The flexibility and diversity that give English such beauty and power have a downside. English is a complex language with many rules of grammar, many exceptions to those rules, and a limitless set of styles. Word selection can be complicated by context, tone, emphasis, and an author’s desired effect. This complexity makes it easy and common to misuse words, misuse styles, and misuse grammar. We all do it every now and then. This chapter synthesizes some of the sloppier and more annoying patterns of English usage. While sloppiness does not always get in the way of making your point, it is often distracting, wasteful, or inefficient. Learning more about these patterns and observing how others use them will give you insight into your style and help you improve it so that listeners can understand you more clearly, more quickly, and more memorably.
In almost every discipline there is a common theme for improvement: simplification. The simplest communications are usually the best communications. Perhaps this is more of an American problem: Our culture too often views more as better. This is simply not true in communicating. William Zinsser said it best in his classic book, On Writing Well:
“Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular construction, pompous frills and meaningless jargon.”
Where does this clutter occur? Everywhere. It is amazing how often we cram too much information into too little space, and it seems to be getting worse. We write 1000 words where 100 would suffice; we take 30 minutes to express a thought that deserves only 5 minutes. Most presentations in business, government, and education have resorted to 6 and 8 point fonts to cram in all the backup details about each and every tree so that we have a devil of a time trying to focus on what forest we are reviewing. The key messages get lost and we remember nothing.
Watch a cable news show: It is difficult to follow a story because you are distracted by the crawl and by the multiple pictures within the picture showing teasers for other stories. View a website: It is difficult to concentrate on the information you seek because of the multi-media ads competing for your attention.
In elementary school, teachers don’t ask students to write something less than a certain length. They say to write something at least a certain length. Without this practice, children would take the easy road and get little practice in writing. At some point, though, someone has to teach them the difference between writing and writing well. Although an emphasis on quantity is a good way to practice most skills, when it comes to exploiting that skill under game conditions, quality is the more important attribute. Professional golfers spend a lifetime hitting balls on the practice range so they can take the fewest strokes on the golf course. The same should apply to many communications and to choosing words, sentences, and paragraphs.
Some nonfiction books could condense 200 pages of content into 50 and most readers would better understand and remember the author’s intent. In fiction, authors may intentionally paint a very detailed picture of a scene, feeling, or situation to elicit the full sensory response they want the reader to experience. My opinions in this chapter focus primarily on the annoying habits of some nonfiction writers.
We speak and write verbosely, using as many fluffy, multi-syllabic words as we can think of when we only need one simple, straightforward word. Here are a few examples of long-windedness that you hear every day.
Verbose |
Concise |
a considerable amount of |
much |
a large number of |
many |
along the lines of |
like |
afford an opportunity |
let |
at the present time |
now |
at some future time |
later |
at the conclusion of |
after |
at this point in time |
now |
be in possession of |
have |
be of the opinion that |
believe (or think) |
don’t hesitate to call |
call |
due to the fact that |
because |
each and every |
each (or every) |
exhibits a tendency |
tends |
fail to comply with |
violate |
for the purpose of |
to |
gives consideration to |
considers |
had occasion to be |
was |
has the capability of |
can |
he is a man who |
he is |
I might add |
(nothing) |
in accordance with |
by |
in advance of |
before |
in conjunction with |
with |
in spite of the fact that |
although |
in the event that |
if |
in the near future |
soon |
in a timely manner |
promptly |
in order to |
to |
is indicative of |
indicates |
it should be pointed out |
(nothing) |
it is interesting to note |
(nothing) |
it is clear that |
clearly |
frequently |
|
lacked the ability to |
couldn’t |
on the order of |
about |
owing to the fact that |
because |
postpone until later |
postpone |
provides guidance to |
guides |
send a communication to |
notify |
take into consideration |
consider |
utilize |
use |
was capable of |
could |
with the exception of |
except |
Zinsser summarized this sort of verbosity well:
“Just as insidious are all the word clusters with which we explain how we propose to go about our explaining: ‘I might add,’ ‘It should be pointed out,’ ‘It is interesting to note.’ If you might add, add it. If it should be pointed out, point it out. If it is interesting to note, make it interesting; are we not all stupefied by what follows when someone says, ‘This will interest you’? Don’t inflate what needs no inflating: ‘with the possible exception of’ (except), ‘due to the fact that’ (because), ‘he totally lacked the ability to’ (he couldn’t), ‘until such time as’ (until), ‘for the purpose of’ (for).”
