Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Height vs. Heighth

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , , |
1 Comment 

There’s an old saying that if you don’t like the weather, wait a bit—it’s likely to change. I think the same can be said of English language. The only thing that’s constant is that it changes, so if you don’t like the rules, give it a few decades and maybe the winds will shift in your favor.

Today’s match up for Which Word Wednesday is an example of this. Alternate spellings and pronunciations abound for this word that The Oxford American Dictionary defines as “the measurement from base to top or (of a standing person) from head to foot.” Some people say height and others say heighth—but which is correct? We are not left to cast lots, however. We have resources to clear the confusion.

Dave Dowling tells us in The Wrong Word Dictionary that “the correct spelling today is height, though years ago the word ended in th.”1 The Oxford American Dictionary supports Dowling. Height is listed, but heighth is not.

So where did heighth come from and where did the h go? I believe that heighth got its extra h because we pair it so often with width. We like things to rhyme, don’t we? But I found some professional insight in The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations by Charles Harrington Elster:

It is incorrect to pronounce height with a th sound at the end. . . . [These] vestigial pronunciations from the 17th and 18th centuries, when several variants were in common use. . . . ‘Height (which has been by far the most frequent written form since 1500),’ . . . and modern authorities and cultivated speakers do not countenance these pronunciations.2

What’s my WWW verdict? Using heighth is sort of like writing your dates with an ordinal (i.e., September 14th, which would be pronounced September fourteenth-th)—there’s no need for the extra syllable. Height will do. Besides, there’s no h on the end—if you say heighth you are giving voice to phantom letters that don’t even exist.

What’s your verdict? Do you say height or heighth? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Dave Dowling, The Wrong Word Dictionary (Oak Park, IL: Marion Street Press, 2005), 122.
2. Charles Harrington Elster, The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999), 193–94.

 

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Scrimp vs. Skimp

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

In light of our nation’s budget crisis, I thought it would be helpful to familiarize ourselves with the language of cutbacks. I’m dedicating this week’s Which Word Wednesday to the task. Let’s take a look at the proper use for scrimp versus skimp.

Here are the definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary:

scrimp :: verb
be thrifty or parsimonious; economize

skimp :: verb
expend or use less time, money, or material on something than is necessary in an attempt to economize

These two verbs describe a restrained approach.

Scrimp however is used primarily for monetary use. According to Ron Evans, author of The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language, scrimp is “used chiefly of money and material goods” and implies frugality, “to economize severely” or “to be excessively sparing with or of.”1

Skimp is a bit trickier. Although it “is normally used to mean ‘give insufficient attention to,’ ” it can also mean “to be stingy or very thrifty.”1 Heidi Stevens, in an article for The Chicago Tribune, notes that “skimp is slightly harsher.”2

How do we remember the difference? Steve Kleinedler, American Heritage Dictionary supervising editor, helps with this distinction: “Skimp implies economizing while doing without something that is necessary. If you’re scrimping, your basic needs are being met, perhaps just in a much less fancy or expensive way. If you’re skimping, you’re probably leaving something important or necessary out.”2

What’s my WWW verdict? When we scrimp, we have what we need—but we buy generic. When we skimp, we do without—even generic is too pricey, so we skip things we normally buy.

What’s your verdict? Does this economy cause you to scrimp or skimp? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 182.
2. Heidi Stevens, “Spell-Checker Busters,” The Chicago Tribune, November 10, 2010.

 

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Neologism vs. Nonce Word

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

You can tell a lot about a person based on the slang they use. For example, if you toss in a supportive, “Groovy!” with any regularity we know you were alive and alert in the 1970s. Or you are a loyal Brady Bunch fan.

We must watch the slang we pick up, for it will stick to our lexicographical ribs and give us company for years to come. All this slang analysis makes for a Which Word Wednesday entry between neologism and nonce word, both used to categorize and describe new words and phrases. Here are the definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary:

neologism :: noun
a newly coined word or expression

nonce word :: noun
(of a word or expression) coined for or used on one occasion

Both words refer to words or expressions that are newly coined. But the nonce word “is one coined ‘for the nonce’—that is, made up for one occasion and unlikely to be used again.”1

This seems sort of sad, don’t you think? All that creativity tossed aside after one use. The good news is that even if the creator meant it for single use, if others pick it up and get it into regular use, it transforms from a nonce word to a neologism and it becomes a part of our regular lexicon.

