| Error |
Date Added |
Error ID Number: 62
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=62> Problem(s):- I just found out how to make ice cream on the Internet!
Solution(s):- I just found out how to make ice cream on the internet!
Explanation:- Ignoring the ambiguity of that problem sentence, most dictionaries and style guides will tell you to capitalize the word "internet". Always.
And they're serious!
I don't know when the stylistas went insane, but it was some time before they decided that the word "internet" was as important as our first person singular pronoun.
For their sake, let us review the case for the capitalization of "internet".
One ought always to capitalize a proper noun. Is "internet" a proper noun? No.
Every so often, place names that are not proper nouns are capitalized as if they were. The word "Capitol" comes to mind. But before we get into a discussion about whether the internet is important enough of a place to be capitalized, is the internet a place? No.
We're rapidly running out of possibilities... Uhh, let's see... Single-letter abbreviations are capitalized (so M.D. is capitalized, but the "grad." in "grad. student" isn't). Is "internet" a single-letter abbreviation? No.
Hmm... Acronyms are generally capitalized. Is "internet" an acronym? Hmm... "Information Network to Expedite Really Neat Electronic...Treatises"? No.
Is "internet" the name of a country, like the Netherlands? Nope.
Okay. So what's the deal? Why is this word capitalized? Frankly, I find it disturbing. Capitalizing the word "internet" is precisely the type of thing that George Orwell would want to warn us against. The internet is not a person! It's not even a place! As I understand it, it's a series of tubes that...can get clogged, and make it so your e-mails don't arrive when you think they ought...
Seriously, the "internet" is nothing more than a series of servers around the world connected by wires (or now wirelessly, making the connection even more tenuous). If the internet is a place, then so is the telephone grid, or the mail system. We don't capitalize those, though.
So, if you're capitalizing the word internet, I ask you—I beg you, from the bottom of my heart: Stop it! Just stop it! There's no point to it! It's nonsense! Whenever I see the word "internet" capitalized, I feel like strangling myself with a live cobra. (That's one of the many reasons why I don't read The New Yorker anymore.)
I'm not too worried, though. Capitalizing "internet" takes a lot more effort than not capitalizing it. Seeing as it's also unnecessary, I bet the practice will have disappeared in about fifty years. In the meantime, I'll be waiting. And watching. On the internet!
Categories: | 6 / 10 / 2009 |
|
Error ID Number: 59
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=59> Problem(s):- The permanent closure of my local ice cream parlor caused me to wreck havoc on the city.
- The permanent closure of my local ice cream parlor caused me to reek havoc on the city.
Solution(s):- The permanent closure of my local ice cream parlor caused me to wreak havoc on the city.
Explanation:- One letter can make a world of difference. Take our first problem sentence above. If we want to be technical, what that sentence actually conveys is something like the following: In my town, there was a local ice cream parlor that was closed. Its closure made me so upset, that I located havoc—the entity, here apparently anthropomorphized—and I beat the living tar out of it. Furthermore, I did this while standing on top of the city. (Oh, though if we wanted to change the punctuation, what I could be wrecking is the new hit TV show Havoc on the City!)
If we then take a look at problem sentence number two, we're in for even more fun. In this scenario, the ice cream parlor's closure made me so upset that I decided to utilize my mighty stink glands to stink up havoc (again, the allegorical entity), and I did so while standing on top of the city. (I should note, though, that even this interpretation is problematic, as it would force us to accept a new variant of "reek": a transitive verb meaning "to cause to reek".)
The specific errors here differ, but the source is the same. Both "wreck" and "reek" are common words. "Wreak", on the other hand, is far, far from common. In fact, I'm pretty sure the word "wreak" only occurs in the phrase "wreak havoc" (this expression, by the way, is a fun one since "havoc" is pretty rare itself, unless you're a fan of the X-Men [though even there, his name is properly spelled "Havok"]). As a result, if you've heard it for the first time, or have never seen it in print, it seems reasonable to infer that the word "wreak" is either actually "reek", used in some odd way you haven't encountered previously, or that you misheard, and the word is actually "wreck".
