ONE MORNING IN DECEMBER 2016 the then president-elect of the United States took to Twitter, as was his incessant wont, and accused the Chinese, who’d just, in an act of penny-ante provocation, shanghaied a U.S. drone, of an “unpresidented act.” In a flash I was reminded of the importance of knowing how to spell.
The fact is: A lot of people don’t type*1 with autocorrect or spellcheck turned on—or, I gather, heed them even if they do. That said, neither*2 autocorrect nor spellcheck can save you from typing a word that is indeed a word but doesn’t happen to be the word you mean or should mean to type. For more on that, see Chapter 10: The Confusables.
It goes without saying, though I’m happy to say it, that no one expects you to memorize the spelling of every word in the notoriously irregular, unmemorizable English language. My desk dictionary of choice, and that of most of my copyeditorial colleagues, is the eleventh edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (affectionately known as Web 11); I also keep on a nearby stand a copy of the big Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, not as New now as it was when it was first published in 1961, though mostly it just sits there looking authoritative. You’ll also find a number of first-rate dictionaries online, including Merriam-Webster’s own, at merriam-webster.com (and if you’re a Twitter person, you owe it to yourself to follow the cheekily erudite @MerriamWebster), and the densely helpful Free Dictionary (thefreedictionary.com). (Google’s dictionary, which is where you’ll land if you google*3 any word at all plus the word “definition,” is workmanlikely reliable but drab.)
Still and all, I do think that knowing how to spell on one’s own is a commendable skill, so for a back-to-elementary-school brushup I offer you a selection of the words I most frequently encounter misspelled—some of which, I don’t bother to blush to confess, I’ve been known to mess up myself—with remarks on some of the general issues of the art of spelling and its pitfalls. If you can, already or afterward, ace all of these, award yourself a shiny foil star.
The “-ible” words and the “-able” words are easily confusable, and I’m afraid there’s no surefire trick for remembering which are which. Though it is the case that most of the “-able”s are words in their own right even if you delete the “-able” (e.g., “passable,” “manageable”) and that most of the “-ible”s are not, shorn of their “-ible,” freestanding (e.g., “tangible,” “audible”), most is not all. As, to be sure, our friend “accessible.” And see “confusable,” seven lines up. “Confus”?
Words with double c’s are troublemakers; words with double c’s and double m’s are invitations to catastrophe.
This is the preferred American spelling. The Brits favor (but not by much and only relatively recently) “acknowledgement.”*4
Not spelled “ad nauseum.”
Copyediting FAQ
Q. How do I know which words ending in o are pluralized with an s and which are pluralized with an es?
A. You don’t. Look ’em up.
“Annoint” is a legitimate if obscure and mostly archaic variant spelling, but that doesn’t mean you should use it. Same goes for “bannister.”
Perhaps not a word you use terribly often, but if you’re going to use it, that’s how you spell it.
Don’t stint on the s’s.
I’d guess that a popular misapprehension of pronunciation leads to a popular misapprehension of spelling, thus “barbituate,” but that’s not how you spell it.
Two t’s, one l, not the other way around. Think “battle,” if that helps you.*5
The only legitimate English word I’m aware of that includes three consecutive sets of double letters,*6 and in writing it you’re quite apt to forget the second k.*7
That oddish uo, which somehow never looks right, is easy to flip; thus my periodic encounters with “bouy,” “bouyancy,” and “bouyant.”
First you have to nail down the spelling of “bureau,” which is hard enough. Once you’ve conquered “bureau,” you can likely manage “bureaucrat” and “bureaucratic,” but be careful not to crash and burn, as I often do, on “bureaucracy,” which always wants to come out “bureaucrasy.”
Two p’s and two c’s.
Also, there is no x in “espresso,” but you knew that already.
And its cousins “sesquicentennial”*8 and “bicentennial.”
That’s indeed how you spell it, because that’s what it is—literally, from the French, a long chair. But the spelling “chaise lounge” took root in English, especially American English, an awfully long time ago, and it’s not going anywhere, and one would be hard-pressed anymore to call it an error, particularly when it turns up in novels in the dialogue of characters who would not naturally say “chaise longue.”
