Charles Harrington Elster

Click and type in a question or comment

I noticed while watching the Matrix that "Neo", if rearranged, spells "the one". I am sure that there is a term for this phenomenon and would like to know what it is. I am also curious to know if there would be the same or a different term to describe the phenomenon if the name was only reversed and not rearranged, i.e. "Eno" which obviously if reversed would be "the one", minus the article "the" of course.

When you rearrange the letters of a word, phrase, or sentence to form a different word, phrase, or sentence it's called an anagram; for example, "We all make his praise" can be rearranged to spell the name William Shakespeare. For more on this topic, please see my comments on semordnilaps and palindromes below. — CHE

Mr. Elster,
What books would you recommend for mastering English Syntax? A good friend of mine recommends Georges Curme's Grammar of the English Language: Syntax--which, I heard, is dense and dry-as-dust. By the way, are you familiar with it?

Unless you intend to pursue an advanced degree in linguistics or literature, if I were you I would stay away from the hardcore treatises on grammar, such as Curme's, which may turn you sour on mastering English syntax. Instead, devote yourself to reading as much and as widely as you can, paying special attention to how good writers put their sentences and paragraphs together. Popular reference books on writing can be helpful, but only up to a point. There is no substitute for assiduous reading and autodidactic effort. — CHE

What are your thoughts on Marina Orlova and her website hotforwords.com? I mean, I'm learning and she's captured my attention. I not saying I don't learn from you as well. I take your advice over hers any day and I learn more from you anyway, but she does have a way to make learning words. . .well, she is a colpocoquette. Again, any thoughts?

For those readers unfamiliar with the word colpocoquette (which can be found on page 76 of my book There's a Word for It), it means "a woman who knows she has an attractive bosom and who makes good use of its allure." Ms. Orlova is unquestionably titillating, and she succeeds admirably at making words sexy, or perhaps I should say at using sex to sell words. But her approach falls short in that its appeal is limited: I doubt many straight women or gay men will find it alluring. — CHE

Hello Charlie,

I've been working hard to improve my writing skills, but the harder I work at it, the harder it gets, the more I realize how arduous it is to write one good sentence. It is as if I cannot write well without exerting myself. And that exertion sometimes stifles my thought and causes me to quit. Is this how it's supposed to be, Charlie? Does every writer struggle to write well?

Join the club, my friend. Being a writer is a lot like being a baseball player: even the best ones fail most of the time they step up to the plate. I think most writers would agree that if the act of writing isn't challenging technically and intellectually — and often emotionally — you are either not working hard enough or you're on mood-elevating drugs.

If writing were easy, what reward would there be in doing it? How could we judge when it's done well and when it is not? Try not to be dismayed or deterred by how difficult it is to distill your thoughts and get your words down right. Instead, whenever you sit down to write, think of it as an opportunity to refine your craft and say precisely what you mean. — CHE

Hey Charlie,

I had been looking for a great English thesaurus, until I found "Crabb's English Synonymes" and "Funk & Wagnall's Standard Handbook of Synonyms..."--two lovely books. My one concern, however, is their copyright dates: "Crabbs English Synonymes",1918, "Funk and Wagnalls..",1947. I'm just unsure whether I can still rely in them, given their age. What do you think, Charlie?

I own both those books, and I find them both useful and enduring (the Funk & Wagnall's more so) because of their fine synonym discriminations — the technical term for how various related words differ slightly in meaning and application. But the thesaurus I keep at my elbow is The Synonym Finder published by Rodale Books. It does not have synonym discriminations but its alphabetical format is accessible and its entries are comprehensive. You can easily order an affordable paperback edition, but that book is a bit unwieldy and the print is small. I have an old beat-up hardcover with larger print that I love, and you might be able to find one of these through online used-book dealers such as alibris.com.

Unless you want synonyms for slang and colloquial terms — for which Robert L. Chapman's Thesaurus of American Slang is an entertaining source — you needn't worry about older guides being out of date (although a century or more is pushing it). And, of course, always bear in mind when using a thesaurus that words are not widgets or nuts and bolts: you can't just replace one with another and expect it to fit just as well. So you must use a thesaurus in conjunction with a dictionary to make sure the word you choose conveys the nuance you intend. — CHE

Hi again CHE, hope things are well. Which is correct, 'gray' or 'grey'? Thank you. Raian Elric

Gray is the American spelling and grey is the British spelling. — CHE

hi lovely
again ahoora from iran,but this time with lots of other friends who love you so much. now we are looking for an efficient etymology book, if you can introduce one, you'll do us a great favour.
ahoora

Good to hear from you again, ahoora. The most entertaining and well-written books on etymology in my library are Robert Hendrickson's Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, third edition, and William and Mary Morris's Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins. But these are bulky and expensive books and may be hard to get. The books of Charles Earle Funk — for example, Thereby Hangs a Tale and A Hog on Ice, and Other Curious Expressions — though less comprehensive, are also entertaining, widely available, and more affordable. But remember, if it's just the origin of the word you want to know, without the story that may accompany it, a good dictionary is all you need. Cheers! — CHE

Hello Mr. Elster. I know you get this a lot, but I'm a huge fan. Your books and Cd's changed my life. Well I have a quick question. Do you have any words up your sleeve that denote someone who incessantly judges other people for their vices, without taking a hard look at their own lives? For example, people who always have something negative to say about people who smoke, drink coffee, or alcohol. I'm sorry if the question doesn't make sense, but I wasn't quite sure how to word it. Thank you.

Thanks for your great question. The best word I know of for the sort of person you describe is wowser (WOW-zur), which came into English in the 1890s by way of Australia and New Zealand. Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English defines a wowser as "a person very puritanical in morals; a spoil-sport; one who neither swears, drinks (in especial), nor smokes." And in my own book There's a Word for It I define a wowser as "a persnickety, puritanical, self-righteous snob."

