I often use the phrase "hone in" when I am referring to increasing my focus (or another person's focus) on a task. However, I learned today that the correct phrase is actually "home in." The phrase originated in the early 20th century as a reference to what homing pigeons do. As technology progressed and wars began, aircrafts and missiles also contributed to the phrase's spread in mainstream culture.
Garner's Modern English Usage asserts that the phrase changed because some writers began using the wrong verb, hone, instead of home. Today, the battle between hone in and home in is almost complete. Garner's Language Change Index lists hone/home in as a Stage 4 change. This means the form is virtually universal, but die-hard "snoots" are still working to fight against it.
When we communicate, we don't always think about the words that we use. From the section "Articles as Nouns," I learned how there are many words we use as nouns that are supposed to be adjectives (417). An example given was the word "indigent." In the 15th century it was an adjective, but it changed to be used as a noun in the 16th century. Some modern examples are finals, as in final examinations, and classifieds, as in classified advertisements. I am guilty of using finals in a sentence when referring to finals week. I have mentioned taking finals, but it was originally stated to be an adjective detailing them as "final examinations." I think at some point we have all been guilty of using adjectives as nouns, but we were unaware.
Garner mentions that even though words have recently been under semantic changes, most words are unsuitable for formal contexts. One commentator even asked, "Can't we at least use correct English?" I am reminded of the snoot from David Foster Wallace's article who makes sure the most proper form of Standard Written English is used. This section made me examine what words I use as nouns in sentences when they should really be used as adjectives.
I never really think of just how relative much of our language is. I opened the book to the page corresponding with where my name would be located and chose the closest interesting looking thing I could. I wound up with the difference between "collectible" and "collectable" and their relative correctness in relation to how the word is being used. Even now, my computer is telling me that "collectable" is incorrect and needs to be changed to end in -ible. However, Collectible has a more adjectival use, according to Garner. Neither spelling is inherently "incorrect," but by common use ratios, "collectible" is more used in the descriptive nature. For example, "highly collectible." As an adjective, "collectible" is the 2 in a 2:1 ratio vs "collectable." As a noun, "collectible" is more drastically popular. Such as when someone seeks out a popular "collectible," the -ible ending has a much higher usage ratio of 12:1 as compared to its -able lacky. Though the -ible ending is clearly the most used in every way, Garner never states that "collectable" is an improper and absolutely wrong way of spelling the word. He shows that it is simply less common. However, he states that "collectable" has prevailed over "collectible" in BrE print sources since 1935 as an adjective. "Collectible" is predominant as a noun in both BrE and AmE. This just further exemplifies what we had talked about in class on Friday about how Garner isn't sitting there stating that there are absolutes in our language in every nook in cranny. A good amount, if not the majority, of our language is relative and subjective.
Looking through Garner's Modern English Usage, I found that some words have many meanings which are used to describe the overarching theme within the confines of a situational scenario. In some cases this is done properly, yet there are also plenty of examples in which words with multiple meanings are indistinguishable to regular people. Garner's had the technical terms for a lawyer which include attorney, counsel, and counselor. Reading deeper into the meanings of these words, I have found that a attorney would be considered to be a agent in the historical sense and that a lawyer is only considered an attorney when he/she has a client. The fascinating aspect of this would be that the details between the classifications are minute, yet people gloss over this and use the words interchangeably without any negative damage being done to the word.
While looking through the book I came across the difference between "talk to" and "talk with". I have always used them interchangeably never considering that they suggest different things. However, "talk to" suggests there is a difference in power or authority between people in the conversation, and "talk with" suggests that the people in the conversation are on equal ground. For example, my professors talk to me, but I talk with my classmates. It seems like a minor detail, but as the book states, "talk to" can imply a condescending tone. There are definitely situations where I do not want to come off as being condescending so it is nice to know that I should say, I would like to talk with you, not to you.
I opened to page 298, and was drawn to "don't think". Apparently, this phrasing has been deemed illogical, because, technically, you do think: you just doubt something that you are thinking. When I pondered the phrase myself, I did start to wonder why we say things like "I don't think I'll go" instead of saying "I doubt that I will go", or "I may not go". I had never given much thought to that phrase, and I definitely see how it doesn't make much sense to use it as much as we all do.