It is much harder to speak concisely than to write concisely. A great exercise for speakers is to read transcripts of their verbal presentations. The experience is humbling. I squirmed with discomfort the first time I read transcripts of my own presentations. I was forced to observe myself from a perspective I couldn’t see when speaking, and I was appalled at how illiterate I sounded. This exercise allows you to “hear” yourself as others hear you. It is a powerful technique that forms the basis of many self-help and spiritual awareness lessons.
Another great exercise for any aspiring writer is to endure the process of professional copy editing. No lesson accelerates learning like being critiqued and manhandled by a good copy editor. I was lucky to experience the process of writing page-limited proposals early in my career. It was humbling but eyeopening to see how my three-page technical exposition on some topic could be whittled down to one page. Furthermore, in the savagely edited version, my argument and its key points usually jumped off the page, in stark contrast to my original draft. The process of copy editing is an intense lesson on observing your own communications.
We never stop learning. When I submitted this chapter to my copy editor, I thought it was pretty clean. I had worked the material through several rewrites and was reasonably comfortable with its punch, brevity, and tone. After the first edit, the number of words was cut by 7%. In our final pass, Another 1% hit the cutting room floor. I love my editor.
One of the most common speaking and writing problems is the overuse of empty adverbs. I call them impotent adverbs because that is what they are. Impotent is defined by Dictionary.com as follows:
impotent:
I purposely omitted the fifth definition, which is the one most people think of when this word is used. The first four definitions help capture the problem well; the fifth gives the term impotent adverbs some teeth so that it bites into your memory.
Here are the top 10 most abused words in the English language. All are almost always powerless, ineffective, and weak.
A few other prepositional phrases are misused just as frequently.
Not only are these phrases impotent, they are frequently used in an arrogant way to assert facts when, in fact, they are representing an opinion or a subjective observation. This is more common than you might think, especially with professional speakers, writers, and entertainers. If you pay attention for the next few days, you will probably notice someone who uses these words and phrases far more often than they should.
If you think that providing emphasis is a good reason to use these adverbs, consider this: “It was literally 105 degrees!” may sound more forceful than “It was 105 degrees!” But it adds nothing, and you end up putting the focus on the word literally rather than on the 105 degrees, which is the intended focus.
“It was literally raining cats and dogs.” Such a statement only serves to prove the speaker illiterate, besides illiteral. People mistakenly use literally to add emphasis. I was literally irate. She literally had a cow. The show was literally cancelled. The use of literally is literally moronic. It should be reserved for very precise usage, meaning word for word or actually, and not an exaggeration.
If Fred threw Ethyl under a bus, you could say, “Fred literally threw Ethyl under a bus.” In this case, it would mean that even though “being thrown under a bus” is a euphemism for having blamed someone for something, Fred actually did throw Ethyl under a bus and you should interpret those words in their strict meaning, not figuratively or metaphorically. So it should be used, like actually, in those rare instances when the obvious interpretation is wrong and you intend to tell the reader to interpret your words literally.
When you overuse such adverbs, your audience is affected in two ways. First, they are distracted. People notice when any word or phrase is overused, and they stop concentrating on the substance of your message. Second, the audience comes to believe that when you don’t say the overused word, you mean the opposite. For example, if you use “frankly” in most sentences, you condition the audience to think that you are not being frank when you don’t precede a sentence with frankly. The last thing you want is for your audience to focus on your (lousy) style instead of on the substance of your message.
Try this experiment the next time you encounter impotent adverbs in your speaking or writing: Eliminate the impotent adverbs, then assess whether there is any change in meaning. I will wager that 95% of the time, there is no change in your message. These words are almost always used superfluously.
Here are some examples of adverb abuse taken directly from a popular book that I used to research some material for this book. I am amazed that this professional author’s writing style was not edited more thoroughly to eliminate such wordiness. It shows how rampant impotent adverb abuse is in our communications. These excerpts showcase impotent and arrogant adverbs.