One citation in the Oxford English Dictionary, from 1909, says wowser is applied particularly "to those who are fanatical on temperance and social evils." Another citation, from 1912, says "a wowser is one who wants to compel everybody else . . . to do whatever he thinks right, and abstain from everything he thinks wrong." Clearly, this is a word that should enjoy more currency, don't you agree? — CHE

Hi Mr Elster

Here's a snippet from a Book by Iain Banks (sci-fi writer):

'...now - suddenly - this man appears, spending with a quite vulgar profligacy and maintaining a high, if still coquettishly shy, profile... just when it might prove extremely awkward.' (Iain Banks - Use of Weapons).

The more I read this sentence the less convinced I am that it makes any sense! But my question concerns the word coquettish. The online dictionaries state that it applies to females. So, I'm left wondering if the author has used it correctly when using this word for a male? Thanks. Pete.

Yes, that use is certainly peculiar. The noun "coquette" is a female flirt and the adjective "coquettish" strongly suggests flirtatious female behavior ("Like or of the nature of a coquette," says the OED), so using it of a man is confusing, to say the least. And pairing it with "shy" is odd, too, since the object of coquetry is to attract attention. Yet it's interesting to note that the verb to "coquet" (to trifle, dally, flirt, toy) is not restricted to women, nor even to human beings, and the unusual noun "coquet," which comes directly from French, means a male flirt (the feminine form is "coquette"). — CHE

When is the right time to use the word "apropos". I've read that some examples are obsolete or pretentious.
By the way, I listened to your past show on Mike Rosen here in Denver the other day by way of podcast, it was great as always, when are you coming back?

The only admonition I know of regarding "apropos" is not to use it with the preposition "to" as a fancy synonym of "appropriate"; for example, "His comments were not apropos to the conversation" is wrong. You may use "apropos" with or without "of" to mean "with respect to, regarding, concerning," as in "apropos of nothing," and you may use "apropos" to mean "fitting, suitable," as in "Her humor is always apropos."

Mike Rosen has me on his show on KOA in Denver about every three months. If you'd like to hear more of me, please drop him a line and let him know.— CHE

I hear the word Strength said strenth all the time these days in sports talk by athletes and commentators. A quick look in the dictionary shows it as an acceptable way to enunciate the word, but what I would like to know is when did it become so popular over str eng th, with the eng in the middle?

In The Orthoepist, published in 1894, Alfred Ayres admonishes readers to pronounce "strength" with the /ng/ blend, so people have apparently been mispronoucing "strength" (as STRENTH or STRAYNTH) for well over 100 years. And because the mispronunciation is so old and common, dictionaries recognize it. Incidentally, people drop the /ng/ blend because it's easier to say the word that way, the same way it's easier to drop the first /r/ in "February" and the first /c/ in "Arctic." But cultivated speakers take care to preserve all these sounds. — CHE

hi charls
i'm strongly looking for the real conceptual differences between despite and inspite of,i need all of its rudimentaries. i am really in need of your help.
one of your Iranian Lovers
Ahoora

And I, my dear Ahoora, am really in need of as many Iranian lovers as I can get. (Just kidding!) Don't rack your brain over this one; "despite" and "in spite of" are interchangeable — although, as Garner's Modern American Usage observes, "The compactness of despite recommends it." One thing to avoid: Don't write "despite the fact that" or "in spite of the fact that." It's verbose. "Though" or "although" will usually suffice. — CHE

Dear Charles,

I am currently reading "There's a word for it". I cannot find the word "dwaling" anywhere. Could you please explain its meaning. It is used in the frase "a dwaling logomaniac".

thanks

Pedro Montuenga

The verb to "dwale" is one of my all-time favorite words. It comes from archaic rural English dialect and means "to mutter deliriously" or "to wander, as in delirium." There's also a noun "dwale," which may mean "error, delusion," or "a stupefying drink, sleeping potion," or denote the poisonous plant deadly nightshade. You have to look in a big, older dictionary, such as the Century, OED, or Webster's New International, second edition, to find this gem of a word. Isn't English an amazing language? Cheers! — CHE

Hi Charles,
I have been reading your Verbal Advantage book and came across your advice of investing in a good dictionary. Because I want a dictionary that is convenient to carry (like when I read on the train/public transportation), I was thinking of investing in a portable electronic one. Are those as effective as the regular dictionaries or will I be forgoing quality for convenience?

Great question. Paperback dictionaries--often called "pocket" dictionaries--are often disappointing to serious readers because of their limited vocabularies and truncated entries. Alas, I am not yet familiar with the electronic dictionaries out there, but I can tell you this: Don't invest in one unless you're sure it is an unabridged version of a reputable dictionary. The reputable ones include Webster's New World, Random House Webster's College, American Heritage, New Oxford American, Encarta, and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate. Also, be wary of anything sporting the name "Webster" whose provenance is vague. Because "Webster" is in the public domain anyone can use the name, and many of the dictionaries out there called Webster's this or that are knockoffs or licensed abridgments. Of course, if you can access the Internet on the run you can always avail yourself of Dictionary.com and other online sources. — CHE

hi the god of words
it's been a long time that a word is irritating my mind and I could'nt find it even in Random house Unabridged Dictionary, the word is COSMOPSIS, I'm looking forward.
another thing, what is your idea about John Ayto and his books ???

I believe the word you seek is spelled cosmopolis (kahz-MAHP-uh-lis), which the second unabridged edition of The Random House Dictionary defines as "an internationally important city inhabited by many different peoples reflecting a great variety of cultures, attitudes, etc." It was coined about 1890 from the combining forms cosmo-, world, and -polis, city.

John Ayto is a British lexicographer who specializes in etymology (word origins). He is a respected authority who has been writing about language for a long time. — CHE

A caller on KOA Denver today (December 14, 2009) asked me for the word that means "the insertion of a sound or syllable in the middle of a word" — as in the mispronunciation mis-CHEE-vee-us for mischievous (MIS-chi-vus). I couldn't summon it on the fly but I promised to dig it up and post it here. The technical term for this is epenthesis (uh-PEN-thuh-sis). — CHE

What is the word that describes the phenomenon when one stares or looks at a word too long and forgets its meaning. E.g. There's one time when I look at the word "book" for a while, then I suddenly couldn't recognize it.