I learned that an imitation is an exact copy of something, or made to resemble something exactly. A forgery is a document that is made or altered in a way that harms someone or someone's rights. Before there was paper money, I learned, coins that were made of false metal(wood, other materials,etc.), were considered "counterfeit" and that was the difference between counterfeit and forgery. Then, when paper money was made, it was called counterfeit when it was fake.
While looking through Garners Modern English Usage I searched for a word that caught my attention at first glance. I came to a lot of pages and read through quite a few definitions before I, strangely, came across the word "homophobe". I almost chose not to do it because of its controversial nature, but once I started to read through it I found the answer to be quite interesting. Garner states that the saying the word "homophobe" to describe someone who is anti-gay doesn't actually make sense. Homo, in the Greek language, means "the same" therefore when we call someone a homophobe we are actually saying they have a fear of themselves. The actual term for homophobe would be "homosexualphobe", but saying "homophobe" is much quicker.
I learned a couple of things. First, I learned that the phrase "for sure" dates back to the 17th century! I thought that was super cool! I also learned that borborygmus is the word for intestinal rumbling caused by a gassy stomach.I learned that bandeau can also be a hairband, not just a tube top. Finally, I also learned that egregious used to mean outstanding, but it has come to mean "outstandingly bad."
My family uses the phrase "same difference" all the time. I do not like the phrase because it does not make any sense to me. I decided to look it up so I can teach my family what I learned. On page 806, the book states, "C. same difference. This phrase is an illogical AmE casualism that is to be avoided not only in writing but in speech as well. "It's all the same, "It's the same thing," etc. are better."
I found that this book in general is overwhelmingly useful. There are so many different areas in this book that cover useful information. One of the parts I enjoyed reading about the most was the usage of verbs. I learned about the different kinds of verbs such as helping verbs vs. verbs. I often forget that there are different types of verbs and forget how they all can be used. Sometimes it is tricky to understand how to identify the different kinds in specific sentences. With Garners help in this book it was easier to understand. Garner gives insight on the different types of verbs, how to identify them, and how they are used.
Due to it's sheer volume alone, one can automatically assume that Garner's Modern English Usage is full of useful information on all aspects of our language. As I began flipping through the pages, I realized I was correct in my assumption. Once reading around for a bit, I started to look around the glossary. I stumbled across a word I had never heard of in the 'G' section; gobbledygook. According to the text, gobbledygook was a term first coined by former member of Congress, Maury Maverick, who was a member of congress serving in FDR's wartime government. Goddbledygook is "complicated, pompous, and obscure verbiage particularly that used by governments, businesses, or professions" (p. 1006). Maverick claimed that his inspiration for the word came from the turkey who always strutting around gobbling, gobbling, gobbling. I gathered that gobbledygook language is jargon-covered, lengthy and overall hard to follow and understand. I see how gobbledygook could often be used by politicians! I thought this word was fun and it was interesting to understand what it really meant. I look forward to using this text more throughout this semester.
I learned what a "suffixoid" is. I previously did not know that suffix ending words that are not suffixes had a name. Quite interesting. I found this entry on page 1030 in the glossary.
I was very surprised to learn the word amuck has a variant which is amok. I have never seen or heard amok before today. This is most likely a regional issue, seeing as how he cites it being used in “The NY Times”. I was also very surprised to learn that amok and amuck are translations of a Malaysian word, mainly because I always assumed it was cowboy slang or something along those lines. On the whole, I have to say I'm already impressed with this dictionary.
I did not know exactly where to start when it came to finding interesting things in this book, so I just flipped through, reading until something caught my eye. I ended up reading about names. I found that a son, or daughter, is supposed to drop the 'Jr.' when his father dies. In that "Names are traditionally numbered only among the living" (614). So, if a man shares a name with both his living father and living grandfather, he is the III. But if the grandfather dies, the father becomes Sr. instead of Jr. and the grandson becomes Jr. instead of the III. If the father dies before the grandfather, the grandson retains the III title. Due to this rule it is technically impossible to have 'V', 'VI', and 'VII', though Garner jokes that modern medicine may come to that breakthrough soon. He also mentioned that Kings and Queens are exempt to this rule, as well as people whose predecessors were extremely famous (i.e. Hank Williams Jr. and Frank Sinatra Jr.).
