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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: wouldn’t be surprised. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: would have liked. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: Miscellaneous Entries. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: would have. Read More »

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, …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: worst. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: worse comes to worst; worst comes to worst. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: worse; worst; *worser. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: Miscellaneous Entries. Read More »

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: World Wide Web. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: Word-Swapping. Read More »

Word Patronage. Word patronage is “the tendency to take out one’s words and look at them, to apologize for expressions that either need no apology or should be quietly refrained from” (Modern English Usage, 1st ed. at 733). A flourishing example today is “no pun intended.” But others are ready at hand as well — …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: Word Patronage. Read More »

wont. Although Samuel Johnson reported in 1755 that this word had slipped from use, it hangs on today as a slightly whimsical way of expressing customary behavior. It is used almost exclusively as a predicate adjective {as he is wont to} or as a noun {as is her wont}, although other forms do exist. The …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: wont. Read More »

Miscellaneous Entries. workers’ compensation; workmen’s compensation. These words contain a plural possessive, hence “workers’” and “workmen’s” — not “worker’s” and “workman’s.” “Workers’ compensation” now predominates, doubtless because of a sensitivity to the sexism of the other. Another erroneous form is *”workers compensation.” workforce; workload. Each is one word. working. Radio announcers throughout the Southwest commonly …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: Miscellaneous Entries. Read More »

womankind; *womenkind. *”Womenkind” is erroneous, since “-kind” includes all the members of the sex. E.g.: o “Now she feels she’s pressured about what her roles will say to all of womenkind [read ‘womankind’].” Matthew Gilbert, “Fiorentino Sees ‘Jade’ Role as Reward, Not Selling Out,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 16 Oct. 1995, at D1. o “In the Neil …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: womankind; *womenkind. Read More »

*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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: *without scarcely. Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: with. Read More »