GUTOD

yours. “Yours,” an absolute possessive, is sometimes wrongly written *”your’s” — e.g.: o “‘So, when’s this big party of your’s [read ‘yours’] happening?’ asks the salesman.” Peter Goddard, “Imperial Esso Man Still Slick as Ever,” Toronto Star, 5 Aug. 2000, Entertainment §, at 9. o “I believe all men have consciences that guide them; let […]

your. “Your,” the possessive form of the second person, is sometimes misused for “you’re,” the contraction of “you are.” Often, as in the second example below, the error is that of the journalist who reports speech: o “Just saying your [read ‘you’re’] going to get fit this year doesn’t mean you will unless you define

you can’t eat your cake and have it too; you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The second phrasing, now the more common one, is sometimes stigmatized: “The first form makes sense: once you’ve eaten the damned thing, you can no longer have it. Not so the later, corrupt form: you can have

yoke; yolk. “Yoke” = (1) a twice-curved, usu. wooden beam with U-shaped brackets beneath to enclose the necks of two oxen or other draft animals {after a struggle, the oxen were fitted into the yoke}; or (2) a pair of animals suitable for yoking {a yoke of oxen}. “Yolk” = the yellow center of an

Miscellaneous Entries zetetic; *zetetick. The adjective meaning “proceeding by inquiry or investigation” is preferably spelled “zetetic” (OED & W3). The Center for Scientific Anomalies at Eastern Michigan University publishes a journal called The Zetetic Scholar, devoted to the skeptical analysis of paranormal claims. zibeline (= of or relating to sables) is the preferred spelling. *”Zibelline”

yet. Part A: Beginning Sentences with. Like other coordinating conjunctions, “yet” is perfectly acceptable as a sentence-starter. It’s a rank superstition to believe otherwise. E.g.: o “Yet if a student can — and this is most difficult and unusual — draw back, get a critical distance on what he clings to, come to doubt the

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