The English language has always been a tricky one for me at times. For the longest time I struggled with the words affect and effect. Well today when I was looking through Garner's book I came across the words imminent and eminent and how those words were supposed to be used in a sentence. When you are using imminent in a sentence, it means certain or very near. Eminent, when used, is more like a hyperbole to mean "very". So you could say "He is eminently qualified to do the job at hand." or "He is in imminent danger." I really liked the way this book explained these two words. It seemed too easy almost.
While reading through the comments, I found it interesting how many people learned many of the everyday phrases they use have different meanings or contain different words than originally thought. Going off that, I figure it would be the more uncommon phrases often misused; however, as I flipped through the pages, I was surprised to find excuse me and pardon me thrown in that category. Presently, pardon me is a phrase really only used for offenses such as bumping into someone in the hall or walking through crowd in a crowded space. Excuse me is used for the same situations, as well as when someone needs something repeated or to keep a action from seeming impolite. Traditionally, however, pardon me was scarcely used and only in the most serious of offenses and excuse me was saved for informal occasions, as it was seen to be informal to use the latter. Sorry was believed to be an apology lacking remorse and seen as more informal than the use of excuse me.
I have always thought that the mannequin and mannikin were the same thing. But they are not. Mannequin is talking about the human-like models for displaying clothing, and mannikin is talking about the model showing anatomical parts of the human body, used in medical training. I just thought it was one universal word, and that they would not have different spellings. Then there is even a third spelling and meaning of the word. Manikin is a little man or a dwarf.
19 comments:
I often use the phrase "hone in" when I am referring to increasing my focus (or another person's focus) on a task. However, I learned today that the correct phrase is actually "home in." The phrase originated in the early 20th century as a reference to what homing pigeons do. As technology progressed and wars began, aircrafts and missiles also contributed to the phrase's spread in mainstream culture.
Garner's Modern English Usage asserts that the phrase changed because some writers began using the wrong verb, hone, instead of home. Today, the battle between hone in and home in is almost complete. Garner's Language Change Index lists hone/home in as a Stage 4 change. This means the form is virtually universal, but die-hard "snoots" are still working to fight against it.
When we communicate, we don't always think about the words that we use. From the section "Articles as Nouns," I learned how there are many words we use as nouns that are supposed to be adjectives (417). An example given was the word "indigent." In the 15th century it was an adjective, but it changed to be used as a noun in the 16th century. Some modern examples are finals, as in final examinations, and classifieds, as in classified advertisements. I am guilty of using finals in a sentence when referring to finals week. I have mentioned taking finals, but it was originally stated to be an adjective detailing them as "final examinations." I think at some point we have all been guilty of using adjectives as nouns, but we were unaware.
Garner mentions that even though words have recently been under semantic changes, most words are unsuitable for formal contexts. One commentator even asked, "Can't we at least use correct English?" I am reminded of the snoot from David Foster Wallace's article who makes sure the most proper form of Standard Written English is used. This section made me examine what words I use as nouns in sentences when they should really be used as adjectives.
I never really think of just how relative much of our language is. I opened the book to the page corresponding with where my name would be located and chose the closest interesting looking thing I could. I wound up with the difference between "collectible" and "collectable" and their relative correctness in relation to how the word is being used. Even now, my computer is telling me that "collectable" is incorrect and needs to be changed to end in -ible.
However, Collectible has a more adjectival use, according to Garner. Neither spelling is inherently "incorrect," but by common use ratios, "collectible" is more used in the descriptive nature. For example, "highly collectible." As an adjective, "collectible" is the 2 in a 2:1 ratio vs "collectable." As a noun, "collectible" is more drastically popular. Such as when someone seeks out a popular "collectible," the -ible ending has a much higher usage ratio of 12:1 as compared to its -able lacky.