A recent example of a nonce word comes from a FoodNetwork show I thoroughly enjoy, The Next FoodNetwork Star. In this week’s episode, one of the contestants created a dish consisting of lasagna wrapped in a tortilla (burrito style) and deep-fried. He called it a la-changa (combining lasagna and chimichanga). The dish wasn’t a hit, so my guess is this nonce word will not be transforming into a neologism.

What’s my WWW verdict? Be careful which neologisms you pick up. Like all habits, it takes just a few uses to turn a fancy into a habit. And some words we have trouble breaking free from.

What’s your verdict? Do you find some slang difficult to shake? What’s your favorite slang phrase? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 148.

 

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Oppress vs. Suppress

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

If we lived in isolation, there would be no need for Which Word Wednesday. (And how sad our Wednesdays would be!) With no one to talk to, everything we thought or spoke aloud to ourselves would make sense. There would be no miscommunications or misunderstandings. It is in community that word choice is important for communicating in a way that others will understand our intent.

So I love it when the community contributes entries for this post series! Today’s match-up between oppress and suppress has had two requests now! Must be a common mind-bender. Let’s kick it off with definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary:

oppress :: verb
keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority; cause (someone) to feel distressed, anxious, or uncomfortable

suppress :: verb
forcibly put an end to; prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain

It seems that oppress refers to someone’s unjust force upon another person. I think of hostages being oppressed by terrorists or enslaved women oppressed by brothel owners.

Suppress doesn’t include the descriptor unjust, which makes me believe suppress isn’t as negative as oppress. In common usage, suppress is more often used when you personally restrain your own feelings or impulses.

None of my language books offered entries on oppress vs. suppress, so we’re left to our own devices for sorting out the differences. After a quick Web search, I found this explanation from searchwarp.com. It tosses in a third word to the mix—repress; see if this helps our discovery:

Oppress means to burden, weigh heavily on, or press upon. Repress, means to keep under control, hold back, or reduce. Suppress, refers to putting an end to, doing away with, or keeping something hidden. Although the meanings are very similar there are small distinct differences governing their proper use. Repress and suppress are often used to describe emotions, as well as actions, while oppress is used almost exclusively in a political context or when describing something that has an almost physical sensation of weight.

What’s my WWW verdict? You can suppress your own emotions, and you can be forced to suppress them if an unjust political system is causing you to be oppressed.

What’s your verdict? Does that clear up the confusion between oppress and suppress? Do you have any tricks for using the correct word for the context? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. “Nuances in Language: Are They Being Suppressed or Oppressed.” Sourced July 20, 2011, http://searchwarp.com/swa40964.htm.

 

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Deprecate vs. Depreciate

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The New York Times runs an article titled “Words We Love Too Much,” which highlights certain words that are being used and used and used again in NYT articles. I find it fascinating to see how a word like kerfuffle went from one use in 1990 to 12 uses in 2011.

This series shows how we tend to reuse and recycle interesting words we hear or read. And that’s fine, except when those words are misused, because then we pass on our bad habits for others to pick up and spread about.

Today’s Which Word Wednesday match-up shows how our tendency to reuse a common word or phrase can cause us all to stumble. For as long as I can remember, I’ve used the phrase “self-deprecating humor” to describe how we belittle ourselves to garner a laugh or gain sympathy. Everyone I know uses it in this way too.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered we’ve been wrong. We’ve been recycling this phrase and using it improperly. Who knew? I didn’t. But Rod Evans explains it in his book The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language. Evans tells us, “When people talk of ‘self-deprecating humor,’ they mean ‘self-depreciating humor,’ in which people belittle themselves.”1

The definitions in the Oxford American Dictionary show this same correction:

deprecate :: verb
express disapproval of

depreciate :: verb
diminish in value over a period of time; disparage or belittle (something)

The OAD also notes that self-depreciating was the original phrase, and self-deprecating has come into use in recent times.

What’s my WWW verdict? Recycling is good for the planet, but dangerous with language. When you hear a new phrase, look it up before adding it to your lexicon.

What’s your verdict? Do you use self-depreciating humor or self-deprecating humor? And are you concerned of the dangers of word recycling? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 70.

