Bryan A. Garner

*without scarcely. This phrasing is an optical illusion: something of a redundancy while something of an oxymoron. Whatever it is, though, it’s illogical — e.g.: o “He shook hands without scarcely [read ‘without’ or ‘scarcely’] noticing those who were there to encourage him.” Godfrey Sperling, “The Power of a Candidate’s Prose,” Christian Science Monitor, 8 […]

with. “With” is increasingly being used as a quasi-conjunction to introduce a tag-on idea at the end of a sentence. The sense is close to “and” {John went to Houston and Sarah went to Minneapolis, with me going to Chicago}. Avoid this sloppy construction — e.g.: o “Labor also has an edge on unemployment and

wisteria; wistaria. Americans are often surprised to learn that the flowery vine was named “wistaria” (after Caspar Wistar, an anatomist), not “wisteria.” A prominent etymologist calls the change in spelling “apparently a misprint” in 1819. Robert K. Barnhart, Dictionary of Etymology 885 (1995). The original does still show up in American print sources, but usually

Miscellaneous Entries. wolverine; *wolverene. The latter is a needless variant. woolliness is the quality of being confused, hazy, indefinite, and indistinct in expression. Excessive cross-references, as in the Internal Revenue Code, are perhaps the apotheosis of woolliness — e.g.: “For purposes of paragraph (3), an organization described in paragraph (2) shall be deemed to include

-wise. Generally, avoid “-wise” words or compounds when the suffix means “regarding” or some other frame of reference. They typically displace a more direct wording, and they’re invariably graceless and inelegant — e.g.: o “After a dull summer book-wise [read “in books” or “in the book trade”] . . . , the season of fairs,

winch. “Winch” (= a cranking device that helps pull or haul) is sometimes confused with “wench” (= a young woman, esp. one with lewd propensities). The results are truly bizarre — e.g.: o “By using a 1/4″ steel cable on the wench [read ‘winch’] and over the pulley, I was able to hoist up the

who’s who. “Who’s Who” is a shortened form of “who is who” (the second “who” being correct as a predicate nominative). But some writers — despite the popularity of various widely touted books called “Who’s Who” — mangle the phrase into *”who’s whom.” E.g.: o “The charade of who’s whom [read ‘who’s who’] and what’s

who(so)ever, whom(so)ever; *whoso(ever), *whomso(ever). Part A: Choice of Term. The forms “whoever” and “whomever” are preferred in modern writing. But the archaisms *”whosoever” and *”whomsoever,” as well as *”who(m)so,” appear sometimes in legalese. Often these terms are superfluous, as here: “This is a right that avails against all persons whomsoever [delete ‘whomsoever’] in the world.”

Miscellaneous Entries.  *withal is an archaism for “besides,” “nevertheless,” “still,” “with,” or “therewith.” E.g.: “There is, withal [read ‘nevertheless’], much to admire in these memoirs and in the diplomacy they recount.” David C. Hendrickson, “White House Years,” Foreign Affairs, 19 Sept. 1997, at 223. wither is misused for “whither” in the following title: John Darnton,

whose (1). Today: Meaning “of which.” “Whose” may usefully refer to things {an idea whose time has come}. This use of “whose,” formerly decried by some 19th-century grammarians and their predecessors, is often an inescapable way of avoiding clumsiness — e.g.: o “Many people assumed that this was the river Ankh, whose waters can be

whole entire. This is a common redundancy — e.g.: o “This has them ranked sixth in the whole entire [delete ‘whole entire’] nation, greatly reducing their margin of error for reaching their four-loss quota.” Bob Wojnowski, “They’re No Longer Many, So Here Are a Few Heartfelt Suggestions to Help Restore Irish Spring,” Detroit News, 26

whoever; whomever. Here’s the traditional rule about the nominative “whoever” and the objective “whomever.” If the word that completes the syntax after “-ever” is a verb, the correct choice is “whoever” {they praise whoever performs well} — even if there are a few intervening words {whoever, under these conditions, can deliver the goods on time

Miscellaneous Entries. willful; wilful. “Willful” is preferred in American English, “wilful” in British English. *”Willfull,” a misspelling, occasionally appears. willy-nilly, adv. & adj., = (1) by compulsion {he forced his brother to accompany him willy-nilly}; or (2) in a haphazard, unplanned way {so far, all our meetings have occurred willy-nilly}. The phrase is sometimes, as

who; whom (6). Today: “Which” for “who” or “whom.” Some inattentive writers use “which” in referring to human beings — e.g.: o “The bakery employs 11 people, two of which [read ‘whom’] are English (non-Amish) women, and one who is a salesman.” Faith Whitcomb, “Bakery Relies on Generations of Amish Recipes,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 13

who; whom (5). Today: “Who” in Reference to Nonhumans (i.e., for “that” or “which”). “Who” is the relative pronoun for human beings (though “that” is also acceptable); “that” and “which” are the relative pronouns for anything other than humans, including entities created by humans. But writers too often forget this elementary point — e.g.: o

who; whom (4). Today: The Discussion Continues. On the subject of the nominative “whom”: William Safire takes an interesting approach for those who fear seeming pedantic (by using “whom”) or being incorrect (by using “who” for “whom”): “When ‘whom’ is correct, recast the sentence.” “On Language,” N.Y. Times, 4 Oct. 1992, § 6, at 12.