“Actually, to be honest, in a couple of the examples the stakes were fairly low at first, but with time and growing emotions, the relationship eventually turned sour and quality of life suffered—making the risks high. These examples, of course, are merely the tip of an enormous and ugly iceberg of problems.”
The writer uses an unnecessary actually, followed up with an even more unnecessary to be honest. While our English teachers were steering us away from double negatives, they forgot to tell us about double impotents. For good measure, the author throws in an impotent eventually, which restates his previous words, with time.
“In fact, given most people’s long-standing habit of costly behaviors, it’ll probably require a lot of effort. The truth is, people can change. In fact, thousands of people we (the authors) have worked with over the past decades have made lasting improvements”.
This example uses an unnecessary assertion of fact to begin three sentences in a row. That is some heavy evidence! Now I really, really, really believe what the author is saying. Unfortunately, it serves the opposite purpose and dilutes the validity of the assertion.
“Frankly, most people have trouble pulling themselves away from the tractor beam of the argument at hand. Besides, it’s not like you can actually step out of your body and observe yourself. The truth is, we all have trouble monitoring our own behavior at times.”
Here is more of the same, although you can make a good case for using actually. To me, it’s still unnecessary. Read all three excerpts without the bold words. Aren’t they more convincing?
Although these examples are only mildly annoying, they were written by a professional author in a popular book. If you take a critical look at the ramblings, writings, and verbal presentations of everyday people in business, entertainment, and academia, you will observe an incredibly common pattern of impotent adverb abuse and declarations of truth. In fact, I don’t honestly know if that last sentence is actually true, literally true, or essentially true, but frankly speaking, I fundamentally believe this sentence sounds really annoying.
I first became aware of adverb overuse when I watched a tape of myself giving a presentation. My group was preparing to present a concise, persuasive description of a project’s value to a government audience. We videotaped our presentations at a rehearsal, then reviewed the tapes and critiqued them with a speech coach who helped us refine our content and delivery. I was confident of my speaking ability and welcomed the exercise.
I reviewed my tape alone, prepared to discover that I needed to make a few small improvements. I was horrified by the number of times that I used impotent adverbs. I didn’t overuse just one of them; I overused all of them! When I sat down with the speech coach, I confessed my speaking sins immediately. She was surprisingly less concerned about my problem than I was. She thought my overuse of adverbs was a minor infraction compared to the sins of my cohorts. She said my overuse of impotent adverbs was barely noticeable because I used so many different ones, there was little repetition. Nevertheless, this experience indelibly scarred my brain. I have observed so many speakers with this problem that I see it as the most common abuse of the English language.
I once confronted a valued employee who overused the word actually like most people use “er” or “um,” namely as an unintentional transition marker between thoughts or sentences. This is a common problem. He was unaware of his “actually” obsession when I first discussed it with him. The next few times he spoke, he was so self-aware of his overuse that he was nearly tongue-tied. He would say actually, catch himself, shake his head, lose his train of thought, and stumble. It really set him back, and his communications skills suffered for weeks. He slowly regained his comfort and resolved his overuse.
One of the most brilliant people I know had the worst adverb overuse problem I’ve encountered. He was a “basically” addict. He used basically in about 70% of his sentences, sometimes twice in the same sentence. As with most adverb overusers, he was especially prone to this habit when he was somewhat nervous, speaking in front of a large audience. His most memorable line was, “Basically, we have to get back to basics.” This sort of speaking and writing problem does not indicate a lack of intelligence or experience. It is simply a bad habit that even the smartest, most articulate among us can pick up without realizing it.
I wasn’t the only person to notice my colleague’s annoying speech habit. It was his wellknown, annoying tic, although nobody wanted to confront him with it because he was a very senior executive. In one meeting, another colleague offered to bet me a lunch on the over-under for the number of times this guy (our boss at the time) would say basically in our two-hour staff meeting. (An over-under bet is a 50-50 proposition where you pick a number so that the outcome of an event is equally likely to be higher or lower.)