Two unusual words that I share in the introduction to my book There's a Word for It are close but not that specific: "lethologica" is the inability to recall the precise word for something, and "loganamnosis" is an obsession with trying to recall a forgotten word. In medicine and psychology what you describe is called "nominal aphasia," which Webster 2 defines as "the loss of power to use or understand individual words." My guess, however, is that nominal aphasia is not a transitory condition, but more prolonged and troublesome. — CHE

FCD lost an online Scrabble game to JD when he used the word 'enophile' instead of 'oenophile.' Facebook's Webster dictionary did not catch it. Should it have?

The only acceptable spelling is oenophile, with an initial /o/. Oenophilist is a less common variant. The source is the Greek oinos, wine, from which we get the combining form oeno-, of or pertaining to wine. — CHE

From where does the phrase "bread and butter" originate for when two people who are strolling are briefly separated by an object such as a lamppost?

Great question. I wish I could be more helpful regarding an origin for this expression--which my mother taught me when I was a child (in the early 1960s) and which I have passed on to my own children--but my sources are strangely mum on the topic. Only in The Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE) did I find a whiff of an answer. The citations in that great ongoing work show that it has been used by children in various parts of the country since about 1920 (the year my mother was born). The notion is that, since bread and butter are inseparable partners, if you say "bread and butter" after some object comes between you and somone else it will magically keep you together and "ward off bad luck." That's the best I can do for now, but I'll keep looking for more information on this. — CHE

Hello Charles,
It irks me every time I hear Garrison Keillor say "This is The Writer's Almanac," pronouncing the last word as AL-man-ack rather than ALL-man-ack. Is this a standard pronunciation or merely a spelling pronunciation? If the latter, please call him up and set him straight! It's beginning to bug me almost as much as G. W. Bush's "nucular" :-)
-- Joe Freeman

It's not a mispronunciation, Joe. It's a regional pronunciation--more specifically, a North Midland pronunciation--that has been listed in dictionaries since the 1960s as a standard alternative to the more general "all" pronunciation. (Only the Random House dictionary does not recognize it.) Just as the Canadian pronounces "about" and the New Englander pronounces "tomato" in a way that sounds odd to most Americans, Keillor puts the name "Al" in "almanac" because he's from Minnesota, where they have their own particular (and sometimes peculiar) ways of saying things. Try not to let it bother you. — CHE

Hello Charles,

Yesterday, apropos of nothing, I tweeted the following statement:

OK, LISTEN UP! The word "asocial" means unsociable (e.g., avoids parties) while "antisocial" means sociopathic (e.g., likes to kill people)!

because I am so tired of people saying they are antisocial when they mean asocial or unsociable, and I was interested in seeing what kinds of reactions I could provoke. Shirley, bless her heart, says "Your definition of antisocial is a bit skewed." Remembering that I only had 140 characters in which to make the distinction, am I promulgating falsehoods?

And, Charles, for extra credit: Is New Haven-style "apizza" (pronounced ah-BEETS) as good as everyone says? -- Joe Freeman

Sorry again, Joe, but it appears you are enforcing a distinction that is neither urged by usage authorities nor supported by actual usage. What language experts call "differentiation" hasn't yet occurred with these words. "Antisocial," the older of the two by a bit less than 100 years, means "opposed to sociality, averse to society or companionship," says the first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, whose earliest citation is from 1797. And "asocial," which you correctly note is a synonym of "unsociable," may mean "withdrawn, not gregarious," but also "averse to conventional standards of behavior" and "selfish, egocentric" (Random House II). It may not seem neat and tidy enough for you, but I think it's clear in almost all contexts when "antisocial" refers to unsociable behavior and when it refers to hostile or menacing behavior. Perhaps it's best to let sleeping dogs lie with this one. But feel free to use "asocial" when you mean "not friendly or sociable."

And regarding New Haven, CT pizza — yes, most assuredly, that city is the home of the best pizza in North America; it is also pizza's birthplace in the New World. One bite of a slice from Yorkside, Naples, Pepe's, or Sally's (where they still call them "tomato pies" and you pay extra for cheese) should be enough to persuade even the haughtiest pizza aficionado from New York or Chicago. Cheers! — CHE

Hi Mr. Elster:
Loved 'My Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations' but found an error: balsamic
I'm Italian. Whether you are in Italy or in America, the Italian alphabet does not pronounce the "a" vowel in a flat tone, as in "at". The word is Italian and cannot be Americanized. It is bahl-SAHM-ik, more accurately bahl-SAHM-ee-koh. I'm not a food network hoity toity chef, I'm simply very careful when wrapping my tongue around a foreign word, ex: chamois. Yes, in America it's sham-ee. In France or French Canada, non. Proper foreign pronunciation is not an affectation, it is a courtesy.

My well-meaning Italian friend: Before you make claims about a word, it's wise to check the facts in a reliable dictionary. Balsamico is an Italian word, but balsamic is not. It's English, and has been so for four hundred years. Before that it was Middle English, and ultimately it comes from Greek, not Italian. My point in The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations is that the faux-Italian pronunciation bawl-SAH-mik, with the broad /a/ of "father" in the second syllable, is a silly affectation popularized by misguided foodies who think they are showing their cultural superiority by Italianizing this word. Would you pronounce "romantic" roh-mahn-TEEK because the word comes from French? I didn't think so. That's why you should pronounce the venerably English "balsamic" in English: bawl-SAM-ik, with the first syllable like "ball" and the short /a/ of "hat" in the second syllable.
— CHE

Hi Mr. Elster,
In "What in the Word" you described the pronunciation /τ-mahzh/ as a vogue pronunciation designed to gain prestige. It seems to me like a reborrowing: this pronunciation, from what I have heard, seems restricted to the filmographic sense of a reference to another work. It is also the pronunciation of the modern French "hommage", similar to how "motive" was reborrowed as "motif". Wiktionary's entry seems to confirm this. What are your thoughts?
- Cameron

Good question, Cameron. The beastly mispronunciation oh-MAHZH for "homage" is indeed based on the French hommage, but I hesitate to call it a reborrowing because that would seem to bestow a mantle of respectability on a linguistic mannerism that is merely silly and pretentious. "Homage" has been English since the 13th century, and since the 18th century pronouncing the /h/ (HAHM-ij) has been de rigueur.