This latter interpretation is ingenious, in my opinion, because it plays on the context in which the word "wreak" is used. If a speaker uses the phrase "wreak havoc", the context is probably negative (defined in the simplest way, to "wreak havoc" is to do something bad). Similarly, the verb "wreck", defined simply, is to do something bad to something else. Since the semantic domain of both words is the same, and since the phonological forms are similar, it's perfectly logical (or, perhaps, analogical) to assume that "wreak havoc" is actually "wreck havoc", and that the meaning of "wreck" has been extended metaphorically to cover a situation that focuses on the act of wrecking something. The syntax of the verb, of course, has to be modified to allow for a direct object that itself isn't "wrecked" (unless "wreak havoc" is interpreted as a phrase similar to "kick the bucket"), but given that words are used in such bizarre ways in English already, no English speaker can be blamed for making such an assumption.
Back to real world English, the status of this error, though, is that it is an error, and it's not accepted even in non-standard writing. It will happen from time to time, of course, but just as we can't get away with writing "all intensive purposes", so are we unable to get away with writing "wreck havoc". As with other expressions, this is simply one to memorize, just as one must memorize that the word for "duck" is "duck" and not "cordoofle".
Categories: | 6 / 1 / 2009 |
|
Error ID Number: 58
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=58> Problem(s):- So far, those efforts have not born fruit.
Solution(s):- So far, those efforts have not borne fruit.
Explanation:- In the latest installment of my ongoing series "It Can Happen to Anyone", I bring to you the problem sentence above, written by a reporter from Reuters. I found it today (that is, the date listed above) in an article about the release of U.S.-Iranian reporter Roxana Saberi. So, hey, if it can happen to a reporter that works for Reuters, it can happen to anyone!
This particular error involves one of those little-used irregular verbs "to bear". To conjugate "bear" properly, one writes "bear" in the present, "bore" in the past", and "borne" in the compound past tenses ("has borne", "had borne", etc.). The latter is a homonym of the much more common "born", and the meaning is related (I'm sure the words are related, as well), so it's no wonder that a writer would slip up and write "born" when they meant "borne".
At this point in time, though, I would say that "born" is not an acceptable replacement for "borne". It may be one day, but that day has yet to come, in my opinion. Most of the time the word "borne" is used in fixed expressions, though, so if you simply learn them by rote, you'll avoid slip-ups. In fact, when it comes to English spelling, I think it'd be helpful to learn everything by rote. The rules and generalizations that exist simply aren't useful enough to warrant learning the whole mess as a system as opposed to a series of unfortunate accidents.
Categories: | 5 / 28 / 2009 |
|
Error ID Number: 57
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=57> Problem(s):- I defiantly think we should go get ourselves some ice cream.
Solution(s):- I definitely think we should go get ourselves some ice cream.
Explanation:- I see this one again and again, and I often wonder why. Well, no, that's not quite true. Really what I wonder is what the world would be like if the writer actually intended to use "defiantly". Take our problem sentence. In the terrible world that sentence presupposes, not only is it apparently a crime to go get ice cream, but it's considered inappropriate—treasonous, if you will—to even opine that anyone should go get ice cream. Thus, in suggesting that the group get ice cream, the speaker is engaging in an act of defiance.
I suspect that what might be happening here is writers are misspelling "definitely" as "definately", or perhaps "definatly", and the word processing program they're using, trying to make sense of what's been typed, suggests "defiantly". Without thinking, the writer approves the change (or perhaps the program sneakily changes it for them), and thus "defiantly" defiantly strong-arms its way into whatever's being written.
This is one of the problems with smart technology. The writer must be smart enough to figure out how the program is going to use its smarts in a silly way, and then must take measures to prevent its smarts getting in the way of readability. For even though anyone reading the problem sentence above will likely figure out what the writer intended, the comical imagery the error conjures up in the mind of the reader is something that one will likely want to avoid in academic and formal contexts.