I estimated that our boss would talk for about half the meeting and probably use basically once or twice each minute. I computed that 90 was about the right betting line. My colleague took the overs without even thinking about it—he was even more cynical than I was. And also a bit of a cheater. We started keeping a tally, and in the first 60 minutes the boss used basically 45 times. That made 90 look like a fair guess. As my colleague started worrying about his bet, he began asking short questions that prompted longwinded responses. This kept the boss talking, chalking up more and more opportunities to say basically this, and basically that. I lost big as the outcome finished somewhere north of 120. (My colleague and I didn’t get much out of that staff meeting!)
Do you want your audience—no matter who they are—to focus on such trivial distractions? Again, these adverb-abuse problems are not the bane of the illiterate. They can surface in some very intelligent, well-educated, and accomplished people. By the way, we confronted our boss, who resolved his bad habit. It took him about a year, and his communications effectiveness improved remarkably.
Misuses of punctuation can be similarly annoying. Two examples in today’s world are the overuse of “quotation marks” and the overuse of parentheses (these neat little devices that let you slide comments into a sentence). I suspect these misuses are more prevalent in the information technology world where there are more people with programming skills and backgrounds: Punctuation must be used precisely in programming languages. Quotation marks are typically used to identify literal text such as for a printout command. Parentheses are used to nest expressions into operations and structure the parameters to be applied to an operation.
I observed this annoying habit in my own writing long ago. I even tried to reform by switching from “double quotation marks” to ‘single quote marks.’ My copy editor quickly slapped some sense back into me for replacing a bad habit with incorrect usage.
Whatever the reason, there is more and more impotent and arrogant punctuation cluttering up professional writing, email, and literature. Here is an example email that I received from a vice president of a Fortune 500 company. All of the different forms of emphasis are his.
Actually, my “concern” here is that while we work with Tom to “improve performance” (due to HR’s recommendation), we are still not executing the plan with the “sense-of-urgency” and tenacity that’s fundamentally required. Honestly, we don’t have the luxury of waiting for or hoping for his improvement.
He couldn’t have cluttered up this sentence with more distracting styles of emphasis and punctuation abuse if he wanted to. He used the impotent adverbs actually, fundamentally, and honestly; three sets of unnecessary quotation marks; one set of unnecessary parentheses; and two underlined phrases. The funny thing is that all his polite and politically correct (i.e., inherently long-winded) verbiage just masks his real intent: We need to replace Tom. That takes five clear words. There is a definition of political correctness that goes something like this: the belief by some people that you can pick up a turd by the clean end. That’s what comes to mind when I see such drivel. I want to scream, “Get to the point!”
Many writers overuse quotation marks to add emphasis, tone, or suggestive accents. While it is occasionally a good practice to make a word stand out, it is incredibly annoying when you make too many words stand out. If you try to raise the emphasis, suggest a new meaning, or add tone to too many words in a sentence, you muddle up the real emphasis and tone.
William Saffire opined eloquently in one of his New York Times columns that quoteunquote is essentially used to sneer. He observed that when written or spoken, the words quote-unquote translate into so-called and are intended to cast aspersions on the word or phrase that follows. Here is an example.
TV anchor commenting about the reporters at a competing network: “The reporters at station KXYZ are engaged in quote-unquote journalism in a way that improves their ratings.”
The quote-unquote modifier to journalism is similar to the use of “journalism” with quotation marks to suggest that the word is being used disparagingly.
Overusing quotation marks comes across as arrogant. Some authors may believe they are creating a new meaning or usage of a word, but this is rarely true.
Another annoying habit of many, many speakers is overusing “if you will” and “this is what I call…” These terms are shorthand for “if you will allow me to coin the term.” Who needs it? Here are some typical examples.
We need to do better planning in our projects. This is what I call “proper preparation.” [This is what everyone calls proper preparation!]
We need to do better planning in our projects, proper preparation, if you will. [If I will what? If I will allow you to define planning as proper preparation? Who wouldn’t?]
Overuse of parentheses (and brackets and curly brackets) is another rapidly growing (and bad) habit. It probably stems from the rising number of authors who have learned programming languages (like spreadsheets, Visual Basic, C/C++, Ada, Java, and HTML) where parentheses (or brackets) are frequently used to provide (syntactical and semantic) structure of programming code and organize (logical and mathematical) expressions.