Though the -ible ending is clearly the most used in every way, Garner never states that "collectable" is an improper and absolutely wrong way of spelling the word. He shows that it is simply less common. However, he states that "collectable" has prevailed over "collectible" in BrE print sources since 1935 as an adjective. "Collectible" is predominant as a noun in both BrE and AmE.
This just further exemplifies what we had talked about in class on Friday about how Garner isn't sitting there stating that there are absolutes in our language in every nook in cranny. A good amount, if not the majority, of our language is relative and subjective.
Looking through Garner's Modern English Usage, I found that some words have many meanings which are used to describe the overarching theme within the confines of a situational scenario. In some cases this is done properly, yet there are also plenty of examples in which words with multiple meanings are indistinguishable to regular people.
Garner's had the technical terms for a lawyer which include attorney, counsel, and counselor. Reading deeper into the meanings of these words, I have found that a attorney would be considered to be a agent in the historical sense and that a lawyer is only considered an attorney when he/she has a client. The fascinating aspect of this would be that the details between the classifications are minute, yet people gloss over this and use the words interchangeably without any negative damage being done to the word.
Signed,
Jared Larson
While looking through the book I came across the difference between "talk to" and "talk with". I have always used them interchangeably never considering that they suggest different things. However, "talk to" suggests there is a difference in power or authority between people in the conversation, and "talk with" suggests that the people in the conversation are on equal ground. For example, my professors talk to me, but I talk with my classmates. It seems like a minor detail, but as the book states, "talk to" can imply a condescending tone. There are definitely situations where I do not want to come off as being condescending so it is nice to know that I should say, I would like to talk with you, not to you.
I opened to page 298, and was drawn to "don't think". Apparently, this phrasing has been deemed illogical, because, technically, you do think: you just doubt something that you are thinking. When I pondered the phrase myself, I did start to wonder why we say things like "I don't think I'll go" instead of saying "I doubt that I will go", or "I may not go". I had never given much thought to that phrase, and I definitely see how it doesn't make much sense to use it as much as we all do.
I learned that an imitation is an exact copy of something, or made to resemble something exactly. A forgery is a document that is made or altered in a way that harms someone or someone's rights. Before there was paper money, I learned, coins that were made of false metal(wood, other materials,etc.), were considered "counterfeit" and that was the difference between counterfeit and forgery. Then, when paper money was made, it was called counterfeit when it was fake.
While looking through Garners Modern English Usage I searched for a word that caught my attention at first glance. I came to a lot of pages and read through quite a few definitions before I, strangely, came across the word "homophobe". I almost chose not to do it because of its controversial nature, but once I started to read through it I found the answer to be quite interesting. Garner states that the saying the word "homophobe" to describe someone who is anti-gay doesn't actually make sense. Homo, in the Greek language, means "the same" therefore when we call someone a homophobe we are actually saying they have a fear of themselves. The actual term for homophobe would be "homosexualphobe", but saying "homophobe" is much quicker.
Signed,
Ray Alkire
I learned a couple of things. First, I learned that the phrase "for sure" dates back to the 17th century! I thought that was super cool! I also learned that borborygmus is the word for intestinal rumbling caused by a gassy stomach.I learned that bandeau can also be a hairband, not just a tube top. Finally, I also learned that egregious used to mean outstanding, but it has come to mean "outstandingly bad."
SIGNED: Kelci Smith (Pollock)
My family uses the phrase "same difference" all the time. I do not like the phrase because it does not make any sense to me. I decided to look it up so I can teach my family what I learned. On page 806, the book states, "C. same difference. This phrase is an illogical AmE casualism that is to be avoided not only in writing but in speech as well. "It's all the same, "It's the same thing," etc. are better."
Amber Deela wrote the comment about the phrase "same difference." My apologies for not signing my name. -Amber Deela
I found that this book in general is overwhelmingly useful. There are so many different areas in this book that cover useful information. One of the parts I enjoyed reading about the most was the usage of verbs. I learned about the different kinds of verbs such as helping verbs vs. verbs. I often forget that there are different types of verbs and forget how they all can be used. Sometimes it is tricky to understand how to identify the different kinds in specific sentences. With Garners help in this book it was easier to understand. Garner gives insight on the different types of verbs, how to identify them, and how they are used.