I wish I could agree that the affected pronunciation oh-MAHZH and the re-Frenchified spelling "hommage" (often in italics!) are restricted to film criticism, but these errors are now regrettably widespread. I have seen and heard "hommage" used of novels and paintings as well as in the set phrase "pay homage (to)." I have written about this mistake in my forthcoming guide The Accidents of Style, which will be published by St. Martin's Press in July 2010. — CHE

Hi Charles,

You are an authority in the scope of vocabulary. I have a grammar question. I have read some books about grammar of English such as modern English by Marcella Frank and Grammar Digest. There is a grammar exam that I have participated for two years in row but I have failed that exam terribly. Some of my classmates that have passed the exam believe that it is not a grammar exam but an English Usage exam. So, I guess, it is a combination of vocabulary and grammar. I want to tackle the problem and end this thing. I am desperate. I came across your website and I felt I have found a solution for my problem. Please help. You gave me the prescription and I follow. You are my doctor. Please help. What book or books should I read to be able to tackle my grammar and usage problems and confidently pass all my grammar and usage exams?

Thanks my man!
Yours truly,

Maryam, From Kashmar

If I had to recommend one book, Maryam, it would be Garner's Modern American Usage. It is a comprehensive reference on grammar, usage, and pronunciation. But it may be too challenging in some respects for an ESL speaker. You may find the website of Mignon Fogarty, aka Grammar Girl, helpful in preparing for your test: www.quickanddirtytips.com. She has podcasts you can listen to on specific subjects and a book called Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing. — CHE

Dear Mr. Elster, I listened to your story and your background in verbal advantage CD’s. Your profession is vocabulary. Mine too. I am a translator and I have decided to work on conference interpretation. I translate and sometimes interpret from English into Arabic. Interpreters should have a flawless command of the source and target languages. I really feel that my ineffective vocabulary is the main obstacle in achieving my lofty dream: “being a proficient conference interpreter in the united nations”.
Please sympathetically answer the following questions:
1. Do you think verbal advantage is a good source for being a competent interpreter in the future? I know that an interpreter should have a lot of other factors than just knowing the vocabulary of the two languages. Yet, do you think verbal advantage is verbally adequate for training simultaneous and conference interpreters?
2. If your son is an Arab student and you want your Arabic-speaking son to be a conference interpreter and simultaneous interpreter, what books and journals would you suggest him to read? What vocabulary books would you recommend him to study? Thank you for your application.(Regards, Hasan, United Arab Emirates)

Hasan, you have asked me two questions that I'm afraid I cannot answer with much authority. I am not trained in ESL instruction or conversant with ESL materials, nor am I familiar with the specific language skills required of interpreters, so I can't tell you or your son how best to train to be one. But I can say this: Anything you can get your hands on that will improve your English vocabulary will help you both in the long run. Even if it's only reading an English-language newspaper or magazine (with an English dictionary handy so you can look up unfamiliar words), that will help. But if you can also get your hands on some vocabulary-building books and audio programs, so much the better. Verbal Advantage will definitely help you if you use it diligently. There is also an audio program called WordSmart, for which I was an editor and narrator, that has a wealth of information about English. And then there are the many books on building English vocabulary. If I had to pick among them, I would choose anything by Norman Lewis or Norman W. Schur, and How to Build a Better Vocabulary by Nurnberg and Rosenblum. Good luck and good words to you! — CHE

Hi Charles! I think I tripped myself over a word. Phenomenon is singular. But am I nuts or is there a word like phenome out there? I thought I was using it properly, then m-w.com seemed to say, "no, you're an idiot". Can you illuminate what gives with that one?

Phenomenon is indeed singular. Phenomena is the plural. The shortened form you are hearing is usually spelled phenom and pronounced FEE-nahm. It's an informal word (often used and probably originating in the sports world) for a person with exceptional ability, a prodigy. — CHE

Can you help me with the correct pronunciation of the word "tousled"?

Glad to. The first syllable rhymes with "how" and "now," and the second syllable sounds like the second syllable of "drizzled." Thus: TOW-zuuld. — CHE

I don't say "umm" frequently, but it creeps out every once in a while, when I'm thinking about what to say next. I was raised to avoid such colloquial babble. Is there any way to avoid saying umm?

Some time ago I reviewed, for the Wall Street Journal, a book called UM . . . in which the author, Michael Erard, argued that so-called speech disfluencies like "um" are an inevitable side effect of how our brains process language. He doesn't say that we have to like them, only that we should try to understand them. So, I say don't flagellate yourself over a few "ums." We all are guilty of the occasional slip of the tongue. But if you suspect you are becoming dependent on "um," "y'know," "like," "I mean," "well," "basically," or any other speech filler or verbal tic, you should record yourself to analyze the problem and, if you think you need it, seek help from a speech therapist or an organization like Toastmasters. — CHE

Greetings, Charles, Please write a second edition to your first Verbal Advantage book. I love your books and have recommended them to many others. Regards, Mike Dehari

Thanks, Mike. That's just what I intend to do, now that I have a contract from St. Martin's Press. See the sidebar on this page for details. — CHE

"Misandrist" is a new one for me. I had always used and advised "misanthrope" as the opposite of "misogynist." Are they both correct words to use to refer to someone who hates man(kind)?

Here's the distinction: misandrist refers to a hater of males, and is the antonym of misogynist, while misanthrope denotes a hater of humankind, males and females alike. — CHE

I would like to thank you for all your publications. I started with Verbal Advantage and now I am addicted to your writings. You have opened my eyes to the beauty behind the English language. Thank you thank you thank you. My first question. Why do you call it when a person says a phrase repeatedly? For example, Caroline Kennedy and her infamous 'ya know' phrase. Second, what do you call it when a person is trying to recall a persons name and calls the person other names? My stepson will often times say to me, "Dad. Mom. Raian!" In 'What in the Word?' I found lapsus memoriae. There is one for words alone, lethologica. I was wondering if there is one for names. Lastly, my instructor told me he once had a student with a documented medical condition where she has a phobia of scantrons. I tried to look for the name of this phobia but there doesn't seem to be any record anywhere. Can you help me? Thank you. Raian Elric.