Categories: | 4 / 20 / 2009 |
|
Error ID Number: 55
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=55> Problem(s):- Our fathers commemorated the Massacre of the fifth of March, 1770, till that dark hour was lost in the blaze of the fourth day of July, 1776, and the events which followed it.
Solution(s):- Our fathers commemorated the Massacre of the fifth of March, 1770, 'til that dark hour was lost in the blaze of the fourth day of July, 1776, and the events which followed it.
- Our fathers commemorated the Massacre of the fifth of March, 1770, until that dark hour was lost in the blaze of the fourth day of July, 1776, and the events which followed it.
Explanation:- Ordinarily, my problem sentences involve ice cream, but this one I took from an actual publication I saw in Boston. This came from a paper on display in the Boston Public Library devoted to the papers of early female abolitionists. This particular paper was published on April 9th, 1852 in Boston, and is in remarkably good condition.
Regarding the error, you may have seen the spelling "till" for the abbreviation of the word "until" marked wrong by teachers, mavens and gadabouts. I myself thought that I had been mistaken in my use of "till" for "until" when I realized that it wasn't being marked as incorrect by the spellchecker because it's spelled the same as the verb "till" (e.g. "to till soil"). It may indeed be the case that the only appropriate way to spell the abbreviation of "until" is "'til", with one ell and an apostrophe.
That aside, though, I've put this sentence here as proof that not only does the variant "till" for abbreviated "until" exist in print, but it's far from new. Indeed, if it was commonly accepted in 1852, that means it's been around for well over a hundred years (and if you think I'm making this up, I took photos with my iPhone as proof, one of which can be viewed by clicking here). So, if we err, then we err in good company, so if you want my advice, feel free to "till" till the cows come home!
(Ooh, this just in! An alert reader has pointed out that "till" existed as an independent preposition before "until", and that the latter was a derived form not unlike "unto". I did some digging, and I guess the spellings "till" and "til" were both acceptable if you go way, way back. Now, it seems "til" is unacceptable, as is the odd "'till", but everything else goes!)
Categories: | 4 / 14 / 2009 |
|
Error ID Number: 54
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=54> Problem(s):- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my driver license?
- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my drivers license?
- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my drivers' license?
- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my driver licence?
- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my drivers licence?
- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my drivers' licence?
- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my driver's' liscensce'?
Solution(s):- Why doesn't it list my favorite flavor of ice cream on my driver's license?
Explanation:- Many have trouble even saying this one, let alone writing it. So, how does it work? First, unless, you're British, it's "license": one c, one s. Don't like it? Move to Britain. Then you can spell it licence all you want (and defence, etc.). Alternatively, you can start speaking with a British accent, and spelling "color" colour, calling the subway the tube, and eating fish and chips, bangers and mash and shepherd's pie. Be wary of talking to anyone who might actually be from Britain, though, because they'll probably find you out and expose you. If you find yourself in a situation that would force you to either reveal your identity or speak phony British English to a Brit, I strongly recommend you rely on your ninja school training to escape. What's that? You didn't go to ninja school?! Well, then. I guess you'd better start spelling it "license" straight away, hadn't you?
Of course, the major problem people have is usually with the first part: the driver. If you take a step back and think of this as a phrase rather than a compound, I think you'll see why the solution sentence above is correct:
Heather is a driver.
All drivers need licenses.
Therefore, Heather needs a driver's license.
That is, a license needed by a driver. Ta da!
If you're confused, though, don't feel bad, by any means. If Wikipedia can be trusted (and I think we all know the answer to that), apparently the official term used in the United States is (drumroll please!): "driver license." Ha! What a hoot! The "official" term is something that almost none of us ever say. Oh well. That's the government for you.
If you're ever in a bind, remember: a license is something that must be owned or obtained by a driver in order for them to drive. As for whether it should be "driver's" or "drivers'", well, if many drivers need licenses, then it stands to reason that a single driver needs a license, right?