My—and most people’s—preferred plural of “commando.” (Though “commandoes,” which suggests to me a troop of female deer packing Uzis, is, per the dictionary, less incorrect than “aficionadoes.”)
Not “concensus.”
Two h’s.
Three i’s.
It’s not “damnit,” goddammit and damn it all to hell, and I wish people would knock it off already.
A fancy-schmancy adjective meaning “required or prescribed by fashion”; to misspell it is the ne plus ultra of failed pretension.
They’re both correct. The latter is vastly more popular, though somehow I think the former better evokes the hairnets and lab coats of the elementary school lunch ladies of my distant youth.
The things that keep the Netherlands from flooding are dikes. Let’s leave it at that.
Ask a roomful of people whether at any time in their lives they believed this word to be spelled “dilemna,” and you will receive in return quite a number of boisterous yeses. But the word is not spelled thus; it’s never been spelled thus. Whence, then, “dilemna”? It remains a mystery.
Not “diptheria.” There are two h’s here.
The popular error is to transpose the el to an le.
Double b. The odds are good that left to your own devices you’re going to spell this “dumbell,” as you’re also likely to attempt “filmaker,” “newstand,” and “roomate.” Well, don’t.
Not “ecstacy.” Perhaps you’re confusing it with bureaucracy.
Not “elegaic,” a misspelling that makes it into print with mournful frequency.
I was well into my twenties before I realized that this word was neither pronounced nor spelled “emnity.” I have since learned—and I find it retroactively comforting—that I was not, and am not, the only victim of that misapprehension.
Capitalized when referring to an actual member of Mussolini’s Fascisti, the British Union of Fascists, or any other organization that thus self-identifies, otherwise lowercased.*9
Noted above, under “dumbbell,” yet given the frequency with which I encounter “filmaker” and “filmaking,” apparently worth repeating.
Pronunciation is not my fiefdom—I don’t have to say ’em, I just have to spell ’em—but you may pronounce this either “flaksid” (the original pronunciation) or “flassid” (the more recent, and now more popular, pronunciation).
In any event, two c’s.
There’s that peculiar uo again.
And once again.
Rarely to never misspelled on its own, but there’s something about a follow-up “four” that leads, occasionally, to “fourty-four.”
Commonly misspelled “fuschia,” a dishonor to the botanist Leonhard Fuchs, after whom the flower (and color) are named.
Even knowing I’ve just spelled it correctly, I still think it should be “garotte.”
I once let this go to print as “geneology” (perhaps I was thinking of geology?), and decades later the memory still stings.
When Noah Webster was standardizing American English in the nineteenth century and streamlining “neighbour” into “neighbor,” “honour” into “honor,” etc., he neglected to transform “glamour” into “glamor”—because, oddly enough, he didn’t include the word at all, in any form, in his initial 1828 dictionary or in any of his follow-up volumes. “Glamor” does show up from time to time, but certainly it lacks glamour. Do note, though, that “glamorous” is spelled only thus; it’s never “glamourous.” And it’s “glamorize,” never “glamourize.”
Two r’s. See also “syphilis.”
Two f’s rather than, as I occasionally run across it, two t’s. It’s a plural, by the way. There is a singular, “graffito,” but no one ever seems to use it. Perhaps because one rarely encounters a single graffito?
Not “gutteral,” even though that’s how you pronounce it. If you know your Latin, you may recognize this word that refers to throaty or generally disagreeable utterances as deriving from guttur, the Latin for “throat.” If you don’t know your Latin, you’ll simply have to remember how to spell it.
When one is writing about valiant champions, the plural of “hero” is, invariably, “heroes.” The plural of the hero that’s the heavily laden sandwich can be given, per the dictionary, as “heros,” but I can’t say I’ve run across it much if at all in the wild, and I can’t say I care for it.