That's a lot of questions, Raian. At this rate, I'm going to have to start charging for answers! Luckily, I think I have some ready ones for you.

Continual, and usually unconscious, repetition of a word or phrase (such as "like" or "y'know") is called verbigeration, and the general term for forgetting names is lethonomia, which may apply to the kind of momentary forgetfulness you describe, to forgetting people's names right after meeting them, or to a general inability to remember names. (Both words are in There's a Word for It; check the index.)

To my knowledge, there is no documented word for a phobia of Scantrons (the machines that interpret your answers on fill-in-the-bubble tests or forms). But as we uncover ever more phobias in this frightful world we must make up new words for them, and the obvious choice here is the straightforward Scantronphobia (with a capital S because it's a trade name). I hope this is helpful to you. — CHE

Mr Elster, What are some of the best resources on the market for both writing and editing prose? I do not aspire to become a professional writer, but I'd like to develop some sophistication in editing my own work, removing the burden of verbiage, prolixity, officialese, etc...I've been trying to mimic your writing, something I'm proud to do, as I'm emulous of great men like you. Hopefully, I'll get there someday. Thanks for your help.

Thank you for your kind words, and I applaud you for wanting to become a better writer. I mentioned a few of my favorite style guides in answering a question below; do a search for "Garner" and you'll find it. To that list I would also add these books, which I have found helpful: On Writing Well by William Zinsser; Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words by Bill Bryson; Simple and Direct by Jacques Barzun; The Elements of Style by Strunk and White, particularly White's closing chapter "An Approach to Style"; The Elements of Editing by Arthur Plotnik; The Write Way by Richard Dowis and Richard Lederer; and Line by Line by Claire K. Cook. For purging your prose of "verbiage, prolixity, officialese," and other hackneyed locutions there is the unfelicitously titled Dimwit's Dictionary by Robert Hartwell Fiske.

Good luck to you, and a big thank you for introducing me to the very cool word emulous. I wasn't aware that the verb emulate had such a useful corresponding adjective. — CHE

Thank you for these useful sources. I should add them to my library. By the way, I got the word "emulous" listening to Bergen Evans vocabulary tape series. Although his program is a goldmine of beautiful words, Verbal Advantage remains unparalleled.

Yes, Bergen Evans is one of the great ones, wordwise, and his Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage (1957), which he wrote with his wife, Cornelia, is one of the best usage guides of the previous century and is, in many ways, still useful today. — CHE

Hi Charlie, I am an English Teacher from Iran. I am a verbomaniac and the only student who tried to memorize the whole Advanced Oxford Dictionary in Iran. I really love your voice and everynight I sleep with your voice (Verbal Advantage). Now, I am preparing myself for a GRE-Like exam for PhD students in Iran. I really need GRE words on an audible format to listen to, just like your verbal advantage. I surfed the net and found an indian man reciting the Baron's GRE words. That was really funny. All (and I dare say all) the pronunced words are disasterous. I want to recommend you to see the websites proffering GRE Wordlists of Krupa Shanker.I really expect you to stop this tragic story. Prepare something for GRE words and I am the first to buy the book. GRE applicants need your help. Help them. Write a book on GRE Words. You are a great language teacher man. I love you man ! Yours truly, A vocabularymaniac from Iran. mohamad.imanian@gmail.com

What a treat to hear from a fan in Iran! Thanks for all your kind compliments. It's especially gratifying to hear from a stranger that I have a somniferous voice — my wife and daughters have always told me that my voice is remarkably soporific but I never believed them.

Thanks for your suggestion about GRE words; I'll look into it. And good luck and good words to you in your ESL teaching and all your verbomaniacal activities. — CHE

Dear Charles, I read two of your books and they are great. The verbal advantage really works. In all your teachings, you are recoursing to Latin roots. Since my native language is not English, in fact it is Persian, I don’t know if there is any book in the market by which I can improve my knowledge of Latin. Is it necessary at all to buy a Latin book and read it from A to Z? If such books are available in the market, what do you recommend for your verbomaniac advocates all over the world? Is there any other way by which I can improve my knowledge of Latin words? You always say that a little Latin is good. Ok, But How? Fatima Shirzad, From Tehran

Another fan from Iran! Thanks for writing, Fatima. I suppose you could buy a Latin grammar book and study it cover to cover, but is it Latin you want to master or is your goal to better understand the English words with Latin roots? To accomplish the latter all you need to do is assiduously use your English dictionary, paying particular attention to the etymologies (word origins) and memorizing the Latin — and Greek — roots. It also wouldn't hurt to have a Latin dictionary as a cross-reference. If you want to make a more concerted study of the classical origins of English words, one of the better books that I've seen out there on the subject is NTC's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Origins by Bob Moore and Maxine Moore. I hope that's helpful to you. Good luck! — CHE

Hey Charlie, I'm tired of hearing people-- especially so called professional journalists or TV anchors--continually uttering the term "First and Foremost"; it sounds CLICHE to me. I don't know what it is, but it just doesn't sound right. Is it just another way to say "First"? If it is, then why don't they just say "First"? It bugs me, especially having to continually hear it from my supervisor.

Your instincts are spot on, as the British like to say. "First and foremost," which goes back to the 16th century, has become merely a wordy, pompous, hackneyed way of saying "first" or "to begin with." Alas, the TV pundits and supervisors of this world tend to be fond of wordy, pompous, hackneyed ways of saying things. — CHE

Hi Charles, I would like to ask something regarding the use of the term field announcer. Can I also use that to describe someone who reports news on the field? Or being called a field reporter is more appropriate? Thanks Tina

Judging from a sampling of citations on Google News, the term "field announcer" is used of a person who is on the field or stationed where the action is taking place (as opposed to being in a press box) in a sporting event, either conducting promotional activities or reporting on some aspect of the event. The term "field reporter" is chiefly used of a journalist who is sent out into "the field" — anyplace that isn't the newsroom — to report on some event. — CHE

Hi Charles I would be most grateful if you could answer the following (dumb?) query. A few days ago, in most the UK national newspapers, appeared the following headline: 'Estate Agents are selling less than one property a week!' Now, shouldn't that be 'fewer'? Okay, I realise I'm probably wrong, because we're talking broadsheet/quality journalism here. So, why isn't it fewer instead of less?