This brings up the issue of pluralization. I've often seen plurals such as "drivers' licenses", or "drivers licenses", "driver's license's", "driver license's", "drivers' licenses'", and any combination of the preceding. This one shouldn't cause trouble as long as you remember what the noun is: license! The whole "driver's" part is just extra information, and doesn't need to change.
I can certainly understand why one would resort to one of these odd pluralization strategies (it's the influence of that naughty 's at the end of "driver's"! It's always up to no good!), but if you're in a spot, remember: You're bigger than the English language. You own it. You create it on a daily basis! It does what you say, not the other way around! You shouldn't be afraid of the English language: It should be afraid of you! So if it tries to confuse you with its tricksy apostrophes, hyphens and esses, you just grab it by the shoulders, and say, "Hey, buddy! You're my language!" You show it who's boss! Don't you take no guff from no language! It has to answer to us, not the other way around!
Categories: | 1 / 10 / 2009 |
|
Error ID Number: 48
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=48> Problem(s):- The court agreed with Roe that the statue was vague and violated her right of privacy under the ninth and fourteenth amendments.
Solution(s):- The court agreed with Roe that the statute was vague and violated her right of privacy under the ninth and fourteenth amendments.
Explanation:- It's rare that I'll add a problem sentence that doesn't involve ice cream—let alone a real example—but this one was just too unintentionally amusing. This sentence was in a paper submitted to me on abortion. The thing that amuses me is the vague statue that violated Roe's right to privacy. I imagine it was probably something by Henry Moore peeking its head into the young woman's boudoir...
Anyway, this example illustrates two important points I want to comment on. First, spellcheck will not catch every typo. Sure, it'll flag it if you type "jugde" or "trhough" or "teh" (though that last one not for long, I'll bet), but notice that here the author misspelled "statute" without the last "t", giving us the correctly spelled word "statue". Spellcheck is a fantastic machine, but it can't pick up on your intentions (if it could, we might not need writers any longer. I bet Calvino would go for that). So, what to do? Proofread. Even better, get someone else to proofread—that's the best. Why? First, if you made an error that you're not sure about, you're not going to catch it, so there your eyes won't be any help. Second, an outside reader will be seeing your text for the first time, and will give it the proper attention. When you read over something you've written, you get bored, if you're like me. After all, I know what I wrote; why would I want to read it again?! Plus, you're likely to just gloss over the mistakes, since you know what you intended to write, and you don't need to read every word to get it. An outside reader, of course, will need to read every word.
The second point is about typing. Typos are different from misspellings. If you type "disenfranchisement" as "disinfranchisement", and upon reviewing it you don't know what the error is, then, yes, you've misspelled a word. But if you type, "Yesterday, I went to teh store", does anyone really think you don't know how "the" is supposed to be spelled—a word you've typed literally more than a billion times (probably; think about it)? No, of course not. It'd be absurd to think that. So why do you think we still make the error? After all, everyone does it. There's not some magic age we reach where we suddenly stop typing "teh" on accident every once in awhile. So what's the reason?
Consider this: Provided you're not dyslexic, would you ever handwrite "teh"? Have you ever? I certainly can never remember doing that. I mean, think of cursive. You'd have to try to write "teh"; no accident would ever produce it. Yet it happens in typing all the time. Why? Because typing is a mechanical procedure that relies on finger dexterity. With handwriting, you just need to know how to form the letters, and what order the letters come in. With typing, you need to, first, have the keyboard memorized (unless you want to take forever to type anything), and then you need to trust that your brain is going to send the signals to the correct fingers in the correct order, and do so extremely fast. Plus, we're not talking about our money fingers, the index and the middle; oh, no: all four fingers, even lazy ring and hopeless pinky, have to get in on the action. Plus—and this is by far the best part—the job is split between two different hands! Never mind that most of the world is right-handed; the heavy-hitters of the English orthography "a", "e", "t", "r" and "s" are all on the left-hand side of the keyboard. What genius thought that up?! Just think about "the": That's left-hand index; right-hand index; and left-hand middle. Left-right-left? Is it any wonder that we sometimes slip up and do both the left-hand letters first, it being our uncoordinated hand? And if we'll admit that, shouldn't it be shocking to ever produce an entire 2,000 word text without a single error?! Shouldn't that be the odd occurrence, and not the typo?
