Bryan A. Garner

Miscellaneous Entries. widespread was, until the early 20th century, spelled as two words, but now it should always be one. widow, n.; widower. A “widow” is a woman whose spouse has died; a “widower” is a man similarly bereft. Do the terms still apply when the surviving spouse remarries? No. widow, vb., can make a […]

who; whom (3). Today: The Nominative “whom.” Among the toughest contexts in which to get the pronouns right are those involving linking verbs. We say, for example, “who it is” for the same reason we say “This is he,” but some very good writers have nodded. In any event, “whom” shouldn’t be used as the

who; whom (2). Today: The Objective “who.” “Whom” is always the object of a verb, the object of a preposition, or the subject of an infinitive. E.g.: “Do all you can to develop your intuition — this will help you to know when to act and when to wait, whom to be cautious about and

who; whom (1). Today: Generally. Edward Sapir, the philosopher of language, prophesied that “within a couple of hundred years from to-day not even the most learned jurist will be saying ‘Whom did you see?’ By that time the whom will be as delightfully archaic as the Elizabethan his for its. No logical or historical argument

Miscellaneous Entries. whereby (= by means of which), though sometimes overworked, is more concise than alternatives such as “through which.” So it can be a useful word — e.g.: “Republican Congressman Ralph Regula of Ohio, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of federal parks, is brokering a deal whereby Congress will appropriate $5 million

whilst. “Whilst,” though correct British English, is virtually obsolete in American English and reeks of pretension in the work of a modern American writer — e.g.: “Whilst [read ‘While’] I was on vacation last week, it seems the Bethlehem Police Force got off the hook for killing a young man, John Hirko, in April.” Paul

while away; *wile away. The phrase “while away” (= to spend [time] idly) dates from the early 17th century and remains current — e.g.: “Guitarist Martin Barre doesn’t while away his time listening to old Jethro Tull albums.” Gene Stout, “Guitarist Barre Goes Beyond Jethro Tull,” Chicago Trib., 22 Nov. 1996, at 37. *”Wile away,”

*while at the same time. “While at the same time” is a common redundancy — e.g.: o “Motivate them to keep selling the company while at the same time [read ‘while’] taking credit for their particular accomplishment.” Mark H. McCormack, What They Don’t Teach You at Harvard Business School 194 (1984). o “He would not

while. “While” for “although” or “whereas” is permissible and often all but necessary, despite what purists sometimes say about the word’s inherent element of time. “While” is a more relaxed and conversational term than “although” or “whereas,” and it works nicely when introducing a contrast — e.g.: o “But while vertical malls like Manhattan Mall

Miscellaneous Entries. Welsh rabbit; Welsh rarebit. For the term denoting a dish of melted cheese on toast or crackers, “Welsh rabbit” has long been considered standard. It seems, however, that some 18th-century literalist, noting the absence of bunny meat in the dish, corrupted the term through false etymology to “rarebit.” Today, both terms are still

which (4). Today: “And which”; but which.” To use either expression properly, a nonrestrictive “which”-clause parallel to the “and which” or “but which” must come first. E.g.: “Sutherland could have vetoed the $526 million budget, which he drafted this fall and which the council rewrote last month.” Lisa Kremer, “Pierce Budget Won’t Get Sutherland’s Signature,”

which (3). Today: Beginning Sentences with “which.” Increasingly in modern prose, “Which” is being used to begin an incomplete sentence. Is this permissible? Yes, the answer must be — primarily in three instances. First, the introductory “Which” can be not only appropriate but also effective when the preceding sentence is long and the conclusion is

which (2). Today: Wrongly Applied to People. Unlike “that” — which can apply to either things or people — “which” applies only to things. If people are referred to, the nonrestrictive relative pronoun is “who” — e.g.: “Rights advocates and officials in Zaire protested the treatment of the illegal immigrants, some of which [read ‘whom’]

which (1). Today: Generally. “Which,” used immoderately, is possibly responsible for more bad sentences than any other in the language. Small wonder that James Thurber wrote: “What most people don’t realize is that one ‘which’ leads to another. . . . Your inveterate whicher . . . is not welcome in the best company.” “Ladies’

Miscellaneous Entries. Wednesday is pronounced /WENZ-day/ or /WENZ-dee/. But some precisians want to — and do — say /WED-nuhz-day/, which is simply incorrect. The first “-d-” has long been silent. weight, vb.; weigh. “For purposes of calculating the scores, the questions are weighted for their difficulty.” Should the word be “weight” or “weigh”? The answer

whether (3). Today: “Of whether.” “Whether” usually directly follows the noun whose dilemma it denotes: “decision whether,” “issue whether,” “question whether.” But “regardless,” an adverb, makes “regardless of whether.” Although “issue whether” is typically better than “issue of whether,” the latter phrase has certain justifiable uses in which “of” is obligatory, usually when “issue” is

whether (2). Today: “As to whether.” In The King’s English 344 (3d ed. 1931), the Fowler brothers describe this phrasing as “seldom necessary.” That judgment still stands — e.g.: o “Surprisingly, most folks have never taken the time to learn this skill . . . , [which] may mean the difference as to whether [read

whether (1). Today: “Whether or not.” Despite the superstition to the contrary, the words “or not” are usually superfluous, since “whether” implies “or not” — e.g.: o “In another essay, ‘The Rules of the Game,’ he discusses moral codes and whether or not [read ‘whether’] they work.” Diane Hartman, “At Life’s End, Carl Sagan Awed