Due to it's sheer volume alone, one can automatically assume that Garner's Modern English Usage is full of useful information on all aspects of our language. As I began flipping through the pages, I realized I was correct in my assumption.
Once reading around for a bit, I started to look around the glossary. I stumbled across a word I had never heard of in the 'G' section; gobbledygook.
According to the text, gobbledygook was a term first coined by former member of Congress, Maury Maverick, who was a member of congress serving in FDR's wartime government. Goddbledygook is "complicated, pompous, and obscure verbiage particularly that used by governments, businesses, or professions" (p. 1006). Maverick claimed that his inspiration for the word came from the turkey who always strutting around gobbling, gobbling, gobbling.
I gathered that gobbledygook language is jargon-covered, lengthy and overall hard to follow and understand. I see how gobbledygook could often be used by politicians!
I thought this word was fun and it was interesting to understand what it really meant. I look forward to using this text more throughout this semester.
Sierra Newey
I learned what a "suffixoid" is. I previously did not know that suffix ending words that are not suffixes had a name. Quite interesting. I found this entry on page 1030 in the glossary.
Austin Ward
I was very surprised to learn the word amuck has a variant which is amok. I have never seen or heard amok before today. This is most likely a regional issue, seeing as how he cites it being used in “The NY Times”. I was also very surprised to learn that amok and amuck are translations of a Malaysian word, mainly because I always assumed it was cowboy slang or something along those lines. On the whole, I have to say I'm already impressed with this dictionary.
I did not know exactly where to start when it came to finding interesting things in this book, so I just flipped through, reading until something caught my eye. I ended up reading about names. I found that a son, or daughter, is supposed to drop the 'Jr.' when his father dies. In that "Names are traditionally numbered only among the living" (614). So, if a man shares a name with both his living father and living grandfather, he is the III. But if the grandfather dies, the father becomes Sr. instead of Jr. and the grandson becomes Jr. instead of the III. If the father dies before the grandfather, the grandson retains the III title. Due to this rule it is technically impossible to have 'V', 'VI', and 'VII', though Garner jokes that modern medicine may come to that breakthrough soon. He also mentioned that Kings and Queens are exempt to this rule, as well as people whose predecessors were extremely famous (i.e. Hank Williams Jr. and Frank Sinatra Jr.).
Shyanna Sloan
The English language has always been a tricky one for me at times. For the longest time I struggled with the words affect and effect. Well today when I was looking through Garner's book I came across the words imminent and eminent and how those words were supposed to be used in a sentence. When you are using imminent in a sentence, it means certain or very near. Eminent, when used, is more like a hyperbole to mean "very". So you could say "He is eminently qualified to do the job at hand." or "He is in imminent danger." I really liked the way this book explained these two words. It seemed too easy almost.
While reading through the comments, I found it interesting how many people learned many of the everyday phrases they use have different meanings or contain different words than originally thought. Going off that, I figure it would be the more uncommon phrases often misused; however, as I flipped through the pages, I was surprised to find excuse me and pardon me thrown in that category. Presently, pardon me is a phrase really only used for offenses such as bumping into someone in the hall or walking through crowd in a crowded space. Excuse me is used for the same situations, as well as when someone needs something repeated or to keep a action from seeming impolite. Traditionally, however, pardon me was scarcely used and only in the most serious of offenses and excuse me was saved for informal occasions, as it was seen to be informal to use the latter. Sorry was believed to be an apology lacking remorse and seen as more informal than the use of excuse me.
I have always thought that the mannequin and mannikin were the same thing. But they are not. Mannequin is talking about the human-like models for displaying clothing, and mannikin is talking about the model showing anatomical parts of the human body, used in medical training. I just thought it was one universal word, and that they would not have different spellings. Then there is even a third spelling and meaning of the word. Manikin is a little man or a dwarf.
Post a Comment