Charles Harrington Elster

Click and type in a question or comment

Hi Charles, how are you? I need a book that gives me words with the same roots. I want to use them in my classes on vocabulary.

Although many books touch on word families here and there, I was surprised to find that my library collection is exceedingly thin on books solely devoted to words with the same roots. I dug up a mere two, only one of which is worth recommending: NTC's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Origins by Bob Moore and Maxine Moore (Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group, 1997). For more possibilities I would recommend consulting your local librarian. — CHE

Mr. Elster,
How does one develop strong verbal skills? Is a good grasp of words alone enough to ensure eloquence or enviable ease of language? There must be some peripheral or expanding activities, besides just reading and learning new words, that one can undertake to improve their speech. I finished the Verbal Advantage program about a year ago, which has changed my life tremendously, and I’ve been an inquisitive reader of style guides and treatises on style (especially the ones you mention in the program); however, I still find it arduous to express myself with ease in conversations. The words are there, but the spontaneity at recalling and using them in conversations isn’t. I’d love to become a mellifluous speaker. What are some of your suggestions? Thanks a bunch, Charlie.

That's a tremendous question, meaning it's both a great question and a hugely complicated question. My tongue-in-cheek answer would be, steal an Irishman's gift of gab. But I think to a great extent verbal confidence and fluency in conversation -- writing is another matter -- is an aptitude, something you are born with, not a skill.

Yes, if you are introverted or shy there are things you can do to mitigate that, including building vocabulary. But knowing a lot of words alone will not make you a great conversationalist, just as memorizing Black's Law Dictionary will not make you a great trial lawyer.

The best suggestion I can give you is to join Toastmasters. From what I have seen of them, they are a dedicated and supportive organization devoted to addressing exactly the kind of problem you describe.

Good luck and good words to you! — CHE

Thanks to your scholarly advice I kind of developed a discerning ear to bizarre cases of the use of language. One that pesters me most is the following: Lots of people intentionally omit article "a/an" between "such" and a countable noun. Do we say: "such man", or "such a man". The first case sounds like sloppy use in my conception. Are there any occasions when such variants are possible?

With a plural, as in "such variants" or "such men," or with a mass noun, as "such luck" or "such knowledge." With a singular noun it should be followed by a or an, as in "such a deal" and "such an honor." An exception to this occurs when such follows no, as in "no such thing." — CHE

once again a question for dear Elster,
what do you call the greedy feeling to eat all of a sudden by women during pregnancy?
Ahoora

I would call it gravidic ("pertaining to pregnancy") hyperalimentation (from hyper, "excessive or intense," and alimentation, "providing nourishment"). But doctors may have a different term for it. I'll try to ask one soon. — CHE

What is correct: 'take it serious', or 'take it seriously'? Most people seem not to bother how to say, but I do :)

The correct form is take it seriously. Dropping the -ly in this case is not standard English. (See the discussion of "flat adverbs" three questions below.) — CHE

Is graffiti the plural from graffito, or simply an uncountable noun in modern English? The first case is more logical if you ask me.

You are still on solid ground if you distinguish between the plural graffiti for multiple public markings and the singular graffito to denote one such marking. In most edited prose graffiti is paired with a plural verb: we see "graffiti are beginning to appear in the neighborhood" rather than "graffiti is beginning to appear." But in speech it's another matter, and because graffito is so rarely used it's probably only a matter of time before graffiti becomes a mass noun paired with a singular verb, like agenda, for which the obsolescent singular is agendum. — CHE

Are you aware of the trend among young Americans to replace "I think" with "I feel like"?

Yes, and I've heard it mostly from young women, who have probably adopted it to sound more considerate and less argumentative than their male counterparts. It strikes me as a harmless outgrowth of pop psychology, which has relentlessly taught us that it's more respectful to tell people how they make us feel rather than what we think of them. — CHE

Sir,

What are your thoughts on flat adverbs, e.g., drive safe(ly), slow(ly)? In other words, the acceptability of these flat forms (without the -ly). Thank you.

It is a grave mistake to assume that all adverbs must end in -ly and that the flat, or simple, forms can function only as adjectives. In fact, the flat forms are ancient and idiomatic, and most native speakers of English understand instinctively when to use a flat adverb or an -ly adverb.

For example, we use the flat forms for instructions or commands — be safe, slice it thin, dig deep — and we use the -ly forms to describe or qualify — arrived safely, thinly sliced, deeply moving.

Sometimes both forms are idiomatic and the choice depends on context or personal preference; for example, a road sign will say drive slow for force and brevity, but a person giving instructions to a driver may choose to say either drive slow or slowly. Sometimes the choice is between a more formal or more informal tone: we may need something badly or need it bad. But often idiom demands the flat form: for example, clocks run slow, insomniacs are wide awake, and we all want to hold on tight to our money so we can get rich quick and take it easy.

One salient exception is using real as an adverb (e.g., real good), which is widespread but avoided by careful writers and speakers. Things can get tricky, though, when an adverb modifies a so-called linking verb, such as feel, seem, or taste. Here the flat form is required, but — perhaps influenced by criticism of the adverbial real — many educated people mistakenly think the -ly form is better English (e.g., you should feel bad, not badly). — CHE

Hello Mr Elster, how are you? My name is Steve, I live in Woodbridge and I've been a fan of yours for 8 years. I've enjoyed listening your Verbal Advantage and The Accidents of Style. My brother heard the word draconian. I think it means great severity. That's what you've mentioned in the Verbal Advantage. How do you put it in a sentence? Thank you for your support. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Your Verbally Advantage friend: Steve

Thanks for being a fan, Steve. If you'll recall from Verbal Advantage, the ancient Greek statesman Draco was about as severe and cruel as you can get, for he “prescribed the penalty of death for nearly all crimes,” says the Century Dictionary (1914), “for smaller crimes because they merited it, and for greater because he knew of no penalty more severe.” You can use draconian of anything that is ruthlessly severe or cruel, such as a punishment or judgment or the rule of a tyrant. — CHE

Dear Charles, the word " War Game" is available in all your English dictionaries. Why don't you American people have any word like " Peace Game". Necessity is the mother of invention. Why don't you invent this expression and do humanity a great favor. The international arena needs this word. If you coin this word, then the people will think of its meaning and its application,so, instead of war games we may have peace games in the future. Do humanity this favor and coin such a word. Weird idea, huh? Just delete it and ignore if you don't like it.
Your Fan From Iran
Mohamad Imanian (mohamad_imanian@yahoo.com)

You make a fine point, Mohamad. However, in one way or another all games are based on competition, and peace is a state of cooperation, not competition. If we could somehow make war a monitored game with rules and without bloodshed, like soccer in the World Cup, that might qualify as a "peace game." But what we really need is no wars, better games, and a lot more cooperation. — CHE

I find it difficult to pronounce the first r in berserk, but I have almost no difficulty pronouncing the second r. Do you consider this normal?

