English lessons! Pls post examples and correct usage ...

[Phoenix]

...of similar words and phrases.

I thought perhaps we could have a light-hearted thread, among all the heated political debates (as interesting as they are).

Even though English is my first language (though not my mother tongue), I still am befuddled at times by certain words and phrases.

For example: suitable/ suited to vs. suitable/ suited for. When does one use "to" vs "for", and why?

Incidentally, I wrote "among". DH insists "amongst" is only used in a legalistic context. What do you think?

And is it "usage" and never "usages"? But one can say "use" as well as "uses".

 

[ksinger]

...of similar words and phrases.

I thought perhaps we could have a light-hearted thread, among all the heated political debates (as interesting as they are).

Even though English is my first language (though not my mother tongue), I still am befuddled at times by certain words and phrases.

For example: suitable/ suited to vs. suitable/ suited for. When does one use "to" vs "for", and why?

Incidentally, I wrote "among". DH insists "amongst" is only used in a legalistic context. What do you think?

And is it "usage" and never "usages"? But one can say "use" as well as "uses".

Among vs amongst - amongst seems to be more of a British usage, and seems to be seen as a bit antiquated and be out of favor in the US. I don't think it has anything to do with its use in law, which would probably just add to the antiquated observation. Anyway, I use it as often as possible. I like to use words that aren't commonly used because it's fun - it keeps me more entertained.

My personal beef in recent...decades, has been the ugly screaming death of the adverb in the US. I miss them.....

 

[AGBF]

I just saw this thread. I'll play. Like, K, I like to use words. I, also, use them for variety. I feel that one shouldn't always have to use the same words given the huge number of words that exist in English. My vocabulary becomes stunted when it isn't stimulated by outside forces, however. If I don't read some erudite books for a while, I find that I am using the same commonplace words all the time. Then I hear some British commentator on the radio and I am astonished at how well he speaks because the British just have wider vocabularies than we Americans do.

Phoenix, what is your mother tongue? I may have asked you this once before. I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu.

Deb

 

[Phoenix]

...of similar words and phrases.

I thought perhaps we could have a light-hearted thread, among all the heated political debates (as interesting as they are).

Even though English is my first language (though not my mother tongue), I still am befuddled at times by certain words and phrases.

For example: suitable/ suited to vs. suitable/ suited for. When does one use "to" vs "for", and why?

Incidentally, I wrote "among". DH insists "amongst" is only used in a legalistic context. What do you think?

And is it "usage" and never "usages"? But one can say "use" as well as "uses".

Among vs amongst - amongst seems to be more of a British usage, and seems to be seen as a bit antiquated and be out of favor in the US. I don't think it has anything to do with its use in law, which would probably just add to the antiquated observation. Anyway, I use it as often as possible. I like to use words that aren't commonly used because it's fun - it keeps me more entertained.

My personal beef in recent...decades, has been the ugly screaming death of the adverb in the US. I miss them.....

Ah, that makes sense. I'm a Brit and DH is American.

What do you mean by the bolded part? Can you pls share some examples?

 

[Phoenix]

I just saw this thread. I'll play. Like, K, I like to use words. I, also, use them for variety. I feel that one shouldn't always have to use the same words given the huge number of words that exist in English. My vocabulary becomes stunted when it isn't stimulated by outside forces, however. If I don't read some erudite books for a while, I find that I am using the same commonplace words all the time. Then I hear some British commentator on the radio and I am astonished at how well he speaks because the British just have wider vocabularies than we Americans do.

Phoenix, what is your mother tongue? I may have asked you this once before. I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu.

Deb

Was hoping you'd chime in, Deb.

DH would say that the Brits use such a "flowery" language and can we just cut to the chase and speak more concisely and speak like the Americans?!!

It's Vietnamese.

Would you care to opine on the words I mentioned above, pls Deb? I'm seriously interested. I've actually Googled them and still am confused.

 

[kenny]

Speaking of correct usage ... your vs. you're.