This word, used to describe the putting on of airs, seems (even the dictionary isn’t positive) to derive from a merger of “high” and “fluting”; nonetheless, it’s not to be taken as some sort of Li’l Abner clipping like “comin’ ” or “goin’,” and there’s no apostrophe at its tail end (or, for that matter, a hyphen in its middle).
This one is a nightmare for everyone because of the oeu. Drill oeu into your head and the rest falls into place. The s for the plural is an English-language innovation; French makes do with hors d’oeuvre as both singular and plural.
While we’re here: Though hors d’oeuvres include all more or less bite-size thingamabobs passable on trays, canapés are a subset of hors d’oeuvres requiring a base of bread, toast, cracker, puff pastry, etc., topped or spread with a topping or a spread. Amuse-bouches, which can be made out of just about anything so long as it’s little, are chef-bestowed pre-meal*10 gifts, often served in those charming miniature ladle-like spoons. Now you know.
See also “bureaucracy.”
Same.
Microsoft Word’s spellcheck believes “indispensible” to be correct; no one else I know does, and it rarely makes it to print.
There’s a b in the middle, not a p.
Just the one s.
One n and one c only.
It doesn’t look much more sensible properly spelled than misspelled, but there you have it.
A word with three consecutive vowels is just begging for trouble.
The relatively recent back-formation*11 “liaise” irritates a lot of people. I think it’s dandy and useful.
Another word with three consecutive vowels! If you’re looking to blame someone for this sort of thing, blame the French.
Also, there’s no c before the q, as is occasionally attempted.
Two a’s, no e’s.
Even the Brits don’t use “mediaeval” much anymore, much less mediæval.*12
Not “momento.” Think of memory, because you buy and/or hold on to a memento so as to remember something.
Two l’s, two n’s. In each. It’s always fun online to catch someone attempting to insult millennials yet unable to spell “millennials.”
Not “miniscule,” however much that seems to make sense.
The spelling—and pronunciation—“mischievious” go back centuries, but they’re persistently considered nonstandard. They’re also unbearably twee. Woodland elves might opt for “mischievious”; mortals should not.
To misspell “misspell” is, to borrow a phrase from the playwright Tennessee Williams,*13 slapstick tragedy.
With an f, that is, not a v.
Though the dictionary might (begrudgingly) let you get away with dropping the accent marks, there’s no fun in spelling “naïve” or “naïveté” without them, and “naivety,” though ratified by the dictionary, is just plain sad-looking.
Two s’s, please. Two s’s.
Not “non sequiter.” And no hyphen.
Pretty much everyone can spell “occur.” Pretty much no one can spell “occurred,” “occurrence,” or “occurring.”
They’re both words. So is “odiferous,” for that matter, but one rarely runs across it. They all mean the same thing: stinking.*14
Eye-crossingly easy to misspell.
Also overreach, override, overrule, etc.
As a young person, I desperately wanted “parallel” to be spelled “paralell” or at least “parallell”; somehow it never was.
That r just past the midpoint has a tendency to fall out.
Just the one t. (If it helps, consider that the two words being portmanteaued are “pass” and “time,” not “past” and “time.”)
Perhaps confusing the contemptuous “pejorative” with the lying “perjury,” some people attempt “perjorative.”
It’s not that “pendent,” as occasionally turns up when “pendant” is meant, isn’t a word; it’s that it’s usually not the word you want. “Pendant” is a noun; “pendent” is an adjective meaning hanging or dangling—that is, what a pendant does. Pendulously.
I note a tendency to slip an extra r in, just before the v.
Reading, a few years back, a facsimile first edition of Agatha Christie’s 1937 novel Death on the Nile, I was amused to note an instance of the misspelling “pharoah,” which till then I’d figured was a recent problem.*15 Apparently not.
The 2015 Triple Crown triumph of the horse whose name is officially (mis)spelled American Pharoah (and whose sire’s name, even more grislily, is, for reasons I won’t go into, Pioneerof the Nile) called much popular attention to the error, so perhaps ongoingly the word will show up properly spelled more often.