It's normal, but not optimal. Many speakers drop the first /n/ in government, the first /r/ in February, and the first /c/ in arctic because the proximity of the two similar sounds makes it hard to articulate the first one (linguists call this "dissimilation"). In some cases dissimilation is standard and cultivated, as when we say GUV-uh-nur for governor. But in government, February, arctic, and berserk, careful speakers pronounce the first of the repeated consonants. — CHE

I have noticed that the first word of "Taj Mahal" is often pronounced TAHZH by English speakers, although TAHJ would come closer to the native Indian pronunciation. Would you regard this as a beastly mispronunciation along the lines of bay-ZHING for Beijing?

Formerly, TAHJ was preferred, but TAHZH has been listed as standard since the 1940s and has been the dominant pronunciation in American English since about the 1960s. So the short answer is no, I don't think it's a beastly mispronunciation like bay-ZHING, which was a 1980s upstart. I think it has plenty of street cred and can be used with impunity. — CHE

Hello Charlie! I set myself a task to further augment my vocabulary muscles. My new goal is to master acroamatic words which lie near the bottom of "the enlish vocabulary brine". Are the following words and the like worth the attention of an aspiring logophile? Agelast, purfled, squizzle, chaddy, tooth-saw, lunting, curglaff, scurryfunge, flippercanorious, irrisory, jirgling...What level would you refer such words to?

All words, great and small, are worth the attention of an aspiring (or, like me, expiring) logophile. But every logophile has a responsibility to recognize which words will pass muster in regular discourse and which are of recreational interest. The words you cite are all of the recreational variety — fascinating, funny, and rare, but not suitable for general speech or writing. Share them with others who love words as you do, but don't try to impress people with them. — CHE

will there be a sequel to tooth and nail? it was a great book and it helped lots.

I'm so glad you liked Tooth and Nail, and I'm happy to say that I have already published a second vocabulary-building novel, Test of Time, a time-travel comedy-adventure starring Mark Twain. The story incorporates more than 2,000 words that commonly appear on both college-entrance exams, the SAT and ACT. To find out more, go to my Writings page and scroll down to Test of Time. To read a review of and an excerpt from the book, click on Test of Time under Books in the sidebar on the right. — CHE

I have made an astute observation that many people who claim to be authorities on language are frivolous and arbitrary when it comes to pronunciation. For instance, the Professor of Rhetoric of one of the leading american universities pronounces "jejune" as "ji'jo͞on" and "puissant" with a long stress on the second syllable. You didn't even mention such pretentious pronunciations as alternatives in your Verbal Advantage. How can you explain such a phenomenon? - ROMAN

About two hundred years ago, Noah Webster made the same astute observation when he lamented our tendency to model our speech after those “whose abilities and character entitle [their] opinions to respect, but whose pronunciation may be altogether accidental or capricious.” In other words, having an advanced degree or some special expertise in no way guarantees that your pronunciation will be irreproachable.

And when it comes to literary words like jejune and puissant, which appear mostly in writing and are rarely spoken, eccentric and pretentious pronunciations abound among the well-educated. That's because they learn these words from reading and don't bother to check the pronunciation, or, as Webster observed, they heard someone else they respected mispronounce a word and slavishly copied the mispronunciation. — CHE

I turn to the Master to answer a question that's cropped up in recent times. Where do you stand on "al-BI-no" and "all-BEE-no", the latter's vowels pronounced as in a Latin language? For all I know as an American, the English and others have pronounced the word "all-BEE-no" all along, however I suspect it's a neologism. It's not strictly wrong, a la "Chi-LAY-an", but is this a pronunciation that you sign off on for American english?

averre@mac.com

Great question, and the Master is happy to answer. Although albino goes back to the Latin albus, white, it is not a Latin loanword; it's Portuguese. And a Latin pronunciation for the first syllable would be /ahl-/, like /ol/ in the first syllable of holiday, not like the word all (awl-). However, both /ol-/ and /awl-/ for the first syllable are incorrect. It should be /al-/, with a short /a/ as in alchemy and Albert.

So the issue here is really how to treat the vowel in the second syllable: is it by or bee? Luckily the history is clear. The long /e/ sound is British (al-BEE-noh) and the long /i/ sound is American (al-BY-noh), and this transatlantic distinction dates back at least to the first half of the 19th century. And if the evidence of my ears is reliable, I have never heard an American speaker say al-BEE-noh. — CHE

Hello, Charlie. I have been reveling in listening to your matchless commentaries on the English language since I managed to obtain the Verbal Advantage. Throughout the program you use a noun "person" with such possessive pronouns as "his", or "her" depending on the context. I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to use "their" instead? Thanks for your answer in advance. Roman

This is not an easy question to answer briefly, Roman, but I'll try.

The problem of which pronoun to use with nouns like everyone and person — singular and gender-specific (e.g., his, her), or plural and gender-neutral (e.g., their) — is an old one, dating back to the 14th century. You can cite plenty of reputable usage from earlier English that employs their as a singular, or often a notionally singular and plural, pronoun; for example, in The Comedy of Errors Shakespeare writes, "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend." But since the 18th century, when the reigning grammarians (all of them male, of course) decreed — contrary to a good deal of reputable usage — that the pronoun should be singular and male ("Every person should do his best"), we have been stuck in a gender-specific rut and struggling to find a nonsexist way out.

Today I wouldn't hesitate to write "Every person should do their best" or "Everyone prepared themselves well" because idiomatic constructions like these have for the most part become acceptable written English, and I am comfortable with them. But in the early 1990s, when I wrote Verbal Advantage (it was first published as an audio program; the book came out in 2000), I was far less sure of where I stood on this question, and, like many writers at that time, I tried to finesse the situation in various ways, not always successfully.

To avoid pairing a plural their with a singular noun, sometimes I went the traditional route and used a male pronoun, which has been justly criticized as sexist but which at the time was the path of least resistance: "When a vindictive person feels wronged he is driven to retaliate at all costs."

Sometimes I used the "his or her" construction, which has been justly criticized as unwieldy and tedious but which can sometimes be the lesser evil if you don't resort to it too often: " . . . the mispronouncer does the disservice of passing along his or her mispronunciations"; "The candid person expresses his or her thoughts frankly and openly." To my ear, their would have been more ungainly in those constructions, drawing too much attention to the singular noun-plural pronoun coupling.

And occasionally I used a device that was popular at the time but that I would not recommend now because most agree that it's contrived and self-conscious — alternating male and female pronouns: "The fastidious person is so excessively concerned with details that he may become squeamish or disgusted if things are not just right. The fastidious person may also be so hard to please, so critical and demanding, that she appears contemptuous of others."

My reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that if I used a grab-bag of pronouns, depending on what felt best for the context, I might avoid criticism for being either too traditional or too loosey-goosey. But perhaps that strategy was naive.

In their 1999 book Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay, Richard Lederer and Richard Dowis discuss this problem sensibly and helpfully, and offer writers this advice: "The best solution — the way to avoid sexism, tedium, and even the appearance of bad grammar — is to recast the sentence." And they offer several good strategies for revision, including one that I used often in VA, changing the pronoun to a noun: e.g., "If you emulate a person you try to surpass or outdo that person's ability or achievement." But Lederer and Dowis acknowledge that "the downside of this is that recasting denies a writer some flexibility," and therein lies the rub. Until the language evolves to the point where the rusty shackles of the 18th-century grammarians have been cast off, using their with a singular noun will continue to carry some stigma and trouble careful writers. — CHE

Mr. Elster,

I remember in your "Big Book..." you quoted Alfred Holt (I believe) as saying something to the effect that although change is inevitable, he resisted it to test its merit. I lent the book to a friend, so I cannot check, but do you remember the quotation? Thanks!

I think you're recalling my quoting not Holt but the poet, teacher, and etymologist John Ciardi, at the end of the introduction to my Big Book. This is what Ciardi said about resistance to change:

"Are there any enduring standards of English usage? I think there are only preferences, 'passionate preferences,' as Robert Frost used to say, the level at which any English-speaking person chooses to engage the instrument—the orchestra—of the language. In the long run the usage of those who do not think about the language will prevail. Usages I resist will become acceptable. . . .

"It will not do to resist uncompromisingly. Yet those who care have a duty to resist. Changes that occur against such resistance are tested changes. The language is better for them—and for the resistance."

I hope that's the quote you were looking for. Thanks for asking, and good words to you! — CHE

Charles,

I was wondering if you could answer a question about the pronunciation of "locate." It would seem logical to stress the word on its second syllable, but neither "The Century" nor Worcester (1860) prefers it. Webster II lists it as an alternative. What is your opinion? Thank you.

-JPL

In this case, "logical" is a matter of where you come from and whose English you speak, the Queen's or the president's. If your English is British, you probably stress the second syllable: loh-KAYT. If your English is American, you will stress the first syllable: LOH-kayt. Likewise with vacate and frustrate. As you can see from checking the Century and Worcester, two 19th-century dictionaries, this preferential distinction goes back a long way. — CHE

Charles,

So, "locate" is an exception in American English, rather like "traverse." By saying "logical," I meant in accordance with what you call "Phyfe's Rule."

-JPL

It is customary for verbs of two syllables to have their accent on the second syllable, especially when they also function as a noun or adjective (that's where Phyfe's Rule, which I discuss under decrease in my Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations, comes into play).

Thus, although we often hear PROH-test, noun, and PROH-test, verb, in American English, it's preferable to follow Shakespeare's accentuation and proh-TEST ("The lady doth protest too much"). But there are not a few established exceptions, among them burden, comment, divine, elbow, format, disgust, process, program, police, silence, salute, and weather. And though I still prefer to do ri-SURCH and ri-SURCH something, most American speakers now REE-surch when they do REE-surch.

Traverse isn't really an exception to Phyfe's Rule anymore because the (somewhat unusual) noun is stressed on the first syllable and the verb is now usually stressed on the second. And locate isn't governed by Phyfe's Rule at all because it functions only as a verb. — CHE

Hey Elster, who is publisher of your books because when i went to bookstore for requesting your books, they asked me about publisher name.
so plz tell me publishers name.
and 2nd query-
what i really need to do to support my vocabulary strength, if I've already finished five vocabulary books(text books including "word power made easy,30 days to more powerful vocabulary" by norman lewish)and your indispensable audio books "verbal advantage "
should i continue with another vocabulary book or just concentrating on reading, reading and reading as you said so many times.
This is aditya rai with my 3rd comment.
Thanks

You will find the publishers (there are several) of my books listed under the picture of each book on my Writings page. The city of publication precedes the name of the publisher. For example, under The Accidents of Style where it says, "New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2010," St. Martin's Griffin is the publisher. You can also find out my publishers by looking up my books on Amazon.com.

Norman Lewis's vocabulary books are very good, and if you've already read them and listened to Verbal Advantage I think your best bet now is to embark on a disciplined program of reading in English and looking up the words you don't know. You should also review Lewis and VA from time to time to keep things fresh in your mind. — CHE

Charles,
As always, I enjoyed your hour on Mike Rosen's show. I only wish that he would have his listeners contact him with questions in the time between your visits, and then not use the live format. He could cover a lot more of the questions by asking them from a compiled list from listener's questions.

Regarding your answer about the word sorbet. You mentioned the Turkish background giving it the ending "bet." When I looked it up on the Merriam-Webster site, they gave the first nod to Middle French and a "bay" sound.

I do have a question about a word that may be doomed, eventually. It is lectern. It seems that very few people know what a podium is, and how it is used. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever stood "at" a podium, as I have often heard it said about our president. And, that brings up the so often heard pronunciation of often as "off-ten" instead of "off'n"

Thanks for your time taken to read this missive. When I wrote to your email address once with a comment, I was amazed that you had the time to answer my question so thoroughly. I have lost your email address, so I used this instead.

Ken Davis (kndvs1@comcast.net)

Ken, thanks for the kind words and for sharing your thoughts. As I point out elsewhere in these comments, it's risky to put all your eggs in the Merriam-Webster basket. Sorbet came into English in the late 1500s, and though French is the direct source of the word, it goes back from there to the Italian sorbetto, and then to the Turkish serbet, the source also of sherbet.

Random House 2 (1987), among other dictionaries, gives the first nod to the pronunciation SOR-bit, which makes sense both etymologically and if we consider how old French loanwords ending in -et are anglicized. Jacket and claret, for example, are pronounced to rhyme with racket, and the venerable valet, before it was recently and pretentiously de-anglicized to val-AY, was pronounced VAL-it.

Regarding lectern: the word is definitely endangered, but I'm not sure it's doomed. All you need to remember is that you read from a lectern and you stand on a podium; the former is a stand for a speaker's notes, while the latter is a raised platform for a speaker or conductor. If people only knew the etymology of these words — lectern comes from the Latin lectere, to read, and podium comes from the Greek podion, little foot — they might have an easier time observing the distinction. But it doesn't help that, to cite one example of the slipshod usage that is promoting the confusion, The American Heritage Dictionary has a photograph in the margin of a woman in academic garb standing at a lectern, under which is printed the word podium. For more on this usage problem, see accident 273 in my Accidents of Style. — CHE

Hello,

I'm another big fan of your guest appearances on Mike Rosen's show on 850 KOA. Speaking of that station, there is something bothersome that I hear there almost daily. The man that does their morning weather forecasts uses the word "can" in a strange manner. (It sounds strange to me, anyway.)

When he is forecasting possible afternoon thunderstorms, he always says, "There CAN be a thunderstorm this afternoon." I think he should say, "There COULD be a thunderstorm this afternoon."

Is he correct? Or am I? Or are we both correct?

Thanks!
Ed

Thanks for listening, Ed. Your KOA forecaster's use of can is an idiosyncrasy. You are right that it should be could. He could also say may (which implies slightly more likelihood than might). — CHE

Hello elster sir; pranam.
This is aditya narayan, will you make it clear;
what will be your preference while using sentences between-
"Everyone stood up and shouted at the top of their lungs." and "Everyone stood up and shouted at the top of his lungs".
Thanks

Great question, Aditya. My ruling on this may dismay some ultra-purists, but history, necessity, and contemporary reality all call for (and justify) their following everyone in this case, not his. Although indefinite pronouns like everyone, anyone, and somebody are construed as singular ("Everyone is here now"; "Somebody is at the door"), when the indefinite pronoun is an antecedent tied to a referent pronoun there invariably is an implication of plurality that calls for a plural referent pronoun: e.g., "Everybody brought their own lunch"; "Nobody there could speak a word of English, but they were all nice to me." It's hard to imagine how, in the first example, his would be an improvement (are we certain it's an all-male group?), and in the second example it's impossible to see how a singular pronoun could work at all.

The point is that this usage is established, idiomatic English, and not just a recent outgrowth of the movement to avoid sexist language. Bergen and Cornelia Evans's Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage (1957) tells us that it can be found in the works of our greatest writers, from Malory and Shakespeare and Swift to the present. — CHE

Hi Charlie,
It's Ahoora again and hope you're fine.
Is there a suitable word for the situation by which the children are in charge of the family?as in the word patriarchy which shows that fathers' fingers are on the button.

Hi Ahoora. Nice to hear from you again. Filiarchy, from the adjective filial, pertaining to a son or daughter, and the suffix -archy, rule or leadership by, would be a suitable word for that, I think, as would filiocracy, with the suffix -ocracy, government by (as in democracy, government by the people). Though these words are not attested in my favorite unabridged dictionaries, I think you can take the liberty of using them as long as you acknowledge that they are neologisms and define them. — CHE

Hi Charlie, greetings- Hey word-guru I'm aditya rai from India, I quested for your books here in India in so many book-stores but i didn't find. I read a lot about "verbal advantage" and similar products of your on amazon and similar sites but i can't purchase it over Internet. Please make sure availability of your books(The accident of style, The Big Book of Beastly ) in Delhi(India).

Oh, how I wish I could help you! Alas, we poor authors can't be distributors for our books, and our publishers have deaf ears and empty pockets when it comes to our suggestions. The best I can say is, keep trying and good luck. And thanks so much for your interest in my work. — CHE

Today (9/3/11) I gave Accidents of Style a great review at Amazon.

Steven Spinelli. Woodbridge Ontario

Thanks, Steven! I can use all the good vibes I can get on Amazon. — CHE

Hi Charlie, I heard one guy use this phrase: just between you and I. Does that make sense? I think it's just between you and me. My brother and sister disagree with me.

You're right and your siblings are wrong. I cover the "between you and I" mistake in my latest book The Accidents of Style. As the object of a preposition, the pronoun has to be in the objective case ("me"). You wouldn't say "for I" or "to I," right? So it has to be "between you and me." — CHE

Hi Charlie, I have a question. I read a book by Rogger Callahan, and I came across this sentence: "Before long the close proximity of the water began to affect her." How should the sentence be? Thank you. I have been your greatest fan since I bought your Verbal Advantage, and your book on The Accidents of Style. Sincerely Steve

The phrase "close proximity" is redundant because proximity means "nearness, closeness." So the sentence would be much improved if the word close were deleted. — CHE

Hi, my name is Roman and I'm from Ukraine. Well, I won't importune you with some kind of magniloquent blandishment, but I want to give you credit for your inimitable program Verbal Advantage. I have listened to it four times in the last 5 months. I've also scrutinized such programs as Million$ vocabulary, Executive Vocabulary, a complete series of Word Smart, Vocabulary booster, Word Master, Barron_550_Words_You_Need_to_Know, Verbal Success, P.R.W.S.GE.5CDs( very challenging), confidence in context and many others...all of them offer something useful, but they can only eat the dust of Verbal Advantage. Your program is much better than all of them put together....I long for further self-edification and can't wait for your "unique"(just kidding) unrivaled work.

Well, Roman, I'm nonplussed (nonplus is one of the keywords in my forthcoming Word Workout). Your blandishments are most gratifying, and I'm going to add them (in slightly edited form) to the other testimonials about Verbal Advantage on my Writings page. Thank you, and keep up the good work of building your knowledge of words! — CHE

I always give credit where credit is due. I'm working hard on a daily basis to augment my knowledge, I've developed a crush on English, and I won't give it up, no matter what. I wonder if you could elucidate the following point: back in the day I came across the word combination "a new recruit". At first glance it's an evident case of redundancy, but as some of my dictionaries have it, "a new recruit" is a recently enlisted recruit. What do you think of it?.......Roman

Yes, Roman, English is a lovely mistress, but also a merciless taskmaster. Get ready for a lifetime of linguistic S & M, my friend. Regarding "new recruit," your first glance is correct and your dictionaries are not to be trusted: a recruit is a newly enlisted person or a newly inducted member, so the phrase is inarguably redundant.

And, just to be helpful, "on a daily basis" is a wordy and hackneyed phrase to be avoided. (In fact, any phrase that uses "basis" is suspect and worth a second look.) Instead, say that you're working hard every day, or daily, or regularly, or diligently, or what have you. When confronted with an overused bloated phrase, it is always advisable to abandon it for a more concise alternative. See "The Long and Short of It" on pages 145-147 of my book The Accidents of Style. — CHE

Well, Charlie, I'm much obliged to you for your rectification of the phrase "on a daily basis", it really sounds trite. I have yet to work hard to make my style more succinct, precise and less turgid, but the allure of the English language precludes me from doing it.:). I want to continue our disquisition of the language, as I feel that I can learn much interesting and useful from you. By the way, I've run into one more redundancy today: "wild game". When is your "Word Workout" going to see the light of day? Is it more challenging than Verbal Advantage?

I've never run across the "wild game" redundancy, but I'm not surprised by it. We so seldom know the real meanings of the words we use, and even when we do we often can't resist embellishing them ridiculously.

Alas, don't hold your breath for Word Workout. I have had some significant setbacks this year on the life side of the life-work equation. Even if I can finish it by early next year, my publisher may not be able to bring it out until 2013. We'll see. It will be very much like Verbal Advantage (see the "Elster Update" sidebar on the left), and it should be as challenging, and perhaps a bit more challenging, than VA. — CHE

Well, I'm cognizant of the fact that it's great travail to compile Word Workout. I've perused the preview and can make a conjecture that it's a tad more challenging than VA. Well, so much the better. I wish I were your apprentice.

By the way, here is the sentence where I bumped into that preposterous redundancy: The region is also famous for its ski resorts and wild game.

Sir,

I've heard of a word that I cannot find in any dictionary. I heard it first in my childhood and I believe that Anthony Hopkins recites it in the Silence of the Lambs to describe one of Buffalo Bill's victims. The word "ROAMY" is used to describe a person who is on the stocky or beefy side.
Is "roamy" a word?
Thank you.

My name is Roman, I am from Ukraine. Before Charlie gets to read your message, I will dare to answer it. The word "roamy" belongs to the vernacular and means "an extremely hot female". This word isn't registered officially in current dictionaries. In "The Silence of The Lambs" you most probably heard the word "roomy". "Roomy" - of a female mammal : having a large or well-proportioned body. The word was figuratively applied to the woman. Here is an excerpt of the dialog from the movie:
CS: Quid pro quo, Doctor.
DL: So tell me about Miss West Virginia. Was she a large girl?
CS: Yes.
DL: Big through the hips? Roomy?
CS: They all were.
P.S. looking forward to Charlie's opinion....Roman

Yes, you beat me to it, Roman, and your answer is good. Thanks for the etymological assistance!

According to the Urban Dictionary, which tracks this sort of slang in the do-it-yourself way that is all the rage now on the Web, "roamy" is a noun denoting an "extremely hawt and sexually charged female" or "a woman in a state of sexual absorption." The illustrative sentence given is "Dude, let's go to the pub and see if we can find us a roamy!" — CHE

The second day to yesterday I encountered the word combination "very minute", implying "infinitesimal", "minuscule". In my conception "very" is odd there since "minute" stands for "very small". What do you think?
P.S. I don't want to set myself up as a doryphore, but such inaccuracies in the language usage can't be connived at....Roman

“Rather, very, little, pretty—these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words,” writes E. B. White in “An Approach to Style,” the final chapter in The Elements of Style. Once again your verbal instincts are spot on, Roman. There is no need to modify minute; preceding it with very only sucks the blood from the poor word. — CHE

Good morning! A friend of mine brought me into contact with a breakthough way of mastering new words: Paraliminal audio classes. Is it another bait for gullible and indolent people? -Roman

I would be wary. Paraliminal is not a legitimate word; it's a marketing term for a line of audio programs that claim they can help people improve their lives in countless ways, from quitting smoking to getting a better night's sleep. Caveat emptor. — CHE

There is a ten-question vocabulary quiz on the Merriam-Webster web site.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/quiz/index.htm

The user is directed to pick the best definition of a word from a list of synonyms. There are no definitions to choose from, only synonyms. Shouldn't the people who edit dictionaries be a little more picky about how the word definition is used? I am.

Steve Jorgensen
Aurora, Colorado

Good call, Steve. Indeed, they should be a little more picky about a lot of things, particularly at Merriam-Webster, whose dictionary sanctions the beastly mispronunciation puh-tickly for particularly. For more on the sins of M-W, see my answer to Nathanael's question a few graphs down. — CHE

Charles,

Which dictionaries do you recommend for traditional pronunciations (e.g. one that sanctions only stressing first syllable of "despicable")? From your "Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations" I gather that Lass & Lass ("Dictionary of Pronunciation") and "The Century" are fairly conservative, but I wanted to consult you first. Also where could a stingy person like me buy a hard copy?

Thanks,

Jay

Thanks for your question, Jay. If you want a dictionary that sanctions only obsolescent traditional pronunciations like DES-pi-kuh-bul, you'll have to go back a long way, perhaps to the illustrious Century Dictionary (1889-1914), available online at http://www.global-language.com/CENTURY/. But if you can tolerate a dictionary that is generally conservative but acknowledges some Johnny-come-lately variants, I would go with the second unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary (1987). Used copies for under $50 should be readily obtainable at secondhand bookshops and online. RH2 is a good dictionary in many other ways too (see my dictionary recommendations in the sidebar to the right).

Of course, you should never rely only on one dictionary when making decisions about pronunciation — which is why you are wise to own and consult my Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations, which reports the preferences of numerous authorities, past and present. — CHE

Charles,
Well, I have a question for you that you have probably been asked numerous times. Why is the word 'funner' not a word? I read in the Merriam-Webster dictionary that the words funner and funnest are, "sometimes used." So, what are the rules for the word 'fun'? And, is it acceptable to use those words?

Thank you,
Nathanael

Ah, Nathanael, to put your faith in the wily and pusillanimous Merriam-Webster is to wander, willy-nilly, down the primrose path of words.

Yes, funner and funnest are words, and yes, they are "sometimes" used by educated people. But those people are ill-advisedly trying to affect a breezy, juvenile informality. To traditionalists like me, using fun as an adjective (e.g., "This is so fun") is trendy and callow. It is unbecoming of an educated person and inappropriate in serious writing. And using the nonstandard comparative funner and superlative funnest) is, to put it mildly, puerile — which Merriam-Webster defines, in sense 2, as "childish, silly."

To paraphrase Martha Brockenbrough's quip about irregardless: the adjective fun is an irregular word, just as underwear is an irregular hat. It belongs to the What’s-Up-Dude School of Insipid Writing. "To traditionalists, the adjectival fun and its comparative forms remain blemishes in both writing and speech," says Garner's Modern American Usage, which notes that funner and funnest are "widely shunned." — CHE

Dear Charles,
I just wanted to thank you so much for Verbal Advantage! It is a remarkable program, and has been immensely valuable!
Kind regards,
Donna

You're most welcome! — CHE

Dear Charles,
How are you doing? All your teachings are in American English Accent, including your great verbal advantage. I have meticulously worked on all the 24 CD's. When I listen to BBC, I feel a conflict in the way you have taught me to pronounce the words in verbal advantage and the way BBC anchors pronounce the words. I sometimes decide to get rid of the BBC channel in my satellite receiver and just listen to VOA or other news channels having an American accent. Do you think my obsession with" accent" is justifiable at all?
Best Regards
Mohamad Imanian -Iran – Kashmar Payameh Noor University

That's a fascinating question. English is now the world's dominant language, but there are many versions of it around the world. And if you come to English as a second language, you must decide whose English to use. If you lived in Australia, for example, you would naturally adopt the Australian vocabulary and accent. But what if you don't live in an English-speaking country where you can assimilate its particular words and sounds? And what if you are equally comfortable — or uncomfortable, as the case may be — with the two main forms of English: British and American?

For some unusually gifted people, it's possible to master various dialects of a language and switch easily from one to another. For most of us, though, that's not the case. We either have to live with what we grew up with or were taught, or we have to make a concerted effort to adopt something else.

Your choice of whether to favor American or British English may come down to answering two questions: Which one am I more fluent in or comfortable with? And among my friends and colleagues, which one is more commonly used or considered preferable? You shouldn't try to speak English in a way that seems unnatural to you. But you should also try to speak it in the way that seems the most cultivated and effective to you.

I hope that somewhat equivocal answer was helpful. — CHE

Hello Charles,
I was reading an article written by a friend recently, titled "In justice, intention matters." For some reason, "intent" sounded better to me than "intention." I checked a few dictionaries, and the words seem to be fairly interchangeable outside of specialized usage like legalese. Are they different?
Thanks,
Adam

Excellent question, Adam. You're a close and careful reader. The difference between these words is slight and subtle, but nonetheless important.

Both words are synonymous with purpose, but intention, says the great Webster 2 (1934), "often suggests little more than what one means or proposes to do," and it "implies less settled determination than purpose." Intent is closer to purpose in implying "settled determination," and, more important, it has a specialized meaning in the law: "the state of a person's mind that directs his or her actions toward a specific object" (Random House 2, 1987). According to Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition, "While motive is the inducement to do some act, intent is the mental resolution or determination to do it."

Therefore, I think your ear served you well and you were right to question your friend's choice of intention in that particular context. — CHE

Hello,

I'm a little confused by the use of specious in this sentence: "Lastly, some firms including Barclays and HSBC, have said they might move their headquarters from Britain--clumsy threats, perhaps, but not specious enough to dismiss out of hand."

I thought specious meant appearing to be true on the surface but wrong/flawed underneath. I'm not sure how that meaning works in this sentence. Can you please clarify?

Thank you,
LYC

Another great word-distinction question from a careful reader! You're spot on about specious, which is a synonym of plausible and should be used of that which seems reasonable, genuine, or true on the surface but which in reality is intended to mislead or deceive. A specious argument or a specious statement is superficially attractive or pleasing but false, deceptive, or flawed underneath. Clearly, that's not how those "clumsy threats" to move corporate headquarters have been framed.

I suspect the word the writer intended was one quite similar in sound: spurious, which means "false, counterfeit, artificial; not true, authentic, or genuine," and which applies to that which is not what it claims or is claimed to be, as a spurious document, a spurious statement, or a spurious charge. — CHE

Charlie,

Many thesauri list Fulgent, Effulgent, and Refulgent as synonyms. But in English it's almost always rare for two words to mean precisely the same thing, despite the fact they are synonymous. Can these three words be used interchangeably? Do they slightly differ in meaning or usage? Thank you.

You're quite right that it's rare for two (or more) English words to mean precisely the same thing. Many users of a thesaurus (especially younger ones) tend to forget that synonyms are words related in meaning, not words that are interchangeable like cogs in a machine, and the careful writer takes pains to discern their nuances.

But the three words you cite constitute an exception to this general rule. Why? Because, unlike most groups of synonyms, these words all come ultimately from the same source: the Latin fulgere, to shine, flash. Fulgent entered English first, in the late 14th century. Refulgent came along next, about 1500. And in the early 1700s effulgent rounded things out — or crowded the field, depending on how you look at it.

Although these three words have essentially the same meaning, "shinging brightly, radiant," as with other synonyms it would not be prudent to use them interchangeably, at least within the same piece of writing. A fine distinction might be made between effulgent and refulgent, that because of their prefixes (re-, back; ex-, out) the latter suggests reflected brilliance while the former suggests emanating brilliance. But that distinction seems pedantic, and it's certainly not supported by usage. No, if a distinction is to be made, it has to be based on other factors.