 

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Flotsam vs. Jetsam

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , , |
1 Comment 

In a previous Which Word Wednesday match up—when we looked at vim vs. vigor—I mentioned that some word pairs become so attached that we rarely use one without the other. I listed flotsam and jetsam as one such pair, and today we will take a closer look at this duo.

First of all, these words have a certain, Je ne sais quoi . . . a certain old-school quality about them. They are just interesting words to say aloud—the sort of words that get stuck in my brain on repeat mode. Do any of you have that with certain words?

Let’s move on to the definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary:

flotsam :: noun
the wreckage of a ship or its cargo found floating on or washed up by the sea

jetsam :: noun
unwanted material or goods that have been thrown overboard from a ship and washed ashore, esp. material that has been discarded to lighten the vessel

So flotsam refers to what’s floating about after a shipwreck, and jetsam is what’s floating about to lighten the load in the hope of avoiding a shipwreck. Chronologically speaking then, jetsam comes first, then flotsam.

In The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language, Ron Evans tells us that flotsam “is related in meaning and origin to float,” and “jetsam describes any cargo or equipment jettisoned aboard during a storm or an emergency.”1

And that provides a great memory hook. Use flotsam to describe debris floating in the ocean. Use jetsam to describe items jettisoned (thrown or tossed) from a ship—such items may or may not float (if they float, those items are now flotsam).

These nautical terms are more commonly used today in a figurative sense. The OAD tells us that when used together, the phrase flotsam and jetsam refers to “people or things that have been rejected and are regarded as worthless.” It could refer to the debris after a natural disaster or the worn items collected after cleaning out your closets, piled up for the mission donation box.

What’s my WWW verdict? I’m no seafarer, so my opportunities are slim for observing flotsam or jetsam in the literal sense. The figurative meaning that joins the two words, however, is useful to many non-sailor types—that’s why flotsam and jetsam are codependent. (Now that I know why they are always together, I can give them some grace.)

What’s your verdict? Were you aware that flotsam and jetsam together form the figurative sense? Do find the words flotsam and jetsam fun to say aloud? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 100.

 

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Amiable vs. Amicable

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , |
1 Comment 

You might think that a gal who hosts a blog series on word usage would be some sort of expert. That is not the case, however, here at Which Word Wednesday—this gal is no expert. I’m just fascinated by language, making me curious enough to track down answers to the questions I have.

And sometimes, even my own word choices provide fodder for the series. For example, a few weeks ago, I posted a Mother’s Day tribute inviting readers to post a comment of thanks to their own moms. I kicked things off with a message to my own mom:

Mom,

You’ve taught me so many things it’s hard to pick just one. There’s the truth that both hams and salads are always amicable (“I’m going to make a nice salad!” / “Let’s have a nice ham!”). . . .

Days after posting my comment, it occurred to me that perhaps amicable was not correct . . . I wondered if amiable was the word I should have used. That mystery prodded me to check with the Oxford American Dictionary. Here’s what I found:

amiable :: adjective
having or displaying a friendly and pleasant manner

amicable :: adjective
(of relations between people) having a spirit of friendliness; without serious disagreement or rancor

Hams and salads are not people, so amicable doesn’t seem like the correct choice. And a check with Ron Evans, in his The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language, told me that amicable “usually refers to relationships, agreements, divorces, and settlements.”1

In context, amiable was the correct word to describe the pleasant nature of hams and salads. Unless, of course, hams and salads are also on good terms with each other—then they would be amicable toward one another . . . but I’ve heard that hams and salads have a long-standing feud for table space in homes across the nation. They may be pleasant to others, but there is some definite rancor between them.

What’s my WWW verdict? People, animals, hams, and salads may be amiable, but amicable refers to the relationship between two things. (Also, I may love words and language, but I make plenty of word choice errors.)

What’s your verdict? Are hams and salads the only amiable foods around? Do you tend to use the adjective nice to regularly describe any other foods or dishes? Do share in the comments.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 11.

 

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Vigor vs. Vim

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , |
[2] Comments 

Some words have been so linked that together they form a phrasal expression. (Think of pairs like warp and woof, flotsam and jetsam, kith and kin, etc.)

Today’s Which Word Wednesday features one such pair: vim and vigor. Why is it that vim always gets to go first? Why don’t we ever say vigor and vim? Well, I’ll give vigor first billing because alphabetically it precedes vim.