If you’re aware of the "fewer-less" distinction — that "fewer" should be used with “count nouns” (things that can be counted or itemized, like nails or grocery items) and "less" should be used with “mass nouns” (things that are considered as a measurable whole or mass, like sugar or time) — then deciding whether to use "fewer" or "less" with "one" can be confusing.

Do you say “one fewer thing to worry about,” which sounds weird but seems to be correct because things can be counted? Or do you say “one less thing to worry about,” which sounds a lot better but doesn’t seem to abide by the distinction?

You must say “one less thing to worry about,” partly because it’s idiomatic and also because it obeys another distinction between "fewer" and "less" that is less well known. If you remember that "less" must always apply to a singular noun — less time, less money, but never less groceries — and "fewer" always applies to a plural noun — fewer nails, fewer groceries, but never fewer sugar — you should never again have trouble remembering that with "one," which will always be followed by a singular noun, "less" is the proper choice.

So, this time, the newspapers were right: "less than one property" is correct. With more than one, however, it should be "fewer": "Fewer than two properties."

Now I hope I have given you one less thing to worry about. — CHE

Hi Mr Elster, I really enjoyed reading your book "Verbal Advantage". Actually I did browse that thrice, and still reading it. I wonder as to when are you planning to write another one? English is not my native language that is why I am struggling to learn a lot. I have also purchased all of your books, and I love them all. They are quite helpful. It made my study easy and enjoyable, and I think this is the most effective way in studying and retaining the knowledge. I am really looking forward in your new series of books. Tina

Tina, thanks for the kind words. I am currently writing Elster's Word Workout, another challenging vocabulary-building program that will serve as a companion to Verbal Advantage. It's scheduled for publication in early 2011. See the sidebar on this page for details. — CHE

Dear Wordmaster: My son has a boy whose name is Aidan. A neighbor has a child named Nadia which is the reverse of Aidan. Is there a name for this? — James Phelan

That's a delightful coincidence! I would call it a name semordnilap (sem-ORD-ni-lap). That's palindromes spelled backward. You may know that a palindrome is a word, phrase, or sentence that says the same thing when read either forward or backward: "Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog." A semordnilap is a word that means one thing when read forward and another when read backward: part, trap; wolf, flow; straw, warts. "Bob" and "Eve" are name palindromes; your Aidan-Nadia is a name semordnilap. Another example of this is "Harpo" and "Oprah." — CHE

I have been looking for a word for some decades now. There is a property of the psychology of some humans to imagine themselves to be functioning at a higher level than they may in fact be. Years ago I worked for an organization that functioned poorly. I tried to bring up the idea of national standards for the field in question with my supervisor. I mentioned the work of a nationally famous expert in the field obviously implying that we might learn from that person. My supervisor's response was, "Oh yes, X, I've been to his meetings and lectures." As if to say, "I've been in the same room with that person, have already learned everything possible from them."

To date I've only been able to term this mental maneuver "Right-up-there-with-them-ism." Is there any chance that there is a single word for this phenomenon? — Mark Pavlick

Great question! Unfortunately, I can't find a word with that meaning. But since I hate to let my wordstuck wayfarers down, I'll just make something up.

Often the best way to make up a word for a complicated concept is to break down the concept into its meaningful elements and then assemble combining forms that correspond to those elements. It seems to me that in your definition — "the psychology of some humans to imagine themselves to be functioning at a higher level than they may in fact be" — we have three primary meaning elements: the imagining, the functioning, and the higher level. So we need three combining forms that, when put together, will denote "imagining + functioning + (at) a higher level."

For the higher level element, we can use supra-, which means "above, higher" either literally or figuratively. For the functioning element I think we'll need two combining forms, because your definition implies a delusional belief in one's superior knowledge as well as performance. So let's go with ergo-, from the Greek ergon, work, and -gnosis, from the Greek word for knowledge. Finally, for the imagining element we need something pejorative with a soupηon of psychology to connote self-delusion or affectation, so I think good-old pseudo-, fake, sham, feigned, counterfeit, illusory, should do nicely.

And there you have it: pseudosupraergognosis (soo-doh-soo-pruh-ur-guh-NOH-sis), the delusional belief that one's knowledge or performance is better than it is. — CHE

Increasingly these days I hear the word "invite" used as a noun, with the stress on the first syllable, to mean "invitation," analogously to how "quote" is often used instead of "quotation." How do you feel about these two shortcuts? Personally, I am comfortable with "quote" but not at all with "invite." - Joe Freeman

Terrific question. "Functional shift" is when one part of speech gets used as another part of speech — when a verb gets nouned or a noun gets verbed, and so on. (Modern examples: "impact" used as a verb; "fun" used as an adjective.) Your examples — "quote" and "invite" — represent an interesting kind of functional shift because they are not only grammatical extensions but also replacements for a longer form. More on this in a moment.

The American Heritage Dictionary tells us that "quote" as a noun has been around for "over 100 years"; "its use in less formal contexts is widespread today" but it is "best avoided in more formal situations." My take on it is that "quote" is acceptable shorthand in all but the most formal literary contexts; that's why journalists collect quotes and TV pundits discuss politicians' quotes, but you'll never see an edition of Bartlett's Dictionary of Quotes.

"Invite" is a peculiar case. The OED traces its use as a noun all the way back to 1659. Nevertheless, many modern usage commentators condemn it, as one mid-20th century expert puts it, for having "remained impudently in use for 300 years." "The consensus," says Roy Copperud in American Style and Usage(1980), "is overwhelming that it is nonstandard." I'm with them — and you — on this one.

Other examples of this kind of functional shift, where a short form is extended grammatically to replace a longer form, have been vying for acceptance of late. "Molest" used as a noun had been obsolete since the 13th century but was revived in the late 20th century, in social-work circles, to replace "molestation." Now it has spilled over into journalism and we see phrases like "molest case" and "molest charge." In 2002, the OED recorded this usage, from which I can only politely avert my gaze.