Armed with this information, remember: the typo is a mechanico-muscular error. It's not like a misspelling; you needn't be ashamed (though even with a misspelling, I mean, come on: the English orthography looks like it was designed by a moron with a blindfold). Accept the fact that as long as typewritten text is our main means of communication (because, let's face it, that's what it is nowadays), there will be typos: by you and everyone. We try to minimize them, but they will always crop up, because of the peculiarities of the system we've developed. So, whenever you type anything, expect typos, and try to look out for them. Furthermore, let's help each other out. This isn't a test: if someone produces a typo, let them know. It's just like someone who comes out of the bathroom with toilet paper on their shoe. Yes, it's embarrassing, so the afflicted will want to know, but there's no reason to be a jerk about it. Who likes the person who makes fun of someone with toilet paper attached to their shoe? There's a word for that type of person: bully. You'll encounter typo bullies in your day-to-day life, but don't sweat them: they're not human. If you want to help them out, send them here, and I'll set them straight.
Categories: | 5 / 27 / 2008 |
|
Error ID Number: 47
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=47> Problem(s):- Imagine it: an ice cream parlor in every home. Idyllic? Perhaps. Worthwhile? Without question.
Solution(s):- Imagine it: an ice cream parlor in every home. Idealistic? Perhaps. Worthwhile? Without question.
Explanation:- Yours truly has been guilty of this one in the past (read that aloud: it's probably still true). We have the word "ideal", and one is bound to hear the word "idyllic", and so it's natural to think (if one doesn't see the spelling) that the latter is related to the former. Such, however, is not the case.
The word "idyll" refers to a type of poetry (or, originally it did). An idyll is a kind of pastoral poem, talking about peasant folk out in the fields, tall grass, shrubbery, etc. (think William Wordsworth). To describe this type of a poem, one uses the word "idyllic". The poems are always positive (or at least the ones I've read), talking about how the peasants out there in the fields are so much better than cityfolk like us, because they're closer to the land, it's peaceful, with a tranquil landscape, etc. (Dang... Two etceteras...) As such, the word "idyllic" was extended to describe a pastoral landscape. So, if you head out to a field of wheat, and the weather's mild, and there's a breeze blowing, and there's no one around, and it's quiet, and you can hear nothing but nature, it'd be okay to call that scene idyllic. That this was an ideal setting for some is what I think led to problems.
So now we have the sense out there that one definition (or, perhaps, the definition) of "idyllic" is "referring to lofty ideals", so that someone who gives an inspiring speech can be referred to as idyllic. Thus they relate, erring. In fact, the word "idyllic" is just a specialized term that worked its way out into the world of general discourse simply because it sounds like it could be an adjectival form of "ideal". Alas, would that it were so!
Since it is not so, I recommend you leave "idyllic" for Wordsworth, no matter how fancy it sounds, and stick with "idealistic".
Categories: | 5 / 6 / 2008 |
|
Error ID Number: 46
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=46> Problem(s):- This data is hard to interpret.
Solution(s):- These data are hard to interpret.
- This datum is hard to interpret.
Explanation:- In Proper World, "data" is the plural of "datum". If you live in Proper World, saying, "The data is…" is just as bad as saying, "The dogs is..." While not all of us live in Proper World, enough of us still live there that one can't help but interact with a Proper Worldian every now and again. As such, it's probably a good idea to be aware of this rule—especially when writing. If you want to be safe, always treat "data" as a plural noun. If you want to live recklessly, try to command both rules, and see if you can ferret out the Proper Worldians. I warn you, though: they're hard to identify. They don't wear badges anymore, or even speak with British accents. A Proper Worldian may pop up anywhere, and at any time—even in your own hometown!
