans possess Universal Grammar, and all languages are mere manifestations of it, then the goal of the linguist is to describe Universal Grammar. How do you do that? Well, since it's all the same, you can just study one language thoroughly, and you should get there. The result? Linguists pretty much just studied English. It's the fanciest argument I have ever heard for being lazy. And though this attitude no longer prevails, we're left with its remnants.
So here's one of the major reasons linguists thought all sentences in all languages need subjects (this was the question I was supposed to be answering, right?). In English, all sentences need subjects. (Except for those that don't, but those need not concern us presently.) Seems sensible. Or does it?!
- It's so good of you to drop by.
- There's room for you here.
- It's cold outside.
- It's raining.
What the hell is raining?! The sky?! Unbelievable!
So, what is this subject doing? Nothing. What does it mean? Nothing. What is the pronoun standing in for? Nothing. This thing is devoid of semantics. Linguists have a word for it: expletive. The "it" in those sentences up there is an expletive (a strange word to use, considering how we use the word in normal speech). In English, we need that "it". Why? I don't know. To hold the tense? Consider that the verb in English, impoverished though it may be, must agree with its subject in number in the present tense (and certain verbs in the past). If there's no subject, what does it agree with? You have to have something there to tell it what to do, or it's lost! And since "it" does so much anyway (cf. "About my going to your grandmother's surprise party, it's something I just can't do" [it = going to your grandmother's surprise party]), might as well have it explete, right? (No, that's not a real word.)
So here's what to keep in mind:
- All English sentences need a subject.
- If you don't have one, you'll need an expletive subject.
- If you devoice the "s" in "is", the first word of a sentence that starts with "is" instead of "it's" sounds an awful like like the Spanish word "es". Consider the Spanish translation of our problem sentence: "Es el funámbulo que me robó el helado." (Yes, I created the above problem sentence just so I could use the word "funámbulo".)
If you're learning English (and especially if you have a language like Spanish, whose verbs are mighty, as your first language), you'll want to watch out for this. It won't prevent anyone from understanding you're writing (as I mentioned above, these expletives are contentless), but it will make you sound like a non-native speaker. If this is something you wish to avoid, then start getting down with expletives. It's just good clean fun.
Categories: | 3 / 14 / 2008 |
|
Error ID Number: 13
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=13> Problem(s):- Its like you don't even know it's true identity!
Solution(s):- It's like you don't even know its true identity!
Explanation:- "It's" and "its" remain a troublesome pair. The rule is simple enough. When you want to write a contraction of "it is", "it was", or have to add a possessive "'s" to the end of a noun phrase that happens to end with "it" (example: "Regarding the sandwich, the man I saw while eating it's daughter is here." And, yes, that sentence should strike you as very bizarre), you use "it's", with the apostrophe. When you're using the simple genitival form of the pronoun "it", you use "its". Writing "it's" for that one is comparable to writing "hi's" or "her's" for "his" and "hers".
Even though one can learn and understand this rule, for some reason, we sometimes type "it's" when we mean "its" and "its" when we mean "it's". It's purely a typo. The two sound identical, so it's easy to slip up. Spellcheck won't get this, so you'll just have to read over what you've written and trust (hope?) you find every instance of an aberrant "its" (or "it's"). Fun.
Categories: | 3 / 10 / 2007 |
|
Error ID Number: 31
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=31> Problem(s):- Majority of people like ice cream.
Solution(s):- The majority of people like ice cream.
Explanation:- This is what I call a "speakism". Sometimes when we say the solution sentence, the "the" gets swallowed, and the first word you can clearly make out is "majority". If one hears this enough, one might begin to think the "the" is superfluous, and leave it out in writing. We have not yet reached a time where that is the case, I'm afraid. In writing, do not omit the "the" unless you're writing dialogue and wish your character to sound like they're swallowing their "the"'s.
Categories: | 12 / 8 / 2007 |
|