The popular spelling “pimento” cannot be called incorrect, though copy editors will persist in changing it. Interestingly, Web 11 has a separate entry for “pimento cheese.” It contains pimientos.
Neither “poinsetta” nor “poinsietta.”
It is not spelled “perogative,” though it’s often misspelled—and mispronounced—thus.
Not “protruberance” or “protruberant.” Yes, you’re thinking of “protrude.” We all are. That’s why the misspelling keeps showing up.
The vastly less popular “publically” is generally if not universally held to be nonstandard, which is a nice way of saying that by any decent standards it’s incorrect.
The variant “racoon”—rarely seen now but once quite popular—cannot be taken as incorrect, but it can surely be taken as weird-looking.
With a p.
Not “renumerative.” I tend to avoid “remunerative” altogether, not only because I can’t remember how to spell it but because I can’t pronounce it without choking on it, and so I’d rather go with “lucrative.”
Not “reknown” or “reknowned.”
Three r’s each.
It’s not “restauranteur,” and the floor is not open to debate.
Neither “roccoco” nor “rococco.” Nor, not that you would, “roccocco.”
See “dumbbell” and “filmmaker,” above. And just keep seeing them till you get these right.
One wants to spell it “sacreligious.” One can’t.
Easily and not infrequently misspelled, by people who get hung up on that damned “i before e” thing, as “sieze” and “siezed.”
Not “seperate” and “seperation.”
Some people may be named Shepard, but sheep watchers are shepherds and certain dogs are German shepherds and potato-crusted meat dishes are shepherd’s pies.
Even if you dodge the bullet of a misspelled “seize,” you may still (counterintuitively) trip and misspell “siege” as “seige.” Don’t.
The variant “skullduggery” has, at least in the United States, lately become the more popular. That the word derives from a Scots term for fornication and not from grave robbery leads me to favor the nonmisleading single-l spelling.
It’s peculiar-looking as one word, I suppose, but it sits cheek by jowl with “earache” and “headache,” and no one seems to find them peculiar-looking at all.
“Strait” as in constricted, not “straight” as in not curvy.*16 Also: straitlaced.
It starts off like “strategy”; it just doesn’t finish like “strategy.”
Not “supercede.” I have never in my life spelled “supersede” correctly on the first go.
In any of them, don’t forget the first r, which is omitted with surprising frequency.
One l.
Two l’s.
Not “tendonitis,” though that’s likely an unstoppable respelling of the word (and I note that the local spellcheck has refused to call it out with the Red Dots of Shame).
It’s not “threshhold.” I bet you’re thinking of “withhold.”
It’s not “toute suite,” and correctly or incorrectly spelled, it’s as irksome as n’est-ce pas, as noted in Chapter 5: Foreign Affairs. You know what’s a good word? “Now.”
(And any other “under” + r–commencing compounds you can think of.)
For pete’s sake, how hard was that?
Not “unwieldly,” as I occasionally run across it.
That’s ai, not ia.
Not “viniagrette.” Also not, for that matter, “vinegarette.”
I run across “wierd” more often than I ever expect to.
It’s been rendered online as “woah” so often that one might be persuaded that that’s an acceptable alternate spelling. It is not.
See “threshold.”
Never “ya’ll.”
Somewhat to my Yankee surprise, there’s scant consensus (and much feuding) among my southern confederates as to whether “y’all” may properly be applied to just one person (and I leave discussion of the death-defying “all y’all” for another day) but near unanimity that non-southerners ought not to use it at all, y’all.
*1 Meaning no disrespect to anyone who regularly applies pen or pencil to paper, I haven’t in years handwritten anything lengthier than a greeting on a birthday card, and I’ve come to think of writing as something one does on a computer keyboard. Thus I tend to use the words “write” and “type” interchangeably.
*2 Please note the first word in this chapter to give the lie to the “i before e, except after c” jingle, which we were all taught in grade school and which is, alongside the spelling mnemonic “The principal is your pal,” some major grade school bullshit, if you ask me. (“Or when sounding like a, as in ‘neighbor’ or ‘weigh,’ ” the ditty continues, but you’d stopped listening by then, hadn’t you.) There are any number of perfectly common words in the English language featuring the ei combination with no c (or a sound) in sight, from “foreign” to “heist” to “seizure” to “weird.” To say nothing of “albeit” and “deify.”