Realistically, the word "data" is so often characterized and thought of as a mass noun, that sooner or later, the word "datum" is going to vanish, and the word will probably end up being treated like a singular mass noun (e.g., "grass"), and not a plural count noun (e.g., "dog"). Even Proper Worldians have to admit that referring to, say, an elicited sentence as a "datum" is awfully stilted and silly. And ask yourself this: Say you have two elicited sentences you wish to refer to. Would you say, "Look at these two data"? Would you?! "How many data do you have, Professor Jones?" "Three, Professor Bones." Three indeed!
If you want my real prediction, I bet the word is going to split up. You'll still have to (or at least be able to) say "these data are", but "datum" may go the way of the dodo, and instead of saying something like "two data", you'll probably have to say, "two pieces of data". It'll happen, and no one will care that the word came from Latin. Then what? I suppose the world will spin off its axis, and we'll all fly into the sun. Let the good times roll!
Categories: | 4 / 1 / 2008 |
|
Error ID Number: 45
URL: <http://dedalvs.com/guide/search_english.php?word=45> Problem(s):- How many fish eat ice cream?
Solution(s):- How many fishes eat ice cream?
Explanation:- Many have asked the question: is it "fishes" or "fish"? Here's the answer: there is no correct answer. Which is more likely? Google Fight can tell you that: "many fish." Hands down, in fact. It kills "many fishes". But does that make "many fishes" wrong? Not necessarily. After all, whatever machine spellchecks for me doesn't have a problem with "fishes", and generally spell-checking machines are conservative. Further, we've all heard "fishes", and may have even used "fishes" at one time or another. So even though "fish" is (currently) the most popular plural, why is "fishes" still around? Here's my guess.
The whole reason we have "fish" as a plural (same with "deer" and "buffalo") is that we, traditionally, have seen fish as a kind of mass, rather than a collection of individual entities, like "rice" and "seaweed", as opposed to "dogs". (Can you imagine saying, "How many dog are there in North America?") It harkens back to the days of treating fish like vegetation. Think about all the people that are so-called "fish vegetarians": they won't eat mammals or birds, because they have character. Fish, on the other hand... I've even heard people argue that cows and chickens have souls, but fish and shrimp don't! The idea is still out there, whether we consciously acknowledge it or not, and so we have this mass plural for "fish".
So why "fishes"? There are several factors to consider. First, it's common. The easiest plural in English is to add "-(e)s", so it shouldn't surprise us to find a word that pluralizes that way. Second, we have, to an extent, domesticated fish. They'll never be like dogs, since we can't pet them, but there are people (myself included) who have, at one time or another, owned one or more fish. The more interaction we have with fish, the more likely it is that we'll baulk at treating them as an undifferentiated mass. Finally, even for those that refuse the plural "fishes", there is an instance where you would use it. Goldfish are a type of fish, as are tuna, albacore, mahimahi, trout, cod, etc. These are different types of fish (or fishes). If you want to refer to a type of fish, you can refer to it as "a fish" (e.g., "What is trout?", "It is a fish."). Now let's say you're talking about the Pacific Ocean. Using our new "fish" as "type of fish" word, the appropriate way to ask about the Pacific Ocean is, "Which fishes are found in the Pacific Ocean?", or even, "What types of fishes are found in the Pacific Ocean?", just as one would ask, "Which grasses grow in Africa?"
Since I brought up "grasses", there's one more important fact that keeps "fishes" on the map: a singular fish is an individual entity. What is a grass? It's made up of blades of grass. With "grass", there's further individuation to be done; with fish, this is not the case. As a result, the plural "fishes" will always be valid, and one will always be able to argue for it (provided, of course, that it doesn't disappear completely), whereas "grass" will always be "grass".
So, there you have it! If you're typing up a document whose users are persnickety, your safest bet is "fish" (though it might not always be the one people prefer), but there will always be a place for "fishes".
Categories: | 3 / 24 / 2008 |
|
