GUTOD

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

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 —

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

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

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

*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

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

wisteria; wistaria. Americans are often surprised to learn that the flowery vine was named “wistaria” (after Caspar Wistar, an anatomist), not “wisteria.” A prominent etymologist calls the change in spelling “apparently a misprint” in 1819. Robert K. Barnhart, Dictionary of Etymology 885 (1995). The original does still show up in American print sources, but usually

Miscellaneous Entries. wolverine; *wolverene. The latter is a needless variant. woolliness is the quality of being confused, hazy, indefinite, and indistinct in expression. Excessive cross-references, as in the Internal Revenue Code, are perhaps the apotheosis of woolliness — e.g.: “For purposes of paragraph (3), an organization described in paragraph (2) shall be deemed to include

-wise. Generally, avoid “-wise” words or compounds when the suffix means “regarding” or some other frame of reference. They typically displace a more direct wording, and they’re invariably graceless and inelegant — e.g.: o “After a dull summer book-wise [read “in books” or “in the book trade”] . . . , the season of fairs,

winch. “Winch” (= a cranking device that helps pull or haul) is sometimes confused with “wench” (= a young woman, esp. one with lewd propensities). The results are truly bizarre — e.g.: o “By using a 1/4″ steel cable on the wench [read ‘winch’] and over the pulley, I was able to hoist up the

who’s who. “Who’s Who” is a shortened form of “who is who” (the second “who” being correct as a predicate nominative). But some writers — despite the popularity of various widely touted books called “Who’s Who” — mangle the phrase into *”who’s whom.” E.g.: o “The charade of who’s whom [read ‘who’s who’] and what’s

who(so)ever, whom(so)ever; *whoso(ever), *whomso(ever). Part A: Choice of Term. The forms “whoever” and “whomever” are preferred in modern writing. But the archaisms *”whosoever” and *”whomsoever,” as well as *”who(m)so,” appear sometimes in legalese. Often these terms are superfluous, as here: “This is a right that avails against all persons whomsoever [delete ‘whomsoever’] in the world.”

Miscellaneous Entries.  *withal is an archaism for “besides,” “nevertheless,” “still,” “with,” or “therewith.” E.g.: “There is, withal [read ‘nevertheless’], much to admire in these memoirs and in the diplomacy they recount.” David C. Hendrickson, “White House Years,” Foreign Affairs, 19 Sept. 1997, at 223. wither is misused for “whither” in the following title: John Darnton,

whose (1). Today: Meaning “of which.” “Whose” may usefully refer to things {an idea whose time has come}. This use of “whose,” formerly decried by some 19th-century grammarians and their predecessors, is often an inescapable way of avoiding clumsiness — e.g.: o “Many people assumed that this was the river Ankh, whose waters can be