Do all the parenthetical comments in the previous paragraph strike you as confusing? This is because many people have a hard time with abstraction. Remove the parenthetical comments and you have this:
Overuse of parentheses is another rapidly growing habit. This habit probably stems from the rising number of authors who have learned programming languages where parentheses are frequently used to provide programming code structure and organize expressions.
Doesn’t this read better than the previous sentence? Yes. Did it lose any meaning? No. It is equally accurate and a little less precise. Would the added precision help the reader? Probably not. It simply adds unnecessary detail and confusion.
As we rush to communicate with others—composing emails or writing up our work—it is easy to overlook some of the nooks and crannies of our language. There are many exceptions to rules, and some of the complexities of English can challenge even experts. Imagine how confusing these exceptions and sound-alike words are to people learning English as a second language.
Although it would take quite a tome for a complete list, 90% of the most common misusages and misspellings can be captured in just a few pages.
Accept is a verb meaning to agree to. Except is a preposition or conjunction meaning to exclude.
Adverse means opposing one’s interest or desire; opposite or confronting.
Averse means having a strong feeling of opposition or strongly disinclined.
Affect is a verb meaning to change. Effect is a noun meaning result.
All together is used to specify things considered one group. Altogether means entirely.
Allusion is a noun that means indirect reference. Illusion is a noun that means deception.
Assure is a verb that means to guarantee an outcome. Ensure is a verb that means to make certain. Insure means to guarantee against loss (like insurance).
Biannual means every two years. Semi-annual means twice per year.
Capital is a city that is the seat of government, or an accumulation of wealth. Capitol is the building where a legislative assembly meets.
Cite is a verb meaning to reference. Site is a noun meaning a specific place. Sight is a noun meaning something you can see.
Climatic is an adjective derived from climate. Climactic is an adjective derived from climax.
Compliment means praise for something or someone. Complement means an addition to something that makes it complete.
Could of, should of,and would of are incorrect. Could have is a third conditional verb used with a past participle to describe a possible past action that is now impossible since a different action was taken. (That gives you a good example of the deeper complexities of our language.)
Desert is a noun meaning arid landscape. Dessert is a noun meaning the last course of a meal, usually sweet. Remember that you want two helpings of dessert but don’t want to be alone in the desert.
Discreet is an adjective meaning judicious or prudent or modest. Discrete is an adjective meaning distinct and countable.
Elicit is a verb that means to draw out. Illicit is an adjective that means illegal.
Farther is used to compare distance. Further is used to mean more of something.
Forward is a direction. Foreword is an introduction to a book.
Good is an adjective that describes a noun. Well is usually an adverb that describes an action. It can also be used as an adjective (for example, all is well, or she is not well). The comparative and superlative versions of both words are the same: good, better, best, and well, better, best.
Hopefully is an adverb that is commonly misused as an adjective. “Hopefully, the rain will stop.” The rain cannot be hopeful, or full of hope. But you can. “Hopefully, I am waiting for the rain to stop.”.
i.e. is a Latin abbreviation for id est, which means that is.
e.g. is a Latin abbreviation for exempli grata, which means for example.
Imply means to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated. Infer means to deduce by reasoning and estimation. Remember that you imply; I infer.
Its means belonging to it. It’s is a contracted form of it is.
Like means resembles or is similar or a few other things. It is not a synonym for um, which is also not a word that we should use (except in Scrabble®).
Lose means misplace or fail to keep. Loose means free or released, not bound together.
Moot means no longer important. Mute means silent.
Most is a superlative adjective meaning greatest quantity. Almost is an adverb meaning nearly. To say most everybody is meaningless. Almost everybody is meaningful.
Presently means soon; it is often misused to mean now. Currently means now.
Principle is a noun that means an accepted standard of conduct. Principal is a noun that means a person with an important role or an adjective that means primary.
That is used to restrict the subject and adds essential meaning to a clause.
Which is used to add nonessential information to a clause. The difference is important:
English standards of grammar, which are impractical, should be ignored.
English standards of grammar that are impractical should be ignored.
Most “which” clauses can be set off by commas or put in parentheses as a side comment without the sentence losing meaning. “That” clauses cannot, without changing the meaning of the sentence.