Your is used when something belongs you you.
It is your diamond.

You're is short for you are.
You're the owner of that diamond.

Hope a certain someone here sees this. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge.

 

[Phoenix]

Speaking of correct usage ... your vs. you're.

Your is used when something belongs you you.
It is your diamond.

You're is short for you are.
You're the owner of that diamond.

Hope a certain someone here sees this. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge.

Ugh! This is a personal pet peeve of mine! It really irks me when someone writes "your" when it's obvious they mean "you're"!
Clearly, I need to take a chill pill!

 

[ksinger]

...of similar words and phrases.

I thought perhaps we could have a light-hearted thread, among all the heated political debates (as interesting as they are).

Even though English is my first language (though not my mother tongue), I still am befuddled at times by certain words and phrases.

For example: suitable/ suited to vs. suitable/ suited for. When does one use "to" vs "for", and why?

Incidentally, I wrote "among". DH insists "amongst" is only used in a legalistic context. What do you think?

And is it "usage" and never "usages"? But one can say "use" as well as "uses".

Among vs amongst - amongst seems to be more of a British usage, and seems to be seen as a bit antiquated and be out of favor in the US. I don't think it has anything to do with its use in law, which would probably just add to the antiquated observation. Anyway, I use it as often as possible. I like to use words that aren't commonly used because it's fun - it keeps me more entertained.

My personal beef in recent...decades, has been the ugly screaming death of the adverb in the US. I miss them.....

Ah, that makes sense. I'm a Brit and DH is American.

What do you mean by the bolded part? Can you pls share some examples?

Do it quick, drive safe, eat local, all come to mind.

 

[AGBF]

I, also, regret the death of the adverb. I find myself failing to use adverbs at times just to "fit in", unless I am speaking formally. That is, in my opinion, a crime against the language.

The discussion of adverbs reminds me of one of my pet peeves. (Sorry not to get to your list, yet, Phoenix.) Like kenny, I have my own special group of grammatical errors that make me grit my teeth: amongst them is adverbs that modify the wrong word. An example would be, "hopefully she will leave soon". The intent of the writer is to indicate that he hopes "she" will leave soon. However, he has actually said that he believes that she will leave soon in a hopeful mood. Another example is, "thankfully, they all lived through the car crash". The writer meant to indicate that he was thankful that everyone lived through the car crash, but he wrote that everyone who lived through the car crash did so in a mood of gratitude (which may or may not have been true).

It's very early and I am going back to bed, but I am really looking forward to this thread. thank you to everyone who is participating and particularly to you, Phoenix, for starting it!

Deb

 

[Phoenix]

...of similar words and phrases.

I thought perhaps we could have a light-hearted thread, among all the heated political debates (as interesting as they are).

Even though English is my first language (though not my mother tongue), I still am befuddled at times by certain words and phrases.

For example: suitable/ suited to vs. suitable/ suited for. When does one use "to" vs "for", and why?

Incidentally, I wrote "among". DH insists "amongst" is only used in a legalistic context. What do you think?

And is it "usage" and never "usages"? But one can say "use" as well as "uses".

Among vs amongst - amongst seems to be more of a British usage, and seems to be seen as a bit antiquated and be out of favor in the US. I don't think it has anything to do with its use in law, which would probably just add to the antiquated observation. Anyway, I use it as often as possible. I like to use words that aren't commonly used because it's fun - it keeps me more entertained.

My personal beef in recent...decades, has been the ugly screaming death of the adverb in the US. I miss them.....

Ah, that makes sense. I'm a Brit and DH is American.

What do you mean by the bolded part? Can you pls share some examples?

Do it quick, drive safe, eat local, all come to mind.

Ah ok. I suspect these will eventually be commonly used and become widely accepted. Do you think this will be the case? For example, one might say : "come quick!"; I hear that all the time and I use it myself . I guess that's similar to "do it quick" instead of "do it quickly".

