Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Friday, December 28, 2012

"Problem Words" in English and How to Use Them

I want to talk about some specific words and usage issues that cause trouble for a great many native speakers of English who should know better. Call these pet peeves, if you must. I don't like to think of them as pets, though. Savage beasts all.

Ironic means that the outcome of something had a distinct quality of unexpectedness to it. But I like to think it means something more. To me it implies that there are (or were) two possible outcomes or interpretations of something, one that's expected but turns out to be wrong, and one that's not expected but actually true. Contrast this with the word paradoxical, which (to me) implies two outcomes that seem to be at odds with one another yet are both demonstrably true. Use paradoxical when there are two true yet seemingly incompatible outcomes. Ironic is less concrete a word and not as widely understood as paradoxical.

Poignant means keenly distressing to the senses and/or arousing deep and often somber emotions. It doesn't mean bittersweet. It can be an outcome of a bittersweet situation, but by itself it does not mean bittersweet.

Decimate means to reduce by one tenth. Never use it to mean "destroy completely." Decimation was (in Roman times) the practice of killing one out of every ten mutineers (or sometimes one in ten prisoners of war), as a means of demoralizing the nine out of ten survivors. The preferred meaning of decimate remains reduction by ten percent. You can use it to mean "reduce significantly," but never use it to mean total eradication.

Irregardless is always incorrect. Use "regardless" unless you want to appear careless or stupid.

Don't say "which" when you mean "that." Example: "The subject which interests me most is philosophy." Use that, not which, in such a sentence. There's a difference between "The crane that was the cause of the accident was demolished" and "The crane, which was the cause of the accident, was demolished." Which should be reserved for clauses set off by commas.

For God's sake learn the difference between it's (a contraction) and its (possessive). The reason people get this mixed up is that the rule for making something possessive, in English, is to add apostrophe-s to the end of whatever it is. So it's natural to think that if you add apostrophe-s to "it," you get a possessive form. Not true, though. The possessive form of it is its.

Learn to use "nor" as the negative form of "or."
In particular, don't use "or" in connection with "neither." Don't do: "Using ain't is neither correct or necessary." The word "neither" here demands that you use "nor."

Try not to use "almost always" or "almost never." It's semantically akin to saying "almost infinite." The words always, never, and infinite are absolute and binary. Something is infinite, or it's not. Something either occurs always, or it doesn't. "Almost" and "always" are two different concepts.

Don't say infer when you mean imply.

Bemused has nothing whatsoever to do with amusement. (Read that again.) It has everything to do with bewilderment or befuddlement.

Peruse means to read carefully, not to skim lightly or read haphazardly.

Who versus whom: My advice? Don't worry about "whom" versus "who" unless you're writing for an audience that cares about such things. It's not always better to use "whom" properly. Using it properly can mark you as a self-righteous pedant! It all depends on the audience. My rule is to always use "who" unless you're convinced the reader will object to its improper use. (And you might have noticed, I don't much care about splitting infinives.) Most readers won't care. You're writing for most readers, by the way (and not your high school English teacher), aren't you?

And finally:

Literally refers to something that actually happened (or is happening) in reality. It represents the concrete reality of something, not anything metaphoric. There's nothing speculative (nor merely descriptive) about a thing that's literal. "He literally went insane" means the person actually became clinically schizophrenic per DSM-IV-TR #295.1–295.3, 295.90. "He literally went ballistic" means the person had enough momentum to follow a ballastic trajectory through space. "He literally melted down" means the person became hot enough to exceed the melting point of his constituent materials. Don't say literally unless you really mean it.


  1. Interesting that most of your pet peeves are people using words in error, but then you recommend to always say "who". Using it right is using it right. People really should be learning grammar anyway, including the difference between the nominative case and the objective case when it comes to pronouns.

    If we all used proper grammar, those agreed upon rules we have to communicate with each other, we could worry less about appearing like self-righteous pedants, and worry more about getting a message across clearly.

  2. Some very good observations here but as Roberto says, you can't be pedantic about certain words and they say some flexibility is allowed with "whom".

    It's interesting to watch spelling and grammar rules morph over time. The popular usage of a word or phrase very often becomes the accepted way of doing something because, as you say "most readers won't care" and to do otherwise sounds wrong (even when it's right). When enough people use a word incorrectly for a long enough period of time, eventually the meaning changes.

    Anyway thanks for the article.

  3. One thing I've been seeing a lot of lately and *that* I think may be worth mentioning here is the mistaken use of the word "entitled". It seems as though everywhere I turn, people are calling people entitled when what's meant is that those people FEEL entitled. As I'm sure we all know, Americans actually are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But a six-year-old feels entitled to another cupcake. If they were *literally* entitled, someone would probably be obligated to see that they get it.

    Just a little contribution. Nice article, by the way.

  4. You didn't mention the hideously irritating profusion in usage of "loose" instead of "lose". For those who don't seem to know the difference - loose is the opposite of tight and lose is the opposite of win and also, what has happened when you can't find something.

  5. I hope you have the time to read and respond

    Hey this is off topic but it from one you had in 2009 re Fractal technology i would like to hear your thoughts

    Are you interested in Fractal technology and do you understand what you could see if it works with a

    video that can be compressed in a TruDef file can then be played to screen size resolution independent and it could be in 2 k 4 k formats.

    And this has nothing to do with H264/H265 Wavelet MPEG 264 consortium

    Its a small company all to itself

    Look at a company TMMI

    They bought the video code rights from iterated Systems(Barnsly and Sloan) and sold the video codec to

    TMMI even as Alan Sloan advised against it.

    Dr Sloan is now on the board of directors.

    They have a working coded and you will see it very soon so if you are a techie type person all i can say is

    seeing is believing especially when what you see is viewed at different screen sizes but from the same

    smaller compressed file is able to produced 4K video.

    There eniter history can be read at trudef blog

    Enjoy the read and if you truly understand that with there working codec and today's computer processing

    speeds have made this a perfect storm for what is about to happen in 2013.

    I look forward to hear your thoughts Kas


  6. You missed "hopefully".
    That one always makes me go postal.


Add a comment. Registration required because trolls.