Their is a possessive meaning belonging to them. They’re is a contraction of they are. There is usually a pronoun standing in for a specific place.
Than is used to compare two or more things (a is more than b). Then is used for cause and effect (if a, then b) or temporal conditions (first a, then b).
To is a preposition that indicates direction. Too is a conjunction that means also or an adjective that means excessive, as in too much or too sensitive.
Whose is possessive. Who’s is a contraction of who is.
Your is a possessive pronoun that means belonging to you. You’re is a contraction of you are.
The proper use of me, myself, and I in everyday discussions and writing is a recurring obstacle for many people, including me.
Me is an object of a verb; it is never a subject.
Myself is not a substitute for “I” or “me.” There is only one good reason to use myself (or yourself, herself, or himself): to refer to a subject who has already been introduced. For example, I made it myself.
I is the subject of a sentence; it is never an object.
We frequently misuse these personal pronouns when we are discussing other people and ourselves in the same sentence: My wife and I went to the movies. A good way to differentiate whether to use me, myself, or I as part of a compound subject or object is to remove the other names or pronouns from the sentence and then test how it sounds. Which is correct?
They sent a cake to my wife and me. (They sent a cake to me. Correct!)
They sent a cake to my wife and myself. (They sent a cake to myself.)
They sent a cake to my wife and I. (They sent a cake to I.)
My wife and me went to the movies. (Me went to the movies.)
My wife and myself went to the movies. (Myself went to the movies.)
My wife and I went to the movies. (I went to the movies. Correct!)
The first draft of this book had 800 instances of the word I. Some of this was intentional: I wanted to use an informal, conversational style. But it was much too much. My copy editor, a trusted long-time colleague, could hardly bring herself to tell me how bad it was. She stopped reading after two chapters and wondered how to break the news to me without hitting the wrong nerve. Authors are a sensitive bunch. As I reread my manuscript, it was clear that she was too nice to me. The writing style was so peppered with personal pronouns that the substance got lost. I went through another complete editing pass and reduced the number of times I used I, me, and my by 300. The style is now more readable and less cluttered, yet still informal. Unfortunately, this paragraph has just added 15 instances of I, me, and my. Rats.
The following words are not acceptable in the English language, so you should avoid using them.
Alright is a non-word that some people mistake for all right.
Irregardless is a non-word that some people use when they mean regardless. Irregardless is a mistaken combination of irrespective and regardless.
Alot is a non-word most often used to mean a lot or many.
Indeterminant is a non-word that many people mistake for indeterminate, which means an indefinite amount.
Incentivize is a non-word because adding -ize to a word doesn’t make it correct. You cannot incentivize a customer. You can give them an incentive.
Towards is a non-word; toward is the proper usage. This also applies to forward, backward, upward, downward, inward, and outward. (People in England add the s.)
Anyways is a non-word; anyway is the proper usage.
Afterwards is a non-word; afterward is the proper usage.
Noone is a non-word that some people use to mean no one.
Inclimate is a non-word that some people use to mean inclement, as in inclement (harsh) weather.
For those of us with logical brains who want to see some symmetry in the English language, here is disappointing news: English is not very logical or symmetrical.
Here are some words that are not words but seem like they should be.
chalante (with purpose; the opposite of nonchalant)
foreleast (least distinguished; the opposite of foremost)
gruntled (happy; the opposite of disgruntled)
inlandish (ordinary; the opposite of outlandish)
squeam (an ill sensation that results in one feeling squeamish)
heveled (neat; the opposite of disheveled)
grue (the ugly root of gruesome)
ruth (the virtue one lacks if one is ruthless)
tinguish (the same old stuff; the opposite of distinguish)
venge (so that revenge, avenge, vengeance, and vengeful have a proper root)
aster (a great time; the opposite of disaster)
oderant (the target of deodorant)
perspirant (the target of anti-perspirant)
There are many more non-words that should be words if the language were designed by rational human beings. Alas, it was not. Therefore, we should just enjoy some of the asymmetries and anomalies. They are beautiful.
As we rush to learn language, we pick up some expressions and words without fully understanding their roots, their spelling, or their pronunciation. Here is a list of commonly mispronounced words:
The communications we encounter every day are filled with redundant junk and clutter. Here are some typical silly word choices we hear on television or see in print advertising.
