GUTOD

 Today: “Never Begin a Sentence with ‘Because.’” So novel and absurd is this superstition that few authorities on writing have countered it in print. But here’s one: “This proscription [‘Never begin a sentence with because’] appears in no handbook of usage I know of, but the belief seems to have a popular currency among many […]

Today: “Never Write a One-Sentence Paragraph.” o “A paragraph may contain but one sentence . . . [or] two sentences; but usually it contains more than two.” Adams S. Hill, The Foundations of Rhetoric 23-24 (1896). o “To interpose a one-sentence paragraph at intervals — at longish intervals — is prudent. Such a device helps

suppressible. So spelled — not *"suppressable." Surinamese; *Surinamer. For a citizen of Suriname, the first is standard; the second is a needless variant. surprise, n. & vb., is surprisingly often misspelled *"surprize" — e.g.: “There are other benefits that come from engaging an investment counselor who is paid for service: . . . fewer surprizes

 Today: “Never Begin a Sentence with ‘And’ or ‘But.’” o “Next to the groundless notion that it is incorrect to end an English sentence with a preposition, perhaps the most wide-spread of many false beliefs about the use of our language is the equally groundless notion that it is incorrect to begin one with ‘but’

Today: “Never Split a Verb Phrase.” o “In a compound verb (‘have seen’) with an adverb, that adverb comes between the auxiliary and the participle (‘I have never seen her’); or, if there are two or more auxiliaries, immediately after the first auxiliary (‘I have always been intending to go to Paris’); that order is

 Today: “Never Split an Infinitive.” o “Anybody who doesn’t wish to see too wide a division between the spoken and the written speech will not be too severe against the split infinitive. A man may write ‘to tell really’ or ‘really to tell,’ but he will probably say ‘to really tell.’ It seems to us

 Today: Generally. In 1926, H.W. Fowler used the term “superstitions” to describe, in the field of writing, “unintelligent applications of an unintelligent dogma” (Modern English Usage 586 [1st ed.]). Experts in usage have long railed against them as arrant nonsense, yet they retain a firm grip — if not a stranglehold — on the average

 supplement, n.; complement, n. A “supplement” is simply something added {a dietary supplement}. A “complement” is a wholly adequate supplement; it’s something added to complete or perfect a whole {that scarf is a perfect complement to your outfit}. supplementary; supplemental; suppletory; *suppletive. “Supplementary” is the ordinary word. The other forms have the same meaning, namely,

Today: Misused for “surpass” or “beat.” Sportswriters have begun using “supersede” as a synonym of “beat”: thus, one team is said to “supersede” another when it wins a game. E.g.: Tim Cowlishaw, “Cowboys Superseded [read ‘Beaten’] by Redskins: Dallas Defense Overpowered in 35-16 Loss,” Dallas Morning News, 7 Sept. 1993, at B1. And other writers

Today: The Corresponding Noun. “Supersession” is the noun form of “supersede,” meaning either “the act of superseding” or “the state of being superseded.” E.g.: “School Board 12 is the sixth community school board that has had part of its operations superseded by Mr. Fernandez and his aides. Supersession is a more lenient step than suspension.”

Today: Spelling. This word — from the Latin root “-sed-” (“to sit”), not “-ced-” (“to move”) — is properly spelled with an internal -s-, not a -c-. But so many other English words end in “-cede” or “-ceed” that many writers unconsciously distort the spelling of “supersede.” Spelling it correctly is one of the hallmarks

supervise is occasionally misspelled *"supervize" — e.g.: “And when any out-of-state parolee is under New Hampshire’s jurisdiction, it is the Granite State’s parole board [that] supervizes [read ‘supervises’] parole.” Pat Grossmith, “Humphrey’s Criminal Record Wasn’t Shared Between Region’s States,” Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.), 19 Oct. 1994, at 4. supervisory; supervisorial. “Supervisory” = of or relating

These words have almost opposite senses. “Sumptuous” = excessively luxurious; made or produced at great cost {a sumptuous feast}. “Sumptuary” = relating to or designed to regulate expenditures {sumptuary regulations}. “Sumptuous” is sometimes misspelled *”sumptious,” perhaps under the influence of “scrumptious” — e.g.: o “If you have a leftover fish, you can convert it into

sum total of. This phrase is technically a redundancy — “sum” meaning “total” — but it’s a venial one not likely to disappear from the modern lexicon. And the phrase can be especially useful for emphatic purposes in such lines as “the sum total of our knowledge” — although a few sticklers would probably prefer

The broad term for a person who believes that a disenfranchised class of people should have the right to vote is “suffragist.” That term has been traced back to the early 19th century. In American English, it extends especially to women’s suffrage. “Suffragette” (referring specifically to any woman who participated in the movement to give

This phrase is verbose for “enough” — e.g.: o “As might be expected, he found a sufficient number of [read ‘enough’] legislators receptive to the state’s crying need to legalize betting.” O.K. Carter, “Races’ Old Patron Would Be Proud,” Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 17 Apr. 1997, at 1. o “But the 1996 farm law requires the

“Suffice it to say” is the subjunctive form of “it suffices to say.” E.g.: o “Suffice it to say that the plotters, once their plan has been set into motion, aren’t content to leave well enough alone.” Janet Maslin, “‘Deathtrap’ with Michael Caine,” N.Y. Times, 19 Mar. 1982, at C8. o “When her students were

Part A: As a Demonstrative Adjective. “Such” is properly used as an adjective when reference has previously been made to a category of people or things: thus “such” means “of that kind” {such a person} {such people}. It isn’t properly equivalent to “this,” “that,” “these,” or “those.” With this word two points should be kept

Part A: Pronunciation. “Substantive” — a commonly mispronounced word — has three, not four, syllables: /SUHB-stuhn-tiv/. The common error in American English is to insert what is technically known as an epenthetical “-e-” after the second syllable: /SUHB-stuh-nuh-tiv/. Still another blunder is to accent the second syllable: /suhb-STAN-tiv/. Language-Change Index — “substantive” mispronounced with four

subsistence is occasionally misspelled *”subsistance” — e.g.: “Fuller rightly observes that the causes of Third World deforestation are complex, varied and largely attributable to the subsistance [read ‘subsistence’] needs of local people.” Ted Ferrioli, “Maybe if We Called Loggers ‘Rural Natives’ It Would Help,” Oregonian (Portland), 28 June 1996, at C7. substantiate. So spelled —