Likewise with "consult" (stress on first syllable). Its use as a noun was first recorded in 1600, but only recently has it gained enough currency to threaten to supplant "consultation." It probably started as jargon among doctors and psychologists, who infected the rest of us.

"Disconnect" presents another interesting case. I didn't like it when I first noticed it was being used in place of "disconnection," about twenty years ago, and I still don't like it now that it has become established (the OED recorded it in 2005). There's something slangy and lazy and imprecise about it that bugs me and says, "I'm a slacker word."

Finally, we have some newcomers: "add" for "addition" (perhaps a further shortening of "add-on"); "refurb" for "refurbishing" or "refurbishment" (AT & T used this one in an email ad it sent me); and "admit" for "admittee," a bit of college-admissions jargon that is rapidly making its way into the mainstream.

If you come across any other examples of this kind of functional shift, I hope you'll send them my way (with proper citational info, please). — CHE

Mr. Elster, This is Greg Bergman, author of Bizzwords. I thought you may be interested to know that you were plagiarized virtually verbatim in a review of my book on Amazon.com by Susanna Hutcheson. Oh, and thanks for the review — even the snarky parts.

Thanks to you, Mr. Bergman, for being a gentleman about the review (which, if other readers are interested, appeared in The Wall Street Journal July 23, 2008, page A-15). And thanks also for the heads-up on the plagiarism. I have informed my editor at WSJ and the legal staff at the Authors Guild and we'll see what we'll see.

It's very hard to punish people who commit these infractions on the Internet, but they should be punished nevertheless (it's the intellectual equivalent of shoplifting!). And Amazon.com — which is maddeningly aloof about feedback regarding factual errors and abuses like this — should also be held accountable for what they post and allow to be posted. — CHE

What's the difference between "practical" and "practicable" ? And is there a word (in English) for describing the surface texture of hard ice cream after a scoop has been scraped across its surface. If not, how could such a word be fashioned, I wonder.

Practical means "having a useful purpose" or "capable of being put to good use." Practicable, which has four syllables (PRAK-ti-kuh-bul), means "workable, feasible, possible, capable of being put into practice." A useful tool is practical; a well-designed plan is practicable.

I'm afraid the Grandiloquent Gumshoe is stumped regarding your ice-cream word. Suggestions are welcome.
— CHE

The 2008 Olympic city is Beijing. The "-jing" part is supposed to sound like the jing- in "jingle" Yet too many commentators are mispronouncing the "j" as if it were the "j" in Woody Allen's jejune, or Zsa Zsa Gabor's Z's. Shades of Muscovian cows!

You're so right, my friend. Perhaps you should compose a mnemonic song for the Olympics: "Beijingle Bells." — CHE

Mr. Elster. I'm no wordsmith, although some words jump out and get my attention. The word "premise" is often used in place of "premises" when speaking of a location. My job is in the security industry, i see the word used in manuals, police/fire department websites, in the company i work for verbally and in print. There is also a local jewelry store with a radio commercial that uses "premise" to speak of their store. Is it ok to use "premise" instead of "premises" when speaking of a physical location? Looking forward to hearing you on 850KOA again. Thank you for your time. John, Denver. CO.

Good question, John, and the answer is straightforward: You should never use premise of a location. What you've been hearing is wrong. Some people mistakenly assume that because there's an s on the end of premises it must be a plural, and so they use it the way we use place and places. But premises means "the house or building along with its grounds." Premise is a different word with a different meaning: "a proposition on which you can base an argument or from which you can draw a conclusion." — CHE

Hey Mr. Elster! I was wondering where the phrase vice versa comes from and if it has anything to do with the word vice as in immoral conduct?

Another excellent question. As I note in my BIG BOOK OF BEASTLY MISPRONUNCIATIONS, the vice in vice versa is not the same as in vice squad. The latter vice, which rhymes with ice and nice, comes from the Latine vitium, a fault, defect, and means depravity, immoral behavior. The vice in vice versa is the ablative of the Latin vicis, change, turn, alternation, and is used in English as a preposition meaning "in place of, instead of." This vice is properly pronounced in two syllables, not one: VY-suh (VUR-suh). — CHE

Hi Charlie - I heard you speaking on 850 KOA radio quite a while back, and your comments were excellent. I've been reading and referring to What in the Word ever since hearing that show. I recently looked to your book for clarification on the term "autograph" and found your comments helpful. However, I noticed the distiction that the word "autograph" can actually be anything handwritten was not addressed in your description. Am I correct in my thinking that I might receive an autograph letter from my aunt, even though she may not have signed it? Keep up the great work --Matt, CO

It's a rather fine point, Matt, but yes, you are correct. You may use autograph as an adjective meaning "written in the author's own handwriting." And if you wanted to indicate that your aunt wrote her letter by hand and signed it as well, you could say it's an autographed autograph letter. But, although the noun an autograph may also mean "something written in one's own handwriting," to avoid confusion it is probably best to use holograph for that sense and use autograph to mean "the signature of a person of some distinction." — CHE

Mr. Elster, you are truly Mr. Vocabulary! My AP English class went through all ten levels of Verbal Advantage this year, and it was fun to hear your voice every week. I can definitely say that your program enhanced my essays for the AP exam, and due to the myriad words now in my vocabulary, no longer do I sound redundant! -- Caitlin, IL

Thanks, Caitlin! Mr. Vocabulary sounds more dignified than what my wife and daughters call me: Wordman (which has a whiff of the troglodyte about it). By the way, if you're going to take the SAT again before applying to college, you might want to review Verbal Advantage beforehand to make sure your vocabulary is still up to snuff. I hope you did well on the AP exam. — CHE

I recently started listening to your Verbal Advantage audio course and find it vastly superior to other audio products I've tried. I really hope that you produce new volumes.

Thank you! I am currently working on a new vocabulary-building program called Elster's Word Workout, to be published by St. Martin's Press next year. See the sidebar on this page for details. — CHE

Hey Mr. Elster. I would like to know if there is a word for 'a word derived from an animal'?