Receive this free gift as an added bonus! (Would anyone ever charge you for a gift? Bonus means something added so is an added bonus something added added?)
This new invention is unbelievable! (An invention is a new idea, so this is a new new idea?)
The actual facts show otherwise! (Actually, facts are always actual.)
And at work, everyone has heard things like this:
Let me give you a brief summary (unlike the long-winded summary you gave yesterday).
My final conclusion is… (unlike the three other conclusions you reached without concluding).
We made a significant breakthrough (unlike the insignificant progress we previously called a breakthrough so it would sound more important).
There was an unintentional error (unlike the intentional errors we introduced so that we could show more progress by eliminating errors).
Okay, okay. Some of us are obsessed with eliminating tautological pleonasms. Here are definitions of these two words, from Dictionary.com:
tautology:
Tautological pleonasm is itself a pleonasm; it is also tautological. Although this may seem like an esoteric topic, dozens of pleonasms are commonly used in everyday communications. They have permeated our language and become entirely too acceptable. We don’t need to change this; we can certainly laugh about it every now and then, and recognize a silly pleonasm from a rare, useful one.
William Zinsser addresses this topic in detail when he writes about reducing clutter. Here is a choice excerpt that summarizes his view on this ugly part of our language.
“Take the adjective ‘personal,’ as in ‘a personal friend of mine,’ ‘his personal feeling’ or ‘her personal physician.’ It’s typical of hundreds of words that can be eliminated. The personal friend has come into the language to distinguish him or her from the business friend, thereby debasing both language and friendship. Someone’s feeling is that person’s personal feeling—that’s what ‘his’ means. As for the personal physician, that’s the man or woman summoned to the dressing room of a stricken actress so she won’t have to be treated by the impersonal physician assigned to the theater. Someday I’d like to see that person identified as ‘her doctor.’ Physicians are physicians, friends are friends. The rest is clutter.”
In the list below, the unnecessary words are shown in parentheses. They can almost always be deleted without losing any meaning.
Some significant classes of pleonasms are excluded, such as:
Some words represent absolute things or ideas; some words represent relative concepts. Here’s the difference: An absolute is something that cannot be modified; for example, a certain extreme state or condition. It is the epitome of what we mean when we say, “It is what it is.” These important words represent absolutes:
absolute |
not relative; only has one state, measure, or meaning |
best |
most extreme element with some good quality |
better |
good in some higher degree |
dead |
not alive or functional |
equal |
exactly the same |
eternal |
forever, without beginning or end |
false |
factually incorrect |
fatal |
deadly |
final |
conclusive |
finite |
bounded, not infinite |
identical |
exactly the same |
immortal |
lives forever |
infinite |
unbounded, not finite |
irrevocable |
granted forever |
opposite |
the other side of a binary condition |
parallel |
not converging or diverging; exactly the same direction |
perfect |
cannot be made better |
pregnant |
with child |
relative |
not absolute; has a spectrum of states, measures, or meanings |
round |
circular |
square |
at exactly right angles |
straight |
without a bend or curve |
supreme |
extreme, of the highest quality, degree, importance, etc. |
total |
complete, 100% of something |
true |
actual, real, correct |
unanimous |
in complete agreement |
unique |
one of a kind |
worse |
bad in some higher degree |
worst |
most extreme element with some bad quality |
Absolutes tend to have only one distinct meaning. Most of the time, an absolute is the end of some binary scale. You can frequently define an absolute by saying it is the opposite of the other end of the binary scale, as truth is the opposite of falsehood. Some absolutes have multiple meanings, but in general, they cannot be modified with adjectives and adverbs like most, least, more, less, very, not very, or almost. Modifying absolutes as though they were relatives is a common abuse. We frequently hear phrases like these:
It was the most unique.
She was very pregnant.
That is more true.
We need to make this more square. The vote was more unanimous.
This poison is less fatal.
These absolutes provide a large source of pleonasms. Put absolutely or relatively in front of any of the words listed above and you get a pleonasm.