 

[Phoenix]

I, also, regret the death of the adverb. I find myself failing to use adverbs at times just to "fit in", unless I am speaking formally. That is, in my opinion, a crime against the language.

The discussion of adverbs reminds me of one of my pet peeves. (Sorry not to get to your list, yet, Phoenix.) Like kenny, I have my own special group of grammatical errors that make me grit my teeth: amongst them is adverbs that modify the wrong word. An example would be, "hopefully she will leave soon". The intent of the writer is to indicate that he hopes "she" will leave soon. However, he has actually said that he believes that she will leave soon in a hopeful mood. Another example is, "thankfully, they all lived through the car crash". The writer meant to indicate that he was thankful that everyone lived through the car crash, but he wrote that everyone who lived through the car crash did so in a mood of gratitude (which may or may not have been true).

It's very early and I am going back to bed, but I am really looking forward to this thread. thank you to everyone who is participating and particularly to you, Phoenix, for starting it!

Deb

Haha, the first point you raised here is what I've just posted (pls see my post immediately above this). It is indeed grammatically incorrect; but do you not think that because all languages tend to evolve, eventually English may/ might (?) evolve to include these as then correct usage?

Regarding your second point: I have to admit I am guilty! Now that I know it's wrong, I will think twice before using them in this way again. Thank you for posting that, Deb.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding the words in my first post.

 

[ksinger]

And is it "usage" and never "usages"? But one can say "use" as well as "uses".

Not sure about the plurals, but this site has been my go-to for....wow...umm...about 15 years? It's been around for a LONG time now. And it's much larger than it used to be, I see. Paul Brian is an English prof. It's really a great resource when you're truly in a pickle on how to use a word.

Paul Brian's Errors in English Usage (ha ha!)
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/

The entry on use vs usage
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/usage.html

 

[texaskj]

My two biggest:

"is currently" If the house is currently on the market, the house is on the market; currently is not needed.

And for the love of Pete, I guess it was just too hard for the generation after me to learn the difference between affect and effect. And so they use impact instead.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/affect-effect/

 

[Phoenix]

My two biggest:

"is currently" If the house is currently on the market, the house is on the market; currently is not needed.

And for the love of Pete, I guess it was just too hard for the generation after me to learn the difference between affect and effect. And so they use impact instead.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/affect-effect/

True that.

That one also irks me! lol

 

[kenny]

Ensure vs. insure.
Insure is the business ... as in paying a premium to get insurance coverage ... I have to insure my car.
Ensure is to make something certain ... Please ensure my son fastens his seat belt.

Using insure where ensure correct is very common even in professional publications.

Next there's verbing nouns ... My friend gifted me his guitar!
Verbing nouns makes my teeth itch, especially when FB did it ........ OMG, she friended me! OMG!

 

[msop04]

One of my biggest pet peeves is the addition of an apostrophe to make a word plural. It seems tons of people just love them...


Open 7 Day's a Week <---- actually printed on a store front!!

The Barefield's <----- on a Christmas card from the Barefields

 

[ksinger]

One of my biggest pet peeves is the addition of an apostrophe to make a word plural. It seems tons of people just love them...


Open 7 Day's a Week <---- actually printed on a store front!!

The Barefield's <----- on a Christmas card from the Barefields

Oh man.....they're everywhere. It's enough to make you weep.

And thinking of grammar/spelling problems in places you'd not expect, (or maybe so?) I had to roll my eyes when I was in a Wal-Mart (it was a long time ago, OK??? Like years! I've done much penance since then, no really). In the health and beauty section, on one of the great big professionally produced aisle markers it said: "Deoderent". Hoooookaaaayyyyy......

 

[kenny]

"Deoderent".

Deoderent is to rid rental properties of odor.

 

[the_mother_thing]

"First Annual" ... in describing events.

If it's the first, how can it be annual?

Wait until the event actually happens again, then use 'annual'.

 

[ksinger]

"Deoderent".

Deoderent is to rid rental properties of odor.

Good one!