So, you want to know what to call words like "skunked," "sheepish," and "mousy," and expressions like "to rat on" and "to pig out"? I don't think there's an established word for that yet, but the best candidate for the job would have to be zoonym, pronounced ZOH-uh-nim, which combines "zo-," denoting an animal, and "-(o)nym," from the Greek "onoma," word, name. — CHE

Ever since computers have come into the mainstream I have been seeing statements like "It is important to backup your computer and store the backup in a safe place." This bugs me, and even carefully written user manuals seem to do it. I would much rather see "It is important to back up [two words] your computer and store the backup [one word] in a safe place." Can't people distinguish between a verb and a noun? Am I being too picky?

Pickiness is the language lover's prerogative. If you happen to be wrong in exercising your prerogative, you may be guilty of pickiness, but when you are right, as you are in this case, your pickiness is unimpeachable. The verb is open, "to back up," and the noun is closed, "a backup." The adjective, too, is closed: "a backup copy"; "a backup quarterback." — CHE

I enjoyed your website. I also went to SPELL and plan on becoming a member. I really enjoyed your Verbal Advantage book and audio course, it has literally changed my life. I hope you plan on writing and recording another one!

Thanks! A new vocabulary-building book is finally in the works! See the sidebar on this page for details. — CHE

I loved the books "Tooth and Nail" and "Test of Time." I love reading super complicated books. (Complicated for my age) and I was wondering if you were planning on writing another SAT books???? -Anne

I'm delighted that you enjoyed my SAT vocabulary-building novels. Thanks for the kind words. Since Tooth and Nail came out in 1994 there have been numerous imitators of my "novel approach," some of them even claiming to have originated it (you can imagine how annoying that is to this hardworking author). And a few years ago the Kaplan test-prep empire started publishing novels that are in the public domain (like Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights)with the literary words printed in boldface. So with all these other books now on the shelf competing with mine, it's doubtful that I'll have an opportunity to write another vocabulary-building novel for high-schoolers. — CHE

My sister is an author, illustrator, and publisher of books, and on the back cover of her latest book is the sentence: “This is a story about courage, determination and self acceptance.” I created and maintain her Web site, and, when I received an image of the book’s back cover for use on the Web site, I told her I was surprised to see “self acceptance" without a hyphen. I Googled this compound word and discovered that it is spelled both with and without a hyphen, but the unhyphenated version seems very awkward to me. Do you have an opinion about the proper spelling of this sort of word? — Joe Freeman

Self-acceptance is properly hyphenated, Google’s hyphenless citations notwithstanding. Printing it without a hyphen (either as self acceptance or selfacceptance) is an error. There are only a handful of words with self- that are compound: selfhood, selfsame, selfless, selfward, selfism. All the rest — in which self- combines with a stand-alone word — are hyphenated. — CHE

When I was young my grandfather used the term Cripes Mariah when he was upset. I never really understood what he meant. I have seen the term cripes in Warner Brothers cartoons. But, with no real explanation. I was hoping that you could tell me the origin and true meaning.

Cripes is a classic example of what, back in the day, they used to call "cheating the devil." This is a kind of euphemistic expression that employs creatively disguised variants on common execrations, such as dadblamed, dadgummed, and dingbusted for goddamned, dagnabit for goddammit, what in tarnation for what in damnation, and Jeepers creepers and jiminy Christmas for Jesus Christ. Cripes and criminy are euphemistic alterations of Christ. The Mariah part could be a euphemistic alteration of Mary or perhaps just your grandfather's own euphonious embellishment.

The unabridged second edition of the Random House Dictionary says that cripes first saw print about 1905. Chances are that in the spoken language it is considerably older than that. — CHE

Hi Charles. Many thanks for the audio course: "Verbal Advantage". It is certainly by far the best audio course on the market - nothing even comes close. I'm only half way through but I now realise what you mean when you say a whole new world opens up before you (not to mention you can perform better Google searches without the unnecessary salacious content). Perhaps when cloning becomes the social norm you'll have the time to produce a follow up audio course? What really fascinates me is that once I've learnt a new word it uncannily appears everywhere! Obviously, this says something about how the human mind ignores that which it does not comprehend. Anyway, I've got a tricky question for you. I'm a Brit. How do I find a way of pronouncing some of the more obscure words in UK English? As you're well aware, you Americans pronounce a lot of the words wrong (joking!). Apart from the option of hanging around with a bunch of bombastic, grandiloquent 'toffs' who have a proclivity for garrulous verbosity I'm at a complete loss of what to do. Would be much appreciated if you can come up with an alternative solution! Thanks again: The stylus really is more potent than the rapier, and of course easier to write with ....

Thanks for your kind words about Verbal Advantage. Your best bet is to consult the Oxford English Dictionary. If you can't get your hands on the big one, pick up a copy of the abridged version, called the Shorter Oxford. Some public libraries subscribe to the online edition and you can access it free with a library card. Also see my answer to the next question . . .

CHE, What would you recommend a moderate-purist Australian use as a pronunciation resource? We have the luxury, I believe, of selecting from either the American or English variation in certain instances. It is a unique situation in this country, where many British pronunciations seem to be preferred, whereas others are regarded as being most pretentious! The American Heritage Dictionary, as endorsed in VA, has been very helpful - especially the online version. Are you aware of an English equivalent? Regards, Malcolm Brunker.

The most thorough and up-to-date (though not always reliable in the American department) treatment of both British and American pronunciation is The Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English edited by Clive Upton et al. and published in hardcover in 2001, paperback in 2003. If you want a British-only source to complement the American Heritage (or Webster's New World or Random House), I'd suggest the Shorter Oxford or Concise Oxford. — CHE

further. farther. shall we call the whole thing off or can you specify their meanings?

No need to call the whole thing off; the distinction is rather simple. Farther is literal and refers to actual physical distances, while further is figurative and refers to every other kind of distance. Thus, you (physically) walk a little farther toward your destination, but you go another step further toward your (figurative) goal. Unfortunately, the Brits confuse things by using further for both physical and figurative distance. — CHE