We all learned in school that we shouldn’t use no double negatives. A double negative is created when two negative terms are used in the same clause. Logically, a double negative resolves to negating a negation; therefore, it resolves to a positive. In other words:
negative one times negative one = positive one (-1 x -1 = +1)
The Yale Book of Quotations, edited by Fred Shapiro, contains a great quote by the philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser. He listened to a speaker saying that although in many cases two negatives make a positive, he could think of no case in which two positives make a negative. To this, Morganbesser replied, “Yeah, yeah.” This is nice example of the importance of tone in delivery. Only humans can invent ways to circumvent the purity of mathematics and create a double positive that translates into a negative.
Double negatives usually occur in informal speaking and vernaculars. Here are a few classic rock and roll double negatives with which almost everyone is familiar.
I can’t get no satisfaction. (The Rolling Stones meant, “I can’t get any satisfaction,” but these words translate logically into I can get satisfaction, which we all know is true.)
We don’t need no education. (Pink Floyd meant, “We don’t need any education,” but these words translate logically into we need education, which we all know is true.
You ain’t seen nothing yet. (Bachman Turner Overdrive meant, “You have not seen anything yet,” but these words translate into you have seen something.
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more. (Dylan meant, “I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm any more,” which nobody misinterprets.)
There are many common double negatives that are proper English. However, there are positive ways to say exactly the same thing with no confusion.
Don’t go without me! (Wait for me!)
I am not dissatisfied. (I am satisfied.)
I don’t dislike that person. (I like that person.)
It is not infinite. (It is finite.)
I am not independent. (I am dependent.)
I won’t ask you to not go. (Please leave.)
It is not unusual. (It is common.)
I don’t disagree. (I agree.)
In most of these cases, the reasonable-looking double negatives are used by people who can’t bring themselves to say the positive form because it feels too strong to them. They resort to the double negative form, which feels softer. My favorite is the expression, “I don’t disagree.” We have all heard this a jillion times in business meetings, where it is almost always secret code for, “I don’t totally agree, but I don’t want to say I don’t agree.” The speaker usually follows this up with a sentence that begins with the word but. Try stopping someone right after they say, “I don’t disagree,” and ask, “But do you agree?” The person will usually squirm and stall, think over their answer, and respond either “Yes, but…” or “Well, partly,” and then state the points that they don’t agree with.
I found my all-time favorite example of a double negative about 15 years ago in the sports section of a newspaper. A Cal Berkeley alumnus had just been traded to an NBA basketball team that had the worst record in the league. Asked about his team’s chances in the upcoming year, he was quoted as saying, “We are going to turn this team around 360 degrees.” Although this is not a double negative, it is a great example of a statement that has the same effect. This alumnus meant to turn the team around 180 degrees. He doubled the negation unintentionally, ignorantly setting the team on the same dismal path as the year before. I was not happy that my alma mater had not produced a basketball player who was not illiterate.
Triple and quadruple negation can also occasionally be seen. It results in total obfuscation of the author’s real intent. The last sentence of the previous paragraph is a good example, as is my parenthetical comment regarding Dylan, above. While double negatives are frowned upon in English, the French commonly use two negatives to make a stronger negative, particularly in informal French. The Romance languages and Greek and Slavic languages routinely use double negatives. If you are a native English speaker and converse with non-English speakers using either spoken or written communications, you may notice that they use double negatives in their English. Imagine how hard it is to learn English as a second language when your native tongue routinely uses semantic structures that are considered incorrect in English.
PUZZLE 12. COULD JEFFERSON WRITE?
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States is a good example of a one-sentence paragraph. While it may be a rather long sentence (due to its list of intents), it is a well-structured thought with crisp, meaningful words. It stands alone as a strong paragraph.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
Of all the abuses presented in this chapter, there are two specific instances that show up in one of America’s most revered paragraphs. Can you find them?
Many of the examples of English abuse sprinkled throughout this book have been the works of very accomplished people. Perhaps it is insane for me to suggest that our preamble could have been written better. Perhaps I should strike the word perhaps from that last sentence. This paragraph has stood the test of time. My nitpicky judgments on some potentially poor usage are made more than 230 years later, when the usage models for some words have evolved quite a bit. Nevertheless, this is a great retrospective poser for pedantic language observers.