 

[AGBF]

msop's posting on plurals made with apostrophes actually (if not literally), put a smile on my face...and I needed it. I was sitting here thinking about the Barefield's Family and wondering what they were like.

Deb

 

[msop04]

The postings on plurals and apostrophes actually (if not literally) put a smile on my face...and i needed it. I was sitting here thinking about the Barefield's Family and wondering what they were like.

Deb

The Barefield's are nice people. They send Christmas card's to all their family and friend's each year.

I keep waiting for a lawn banner to adorn their yard... "The Barefield's"

 

[AGBF]

The postings on plurals and apostrophes actually (if not literally) put a smile on my face...and i needed it. I was sitting here thinking about the Barefield's Family and wondering what they were like.

Deb

The Barefield's are nice people. They send Christmas card's to all their family and friend's each year.

You are a riot. I hope you're friend's appreciate you. (I do.)

Deb

 

[msop04]

The postings on plurals and apostrophes actually (if not literally) put a smile on my face...and i needed it. I was sitting here thinking about the Barefield's Family and wondering what they were like.

Deb

The Barefield's are nice people. They send Christmas card's to all their family and friend's each year.

You are a riot. I hope you're friend's appreciate you. (I do.)

Deb

Thanks, Deb!

Another annoying grammatical error I see all the time is the use of "loosing," instead of losing.

"Matt started wearing a cap, because he's loosing his hair."

Edit: I don't even know if that's a grammatical error... it's just the wrong damn word altogether. Wait. It's not even a word!

 

[the_mother_thing]

Another one I hear often is the mis-pluralization (if that is a word) of professional titles. For example, if we are, by title, referring to Michelle Obama and Laura Bush, we would say " First Ladies of the ..." Some folks add the "s" on to the last word in whatever the title is. Another example would be "Clerks of the Court" (correct) vs. "Clerk of the Courts" (incorrect).

To muddy the waters a bit, there are many different "correct" usages for things depending on who you ask and in which context or format for writing. When I wrote for a newspaper, the AP Style book was (and I believe still is) the "bible"; in a collegiate, academic or other setting, there are other reference books that prescribe other and sometimes different rules.

This is one reason why I could never become an English teacher after journalism.

 

[AGBF]

Another one I hear often is the mis-pluralization (if that is a word) of professional titles. For example, if we are, by title, referring to Michelle Obama and Laura Bush, we would say " First Ladies of the ..." Some folks add the "s" on to the last word in whatever the title is. Another example would be "Clerks of the Court" (correct) vs. "Clerk of the Courts" (incorrect).

To muddy the waters a bit, there are many different "correct" usages for things depending on who you ask and in which context or format for writing. When I wrote for a newspaper, the AP Style book was (and I believe still is) the "bible"; in a collegiate, academic or other setting, there are other reference books that prescribe other and sometimes different rules.

This is one reason why I could never become an English teacher after journalism.

I refuse to look up the current usage. In my day it was the Bible. So I say the Bible.

But I applaud you for "Clerks of the Court".

I dislike mangled phrases like "Peace on earth, good will to men" for "Peace on earth to men of good will".
Also: "The proof is in the pudding" for "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".
There are so many.

 

[Phoenix]

The postings on plurals and apostrophes actually (if not literally) put a smile on my face...and i needed it. I was sitting here thinking about the Barefield's Family and wondering what they were like.

Deb

The Barefield's are nice people. They send Christmas card's to all their family and friend's each year.

You are a riot. I hope you're friend's appreciate you. (I do.)

Deb

Hilarious!! I literally laughed out loud! Had a mental image of the Barefield's!

 

[Phoenix]

These are excellent posts! They crack me up! Please keep them coming!!

 

[SMC]

"Center on" versus "center around" - it's illogical to center around something.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Speaking of correct usage ... your vs. you're.

Your is used when something belongs you you.
It is your diamond.

You're is short for you are.
You're the owner of that diamond.

Hope a certain someone here sees this. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge.

Kenny...You're nuts? Your two nuts? correct?...