Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day

Today: “You all.” Many speakers in the South and Southwest, even highly educated ones, use the uncontracted “you all” as the plural form of “you.” This is a convenient usage, since “you” alone can be either singular or plural — and therefore is sometimes ambiguous. True, “you all” is unlikely to spread beyond regional usage. […]

y’all (2). Today: Number. Although the traditional use of “y’all” is plural, and although many Southerners have stoutly rejected the idea that it’s ever used as a singular, there does seem to be strong evidence that it can refer to a single person — for example, “See y’all later” spoken to someone without a companion.

y’all (1). Today: Spelling. This sturdy Southernism is most logically “y’all,” not *”ya’ll.” Only the “you” of “you all” is contracted. And in modern print sources, “y’all” is ten times as common. So *”ya’ll” (which misleadingly resembles “he’ll,” “she’ll,” and “we’ll”) deserves an edit — e.g.: o “If ya’ll [read ‘y’all’] want to stink up

Miscellaneous Entries yogurt; *yoghurt. The Turkish loanword “yogurt” (= a thick cultured dairy product) is so spelled. *”Yoghurt,” a variant spelling common (but not dominant) in British English, is rare in American English. In fact, “yogurt” is more than 200 times as common as *”yoghurt” in American print sources. *”Yoghourt” and *”yogourt” are likewise variant

Xmas. This abbreviation for Christmas is popular in advertising. The prejudice against it is unfounded and unfortunate. The X is not a Roman X but a Greek chi — the first letter in “Christ” (Gk. “Christos”). “Xmas” has no connection with Generation X, X-ray, or X as an algebraic variable. According to the late poet

wring. Part A: Inflection: “wring/wrung/wrung.” The past-tense and past-participial forms of “wring” (= to squeeze or twist) are sometimes erroneously written “rung” — e.g.: “Cathy Turner had to guard the gold medal around her neck closely last night. If she wasn’t careful, someone might have rung [read ‘wrung’] her neck with it.” Mary Kay Cabot,

wreak. Part A: Inflection “wreak/wreaked/wreaked.” The past tense is not “wrought,” which is the archaic past tense and past participle of “work.” Part B: Pronunciation. “Wreak” is pronounced /reek/ — not /rek/. Part C. “Wreak havoc.” The phrase “wreak havoc” (= to bring about difficulty, confusion, or chaos) is the established American English idiom. (In

Miscellaneous Entries. wry makes the comparative “wrier” and the superlative “wriest” in American English, “wryer” and “wryest” in British English. But in both, the kindred adverb is “wryly.” xebec (= a type of three-masted ship once common in the Mediterranean) is the standard spelling. *”Zebec” and *”zebeck” are variants. x-ed; *x’d; *x’ed; *xed. As the

wrangle; wangle. The two are occasionally confounded. “Wrangle” = to argue noisily or angrily. “Wangle” = (1) v.t., to accomplish or obtain in a clever way; (2) v.t., to manage (a thing) despite difficulties; or (3) v.i., to use indirect methods to accomplish some end. E.g.: o “He has aptly demonstrated his advertising acumen by

wrack; rack, vb. “Wrack” = to destroy utterly; to wreck. “Rack” = to torture or oppress. “Wrack” is also, and primarily, a noun meaning (1) “wreckage”; or (2) “utter destruction.” The set phrases are “to rack one’s brains” and “wrack and ruin.” The root meaning of “brain-racking” refers to stretching, hence to torture by stretching.

wouldn’t be surprised. Generally, a negative shouldn’t appear after this phrase. That is, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Ratliff has retired” means that I think Ratliff has retired; “I wouldn’t be surprised if Ratliff hasn’t retired” means, literally, that I suspect Ratliff is still working. But many people use the double-negative form, which is especially

would have liked. This phrase should invariably be followed by a present-tense infinitive — hence “would have liked to go,” “would have liked to read,” not *”would have liked to have gone,” *”would have liked to have read.” The erroneous phrasings are very common — e.g.: o “One would have liked to have been [read

Miscellaneous Entries. would. Writers often use “would” to condition statements that really ought to be straightforward — e.g.: “I would submit to you [read ‘submit to you’] that very few presentations end with the audience saying, ‘Well, that presenter really beat our brains out. He thrashed us good and proper.’” Ron Hoff, “I Can See

would have. “Would have” for “had,” in a conditional statement, is an example of a confused sequence of tenses — e.g.: o “If the trial judge would have [read ‘had’] allowed impeachment with a limiting instruction . . . , Robinson would be before this court arguing that this alternative solution was error.” United States

worst. Part A: For “most.” “Worst” is a casualism when used as an equivalent of “most” {what they need worst is food}. It is related to “badly in need.” It occurs chiefly in reported speech — e.g.: o “‘The library is the place that needs me the worst,’ she said.” Joy Murphy, “Library Volunteer, 71,

worse comes to worst; worst comes to worst. The traditional idiom, evidenced in the Oxford English Dictionary consistently from the 16th century, is “worst comes to (the) worst” (= [if] things turn out as badly as possible). But the more modern and more logical idiom, “worse comes to worst” — with its progression from comparative

worse; worst; *worser. Writers seldom have trouble with the adjectives “bad/worse/worst.” But sometimes they yield to temptation with a little harmless wordplay — e.g.: o “He beat his supposed betters, and worsers, clearly if not handily, taking the lead at the top of the homestretch and holding off by a length a rush by the

Miscellaneous Entries. worrisome; worrying, adj. In American English, something that provokes worry is “worrisome,” but in British English it’s “worrying” — e.g.: “Most worrying for the Conservatives, the MORI poll shows Labour making more rapid gains among middle class and southern voters — key groups who have been solid Conservative supporters since 1979 and whom

World Wide Web. As a proper noun, “World Wide Web” is capitalized when written out in full and when shortened to “the Web.” When combined into compound form, though, it is usually lowercase {website}. Because “the Web” is just one protocol (way of exchanging information) on the Internet — separate from mail and news protocols,

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day Word-Swapping. It’s something like a Murphy’s Law of language: two words that can be confused will be confused. Sometimes, the more popular word will encroach on the less popular (as when “demean” took over the sense “bemean” [= to make base or low; degrade]). At other times, the less