Here are the Oxford American Dictionary definitions:

vigor :: noun
physical strength and good health; effort, energy, and enthusiasm

vim :: noun
energy; enthusiasm

According to Ron Evans, in his The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language, vigor “emphasizes strength from a fundamentally sound and active mind or body.” Vim “emphasizes the display of extraordinary energy put to work.”1

Over at The Word Detective, I discovered all sorts of interesting history for vim and vigor. For example, vigor has been used commonly since the 1300s whereas vim popped up in the 1900s. I think that’s why the OAD entry lists vim as an informal word.

What’s my WWW verdict? I think in the 1300s people were propping up vim with vigor due to vim’s informality. I’m not sure I would insert vim without vigor, mostly out of habit. Maybe I’ll give it a try sometime and see how it goes . . .

What’s your verdict? Do you use vim without vigor? Share your comments and be sure to cast your vote in the poll.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 200.

 

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Regal vs. Royal

Posted by erinstraza under culture, language | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Despite the kerfuffle (that’s for my friends over at Christ and Pop Culture) surrounding Friday’s wedding of Prince William and Catherine, I’m planning to be a gawker from across the pond. I’m hosting a viewing party (my mom, sister, and niece will be in attendance) because:

1) I love weddings, and

2) I’m feeling sentimental, because way back in 1981, my mom got my sister and me out of bed to watch the wedding of Prince Charles and Diana.

This week’s Which Word Wednesday is in honor of the momentous event. We’re going to look at the entry of regal/royal from Ron Evans’s The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language.

Here are the Oxford American Dictionary definitions:

regal :: adjective
of, resembling, or fit for a monarch, esp. in being magnificent or dignified

royal :: adjective
having the status of a king or queen or a member of their family

Both of these words are related to a monarchy—so appropriate for Friday’s event—but what sort of usage helps can we tuck away based on these definitions?

It looks like royal is reserved for one within a monarchy, whereas regal would be appropriate for something resembling a monarchy, whether person, place, or thing. Evans says: “Royal describes anything associated with kings, queens, or the crown, without necessarily implying magnificence.”1

What’s my WWW verdict? A royal is a person within the monarchy, and that status cannot be altered. But a royal may not necessarily be regal—undignified behavior may lower a royal’s regal standing.

What’s your verdict? Do you plan to be a royal wedding gawker this week? Share your comments and be sure to cast your vote in the poll.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 172–173.

 

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Which Word Wednesday: Hoedown vs. Hootenanny

Posted by erinstraza under language | Tags: , , , , |
1 Comment 

It happens all the time: You are having a great time at a social gathering—feasting and merrymaking and the like—and you thank the host for the lovely hootenanny. The room quiets and crickets can be heard because you have just offended the host. This is no hootenanny. It’s a hoedown. [sigh.] That’s a social faux pas of grand proportion.

But in the stress of the moment, it’s easy to get your hootenannies confused with your hoedowns. And this week’s Which Word Wednesday is here to help!

Let’s start with the Oxford American Dictionary definitions:

hoedown :: noun
A social gathering at which lively folk dancing takes place.

hootenanny :: noun
An informal gathering with folk music and sometimes dancing.

Both of these words describe a gathering—one is social, and the is other informal. Both are folksy. One focuses on dancing, the other on music. Ron Evans makes this distinction between them in The Artful Nuance: the entry for people/persons1 caught my eye. Here’s what it says:

A hoedown is a community social event featuring organized square dancing, whereas a hootenanny is a community social event stressing the playing of musical instruments (such as the fiddle, guitar, or piano), though dancing can also occur.1

Oddly enough, Evans’s book was my only word source with the hoedown/hootenanny entry. Strange that the other sources don’t find this confusion stirring enough to include it in their works . . .

What’s my WWW verdict? Socially speaking, one must make a distinction between a hoedown and a hootenanny. These are distinctly different occasions. Here’s how I’m keeping them straight in my mind: You dance at a hoedown and play instruments at a hootenanny. Easy enough!

What’s your verdict? Do you prefer hoedowns or hootenannies? Share your comments and be sure to cast your vote in the poll.

_______________
Check out previous Which Word Wednesday verdicts here.

_______________
Sources
1. Ron Evans, The Artful Nuance: A Refined Guide to Imperfectly Understood Words in the English Language (New York, NY: Penguin Group, 2009), 118.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers