We've addressed all of these, I know. But this article brings them all up again. Here are, according to the author, 5 quick ways to sound smarter. I don't think Wordcrafters will agree.

1) Correct use of whom/who

2) Kick the "myself" habit; apparently people are afraid to use me. (If they are, it's likely the fault of the peevologists who rant and rave too much.)

3) Misuse of nonplussed. This one probably makes the most sense.

4) Less/fewer: "'This is one of those word pairings which people who pay close attention to English will definitely notice if you use incorrectly,' Kleinedler says." This one surprised me the most because of some of our discussions here.

5) Stop adding syllables to mischievous, specialty, and disoriented (adding ated to it). In this Saturday's chat, Bob said (if I understood him correctly) there are no mispronunciations.

[Edited to correct quotation mistake in #4]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

1) will make you sound pompous nowadays
2)I agree, but it's not a very widespread problem except among people trying to sound "educated"
3)I have seen this advice before but I have never actually heard anyone make this mistake.
4)This is a myth. People have used "less" in the sense objected to for centuries.
5) I did say that, though it was a bit of an oversimplification. Everyone speaks in their own way. I have my idiolect, you have yours. When we pronounce a word differently neither of us is wrong. Perhaps I should have said "there is no such thing as a right pronunciation."

I'm with Bob almost all the way here.

1) As Bob says, it makes users sound pompous, even in formal writing. Incorrect use ("Whom are you?" and the like) makes you sound silly. At least the lexicographer they spoke to agreed with this.

2) Agree with this one, but it's not greatly misused, as Bob says.

3)I've never heard anyone misusing it this way either.

4) As Bob says, this is an invention of peevologists, not a grammatical rule.

5) Mischievious is an error, and a fairly common one. On the other hand, the author is incorrect about speciality and disorientated . They are the standard forms of the words in the rest of the English-speaking world, and are used in the USA and Canada as well, so have possibly a better claim to be the "correct" form. I'm surprised that the supervising editor of the AHD didn't know that.

While we're peeving about, what in the world is a predicative nominative? I've heard of predicate nominatives, i.e., using the nominative case in the predicate slot of a sentence, but not this beast. Seems like an egregious solecism. Of course, it could just be an alternative term, like disorientate, but I'd hardly think the powers who be would allow of such a thing ...

2) Reflexives without same-clause antecedents have been used for centuries.

quote:

The company was, Miss Hannah More, ... Mrs. Boscawen, Mrs. Elizabeth Carter, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Dr. Burney, Dr. Johnson, and myself.

- James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791

Interestingly this use of reflexives is often considered ungrammatical by linguists. So I assume it hasn't been very common.

3) nonplussed

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

quote:
The company was, Miss Hannah More, ... Mrs. Boscawen, Mrs. Elizabeth Carter, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Dr. Burney, Dr. Johnson, and myself.

- James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's right....
as my wife always tells me when I voice an opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's right....

I didn't say it was right, I was just presenting some information for your edification and enjoyment. However, the question here is not whether it is right, it's whether it sounds stupid. I don't think Boswell's quote sounds stupid, but sometimes this construction can.

IMO, any time you use "myself" when you mean "me", it's stupid.

OK, from now on I'll use "Iself."

quote:

Mischievious is an error, and a fairly common one.

Ah well. I've said it that way before, but then I've also erred before (just ask Lynn Truss!).

Orientated, as a verb, is in the OED so I guess it, like irregardless, is acceptable. On the other hand, I abhor it! Whenever I hear that programs are established to orientate new nurses, I shudder. Of course, if they say they are orientating mischievious nurses, then I'm okay.

Do you call those oriention courses?

No. I orient people by teaching orientation courses. However, I would never orientate anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
5) Stop adding syllables to mischievous, specialty, and disoriented (adding ated to it).

orientate wasn't formed by adding -ate to orient. It was formed by removing -ion from orientation. orient was borrowed from French orienter - why should it not end in -ate, while motivate, borrowed from French motiver, should end in -ate?

It seems goofy to me to dislike certain words, when they only have the shape they have because of historical accidents.

why should it not end in -ate

Yes, the history of orient as a verbed noun is interesting. Latin oriens 'rising' is a present participle from the deponent verb orior 'to rise'. The past participle is ortus. Many Latinate verbs have entered English not from the infinitival form (e.g., goofy's French [i]motiver), but from the past participial form, usually ending in -ate. Not so the verb orient. As I said above it is from the present participial form and is a denominal verb (i.e., a verb noun). The verb orientate is a back formation from orientation, which itself is I think from another (Late or Vulgar Latin) verb *oriento, *orientatare, *orientatus 'to orient(ate) oneself by facing East', not to rise (as the Sun does). People who complain about orientate as a verb ought to use *ortion rather than orientation.

quote:

...they only have the shape they have because of historical accidents.

Heck, Goofy, forget words, that explains ME!

I am convinced. I just don't...and won't...use "orientate." I think it sounds as stupid as "irregardless," which is also in the OED and which I also will not ever use as it too grates on my nerves. It's a personal thing.

I suppose you don't like unthaw and onliest, either. Onliest isn't in the OED, but unthaw is, attested from 1598.

quote:

I just don't...and won't...use "orientate."

I don't think anyone is forcing you to, Kalleh. However, you should realise (unlike the author of the article originally mentioned) that it is a perfectly valid variant, used by millions of English-speakers across the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:
Heck, Goofy, forget words, that explains ME!

You're funny, Geoff.

You are correct, arnie, that no one is forcing me to use orientate.

Tinman, I've never really thought much about unthaw or onliest. They're moot points to me.

We all have our pet peeves (such as moot, arnie), and this is one of mine. My daughter's (as posted in another thread) tend to be pronunciations. No one says they are legitimate (well, my daughter thinks hers are!), but we all have them; let's face it. Indeed, whenever the OED calls a word "non-standard" (like irregardless) or "chiefly American," I take it that those words are pet peeves to them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,