*3 It’s considered bad copyeditorial form to verbify trademarks, but if you must (and, yes, I know you think you must), I suggest that you lowercase them in so doing. Sorry/not sorry, Xerox Corporation.
*4 Evidence also indicates that our British cousins are not as fond of the spelling “judgement” as some of them believe or would have you believe. And here is where I send you off (you’ll find out why when you get there) to explore the Google Books Ngram Viewer, though I warn you that it’s a direly addictive toy.
*5 My problem with mnemonic devices is that I can’t remember them.
*6 Well, yes, “bookkeeping.” No, “sweet-toothed” doesn’t count.
*7 Or, if you prefer, the first k.
*8 I’m not sure why English needs a dedicated word for a 150th anniversary, but if it has a word for the thing before the thing before the final thing† and a word for jumping or being shoved out a window,‡ why not.
† “Antepenultimate.”
‡ “Defenestration.”
*9 A, on the other hand, and perhaps capriciously, I always refer to capital-N Nazis, whether they’re of Hitler’s party or simply homegrown aspirants. B, if we’re to be friends, you and I, please don’t ever call me or anyone else a “grammar Nazi,” a term that manages to be both direly insulting and offensively trivializing.
*10 Modern copyeditorial style favors closing up—that is, merging hyphenlessly—prefixes and the words to which they attach (e.g., “antiwar,” “postgraduate,” “preoccupation,” “reelect”), but if the result is difficult to read and/or uncommon, you should feel free to hold on to that hyphen. (The same goes for suffixes, as in the above-used “hyphenlessly.”) Thus I opt for “pre-meal” rather than “premeal.” (I find the universally accepted “premed” hard enough to make out on the first go, much less “premeal.”) You’ll note as well, when you cast your eye back up to the text proper, that I’m about to opt for “ladle-like,” as (though the likes of, say, “catlike” or “cakelike” is dandy) “ladlelike” would, I think, try one’s eyes’ patience. (P.S. You can’t ever do “dolllike,” because look at it.)
*11 A back-formation is a neologism—that is, a newly coined word—derived from an already existing word, generally by yanking off a bit at the beginning or the end. Among the many common back-formations in the English language: “aviate” (from “aviator”), “burgle” (from “burglar”), “laze” (from “lazy”), “tweeze” (from “tweezers”)…Well, there are a lot of them. For all the back-formations that slip effortlessly into popular use, though, many never cease to raise dander and/or hackles: “conversate” and “mentee,” for instance, both of which I find grotesque, and “enthuse,” which I find harmless but which some people have loved to hate since it was coined nearly two hundred years ago.
*12 That fused-letter thing is called a ligature.
*13 There’s nothing to be gained by referring to the playwright Tennessee Williams as “the famous playwright Tennessee Williams.” If a person is famous enough to be referred to as famous, there’s no need to refer to that person as famous, is there. Neither is there much to be gained by referring to “the late Tennessee Williams,” much less “the late, great Tennessee Williams,” which is some major cheese. I’m occasionally asked how long a dead person is appropriately late rather than just plain dead. I don’t know, and apparently neither does anyone else.
*14 Though “moist” often tops lists of the most viscerally unpleasant words in the English language, I turn my nose up at “stinky” and “smelly.”
*15 I occasionally receive aggrieved correspondence, with much “Whither publishing?” teeth gnashing, from readers who’ve stumbled upon a typo in one of our books. I don’t like typos any more than you do—likely I like them quite a bit less—but as long as there have been books, there have been typos. Nobody’s perfect.
*16 The title of the 1964 Joan Crawford axe-murderess thriller—which you really ought to see, it’s the damnedest thing—is Strait-Jacket. (The generally preferred American spelling is “ax,” but I’d much rather be an axe-murderess than an ax-murderess. You?)