Refulgent strikes me as the best known and probably most often used of the three. That alone is a good argument to favor it over the others. But effulgent and fulgent are not so uncommon as to be considered rare (although I suspect the latter may be headed toward obsolescence). However, they have a more literary tone and a more archaic feel to them than refulgent, which limits the contexts in which they would be appropriate. In choosing among these three words, writers need to consider both the nature of their material and the sensibility of their readers. — CHE

I just heard you on the Mike Rosen show 850 KOA and couldn't get through to ask a question. Specifically, I would like to know the difference in pronunciation of forte (pronounced fort)and forte (with accent). I understand forte (with accented e) to be a musical term and forte (no accent)to be a personal strength. The popular pronunciation for a personal strength is to use the long e. Which is proper?

Jordan

Good question, Jordan — and a perennial one. You can get the full skinny from my Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations, but here is the shortish answer.

The traditional pronunciation of "forte," meaning a strong point, expertise, is like "fort" (the word comes from the French "fort," strong, and a French feminine /e/ got mistakenly tacked onto the end). But through confusion with "forte," the musical direction meaning "play loudly," which is pronounced FOR-tay, the strong-point "forte" came to be pronounced FOR-tay as well (in two syllables, with the stress on the first). This is now the dominant pronunciation in educated speech and should no longer be disparaged.

But yet another variant has splashed upon the scene in recent years, and I believe this is the one you refer to: for-TAY, two syllables, with the stress on the second syllable. I've even seen the word in print with an accent over the /e/ to indicate this pronunciation, and your description seems to confirm that you've seen it with an accent too. This variant — which as far as I know is used only for the strong-point sense and not for the musical direction — is erroneous and pretentious and should be rigorously avoided. "Forte," in both of its senses, should be pronounced either FORT or FOR-tay, and should never be printed with an accent over the /e/. — CHE

Hi there,
give us a hand, is there a precise word which means "joined eyebrows"?

Great question! I'm especially equipped to answer it because I happen to have a pair of joined eyebrows. (I hope you're not asking me because you looked at the photos on this website and broke out laughing.)

The word I have always heard and used — for perhaps 40 years now — for converging or joined eyebrows is unibrow (pronounced YOO-ni-brow). A quick Google Web search yielded an impressive 968,000 hits, with 22 hits on Google News (one from no less than the estimable New York Times). There are entries for unibrow in the Urban Dictionary and in Wikipedia, which says it's now in the OED. I checked, and it is, with citations dating back to the late 1980s.

A competing word, monobrow, entered the language at about the same time as unibrow, and is also now listed in the OED, but it is far less popular than unibrow, with 568,000 hits on Google Web and only 4 on Google News. Wikipedia says there is also a recently minted medical term, synophrys, which, not surprisingly, has almost no currency outside the medical arena (zero hits on Google News). — CHE

Hello,

Reading Verbal Advantage and Accidents of Style has made me curious about the use and misuse of certain words that I would not have otherwise questioned. Can you clarify the use of awake, awaken, awoke, awoken? Thank you.

LYC

As Garner's Modern American Usage observes, "The past-tense and past-participial forms of wake and its various siblings are perhaps the most vexing in the language." Here's how wake and those various siblings are used in standard English:

You wake (up) in the morning. You woke (up) yesterday. You have waked or woken (up) in the past. (I prefer woken for the past participal, although Garner says that's British and waked is American. It must be all the 19th- and early 20th-century Brit Lit that I was raised on as a kid.)

You awake in the morning. You awoke yesterday morning. You have awoken in the past. (Awake is also an adjective, as I'm awake now.)

You awaken, this moment, and open your eyes. You awakened this morning and opened your eyes. You have awakened in the past.

Generally speaking, the forms without the initial a are more common, while the forms with it are more literary. — CHE

Hi Charles, English is not my first language but I love words. I'd studied your verbal advantage twice, before deciding to register for the GRE. The words that I learned in your book gave me the courage to think of tackling the verbal section.
I have a question: Aren't you going to write any books regarding GRE?
By the way It's Masoud. ;)

Thanks for getting in touch, Masoud. I'm glad you found Verbal Advantage helpful, and I congratulate you on studying it a second time. As I try to emphasize throughout that program, review is essential to retention.

I once proposed a GRE vocabulary-building novel to the publisher of my SAT-ACT vocabulary-building novels, Tooth and Nail and Test of Time, but they turned the idea down. I may do something down the line, but right now I'm consumed with writing another graduated, 500-keyword vocabulary-building program, a companion to Verbal Advantage called Word Workout, which will cover many words that appear on the GRE. — CHE

Hi Charles I have been a fan of yours for five years. I really enjoy listening to your program, Verbal Advantage. I have a question. Enervate. How do I use this in a sentence? Last week I bought your new book The Accidents of Style. Thank you: Steve

Anything that drains you of energy is enervating. Too much alcohol can enervate you, or be enervating. Caring for a wild toddler is enervating. Digging ditches, doing your taxes, and watching infomericals are all enervating.

I love to cook and I prefer to eat dinner much later than most folks, so by the time I'm finished eating I'm feeling very satisfied and languid and ready for bed. As Billy Collins describes it in his poem "Osso Bucco," "the lion of contentment has placed a warm, heavy paw on my chest." You could call that lion the Enervator, and his heavy paw is the most pleasant enervation I know.

Thanks for buying my new book, Steve. It's now in second printing, which is very good news. — CHE

Hello Charles,
I have a quick question. You mentioned in Verbal Advantage that there are over a million words in the English Language. Is there an exact number, or would they be too hard to count? If you have an estimate, would you please let me know?

Thank you,
Nathanael

No one knows exactly how many words English comprises. The largest unabridged dictionaries record more than half a million words — the Oxford English Dictionary has well over 600,000 — but they do not include many slang, dialectal, and technical words, which if added would easily increase the total to over a million. So that's the estimate most experts are comfortable with. — CHE

Is it in good taste to use the word "saturate" when something is impregnated completely with something other than liquid? I.E. these fries are saturated with salt. Thanks, TIH

Yes, "saturate" may be used to mean to soak or impregnate with something other than a liquid, as in your fries example, and it may also be used in this way figuratively, as "to saturate with knowledge" or "a speech saturated with humor."

And, just to be helpful, i.e. means "that is (to say)," not "for example." The Latin abbreviation you meant to use is e.g., which stands for "exempli gratia." — CHE

Is is acceptable to say "I'm done" when one is asked whether a task has been completed? How about "I'm done eating" vs. "I'm finished eating"?

Done has been used to mean "finished" since the 15th century, and despite continued criticism this use is standard and unimpeachable. If you're concerned about being the object of that unwarranted and unjustified criticism, use "through" instead. — CHE

The correct pronunciation of the word "coupon" has always made me ill if pronounced "coopon", as opposed to my pronunciation, "qupon." Now I actually hope I am wrong, so I can start the healing process whenever I hear "coopon."

Thank you, and now you can point out the errors in this correspondence!

The only error in your correspondence, other than placing your comma outside your closing quotation mark, is your erroneous preference for KYOO-pahn. It's time to start the healing process because the Q pronunciation is spurious; etymology, analogy, spelling, and cultivated usage do not justify it. We do not say SYOOP for "soup," byoo-TEEK for "boutique," or TYUR-ni-kit for "tourniquet." Why stick "cue" into "coupon"?

Orthoepists (pronunciation experts) have long favored the KOO- pronunciation and frowned upon the KYOO- variant. One commentator from 1963 noted that KYOO-pahn is "less favored in sophisticated pronunciation, but otherwise widely heard," and Garner's Modern American Usage (2003) calls it a mispronunciation that "betrays an ignorance of French and of the finer points of English." — CHE

Greetings Mr. Elster, is this a correct use of the words ostensible and specious? Context: a guy likes this girl, but the girl pretends to like him to trick him into doing something for her. "Jenny's ostensible attraction to Jim was actually a specious way to get him to buy her new shoes." Thanks!

Yes on ostensible, no on specious, which means "superficially plausible but lacking merit," as a specious argument. In the example you quote, the words "devious" or "deceptive" would be better. — CHE

The article about you and your most recent book in the North County Times, October 3, 2010 by Alan Russell struck a chord with me about proper usage of words. I found that I shared these feelings with Darrell Issa's Field Representative in Vista, Lenna Wright. Harry Nelson

Thank you. I invite you to join me this weekend when I do a presentation on The Accidents of Style at the Kensington/Normal Heights Library in San Diego. Please see my events page for more information. — CHE

Dear Charlie

Last night I came across the phrase "free gift" in E. M. Forster's novel Howards End!
When a pundit like Forster uses it, is it yet a misusage?

Abusus non tollit usum — "Abuse does not nullify good use." If you've picked up a copy of my new book, The Accidents of Style, or if you've been following my ongoing list of Outrageous Accidents of Style on this website's Writings page, then you know that even the best writers and most reputable publications occasionally stumble into error.

That said, "free gift" is actually a very old phrase. The September 2010 online draft revision of the Oxford English Dictionary's entry for "free" shows that for several hundred years this adjective was paired with "gift" to designate the kind of gift that is given out of pure generosity, without any expectation of getting something in return, a present with no strings attached as opposed to an exchange of favors. Perhaps this is how Forster was using it in the highly class-conscious world of Howard's End. At any rate, this nuanced meaning was destroyed--or at least permanently warped--by the advertising industry's coopting of the phrase in the 20th century, so that "free gift" is no longer a gift freely given but merely a hackneyed redundancy. — CHE

I love your work! Please add a search function on your website. It would be so very helpful. Thank you.

That's a great idea, but unfortunately not possible at the moment. I rent this website from the Authors Guild for a pittance, so its capabilities are limited. But the Guild's tech support team tells me that it might happen down the line. — CHE

Dear Mr. Elster,
When preparing a PowerPoint slide show, our company often shows a direct quote from a Federal Manual. This is shown on the slide in quotation marks. Sometimes the punctuation in the Manual is incorrect. For example: " . . . workers, bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians." I know the preferred form is to not use a comma after the word motorist. If we show this sentence on a slide, should we eliminate the comma but still use quotation marks?
John - Denver

The comma after "motorist" is actually the traditional way of punctuating a series, and it's called the serial comma. It is endorsed by the Chicago Manual of Style and preferred by most book publishers. The practice of omitting the comma after the penultimate item in a series, right before the word "and," comes from journalism; newspaper style guides call for "red, white and blue" rather than "red, white, and blue."

Both styles are acceptable and you may choose which one you prefer. But if you are quoting you may not change anything; you must reproduce what you are quoting precisely as it was printed. If you believe there is an error in the original, you may put [sic] after it to show that it's not your mistake.

Incidentally, I favor the serial comma because, to me, it gives the series proper balance and it avoids any potential ambiguities, as in this hilarious book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." — CHE

Mr. Elster, I am the person who asked the question about the word 'snuck.' I've been sitting here reading the comments on your page and came across the request for a word that means "an urge to hide or conceal ones self before someone else returns". How about 'extricatia'?
David G.

I think that's a good start, David. But the suffix -ia is used for diseases (e.g., neuralgia, claustrophobia), while this is a strong urge or compulsion. Perhaps extricamania would do the trick. (Btw, see my answer to your question about sneaked and snuck below.) — CHE

Mr. Elster would it be possible for you to settle a juvenile discussion for me? The discussion involves the past tense of the word sneak. The old english form we are all in agreement would be sneaked, the contention is whether snuck is more appropriate considering context and vernacular.

I discuss sneaked and snuck in my new book, The Accidents of Style. Here is what I wrote:

You could say that snuck has sneaked up on us. Snuck appeared as a variant of sneaked in the late 19th century, and since then it has become so popular that today you are as likely to read snuck as sneaked—I got 1,576 hits for sneaked and 1,575 for snuck on Google News—and snuck is probably more common in speech. Does this mean that snuck has achieved respectability and deserves to be the preferred form?

The answer is a thundering no. An overwhelming number of authorities consider snuck nonstandard and a solid 67 percent of the usage panel of The American Heritage Dictionary objects to it. Also, if you look closely at those hits on Google News you’ll see that snuck usually appears in casual writing and quotations of casual speech, while sneaked appears in the edited prose of reputable publications.

Conclusion: If you use snuck in conversation you’re not likely to attract notice, but if you use it in your writing many will consider it an accident of style.

I hope that's helpful. — CHE