GUTOD

whole entire. This is a common redundancy — e.g.: o “This has them ranked sixth in the whole entire [delete ‘whole entire’] nation, greatly reducing their margin of error for reaching their four-loss quota.” Bob Wojnowski, “They’re No Longer Many, So Here Are a Few Heartfelt Suggestions to Help Restore Irish Spring,” Detroit News, 26 […]

whoever; whomever. Here’s the traditional rule about the nominative “whoever” and the objective “whomever.” If the word that completes the syntax after “-ever” is a verb, the correct choice is “whoever” {they praise whoever performs well} — even if there are a few intervening words {whoever, under these conditions, can deliver the goods on time

Miscellaneous Entries. willful; wilful. “Willful” is preferred in American English, “wilful” in British English. *”Willfull,” a misspelling, occasionally appears. willy-nilly, adv. & adj., = (1) by compulsion {he forced his brother to accompany him willy-nilly}; or (2) in a haphazard, unplanned way {so far, all our meetings have occurred willy-nilly}. The phrase is sometimes, as

who; whom (6). Today: “Which” for “who” or “whom.” Some inattentive writers use “which” in referring to human beings — e.g.: o “The bakery employs 11 people, two of which [read ‘whom’] are English (non-Amish) women, and one who is a salesman.” Faith Whitcomb, “Bakery Relies on Generations of Amish Recipes,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland), 13

who; whom (5). Today: “Who” in Reference to Nonhumans (i.e., for “that” or “which”). “Who” is the relative pronoun for human beings (though “that” is also acceptable); “that” and “which” are the relative pronouns for anything other than humans, including entities created by humans. But writers too often forget this elementary point — e.g.: o

who; whom (4). Today: The Discussion Continues. On the subject of the nominative “whom”: William Safire takes an interesting approach for those who fear seeming pedantic (by using “whom”) or being incorrect (by using “who” for “whom”): “When ‘whom’ is correct, recast the sentence.” “On Language,” N.Y. Times, 4 Oct. 1992, § 6, at 12.

Miscellaneous Entries. widespread was, until the early 20th century, spelled as two words, but now it should always be one. widow, n.; widower. A “widow” is a woman whose spouse has died; a “widower” is a man similarly bereft. Do the terms still apply when the surviving spouse remarries? No. widow, vb., can make a

who; whom (3). Today: The Nominative “whom.” Among the toughest contexts in which to get the pronouns right are those involving linking verbs. We say, for example, “who it is” for the same reason we say “This is he,” but some very good writers have nodded. In any event, “whom” shouldn’t be used as the

who; whom (2). Today: The Objective “who.” “Whom” is always the object of a verb, the object of a preposition, or the subject of an infinitive. E.g.: “Do all you can to develop your intuition — this will help you to know when to act and when to wait, whom to be cautious about and

who; whom (1). Today: Generally. Edward Sapir, the philosopher of language, prophesied that “within a couple of hundred years from to-day not even the most learned jurist will be saying ‘Whom did you see?’ By that time the whom will be as delightfully archaic as the Elizabethan his for its. No logical or historical argument

Miscellaneous Entries. whereby (= by means of which), though sometimes overworked, is more concise than alternatives such as “through which.” So it can be a useful word — e.g.: “Republican Congressman Ralph Regula of Ohio, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of federal parks, is brokering a deal whereby Congress will appropriate $5 million

whilst. “Whilst,” though correct British English, is virtually obsolete in American English and reeks of pretension in the work of a modern American writer — e.g.: “Whilst [read ‘While’] I was on vacation last week, it seems the Bethlehem Police Force got off the hook for killing a young man, John Hirko, in April.” Paul

while away; *wile away. The phrase “while away” (= to spend [time] idly) dates from the early 17th century and remains current — e.g.: “Guitarist Martin Barre doesn’t while away his time listening to old Jethro Tull albums.” Gene Stout, “Guitarist Barre Goes Beyond Jethro Tull,” Chicago Trib., 22 Nov. 1996, at 37. *”Wile away,”

*while at the same time. “While at the same time” is a common redundancy — e.g.: o “Motivate them to keep selling the company while at the same time [read ‘while’] taking credit for their particular accomplishment.” Mark H. McCormack, What They Don’t Teach You at Harvard Business School 194 (1984). o “He would not

while. “While” for “although” or “whereas” is permissible and often all but necessary, despite what purists sometimes say about the word’s inherent element of time. “While” is a more relaxed and conversational term than “although” or “whereas,” and it works nicely when introducing a contrast — e.g.: o “But while vertical malls like Manhattan Mall

Miscellaneous Entries. Welsh rabbit; Welsh rarebit. For the term denoting a dish of melted cheese on toast or crackers, “Welsh rabbit” has long been considered standard. It seems, however, that some 18th-century literalist, noting the absence of bunny meat in the dish, corrupted the term through false etymology to “rarebit.” Today, both terms are still

which (4). Today: “And which”; but which.” To use either expression properly, a nonrestrictive “which”-clause parallel to the “and which” or “but which” must come first. E.g.: “Sutherland could have vetoed the $526 million budget, which he drafted this fall and which the council rewrote last month.” Lisa Kremer, “Pierce Budget Won’t Get Sutherland’s Signature,”

which (3). Today: Beginning Sentences with “which.” Increasingly in modern prose, “Which” is being used to begin an incomplete sentence. Is this permissible? Yes, the answer must be — primarily in three instances. First, the introductory “Which” can be not only appropriate but also effective when the preceding sentence is long and the conclusion is

which (2). Today: Wrongly Applied to People. Unlike “that” — which can apply to either things or people — “which” applies only to things. If people are referred to, the nonrestrictive relative pronoun is “who” — e.g.: “Rights advocates and officials in Zaire protested the treatment of the illegal immigrants, some of which [read ‘whom’]

which (1). Today: Generally. “Which,” used immoderately, is possibly responsible for more bad sentences than any other in the language. Small wonder that James Thurber wrote: “What most people don’t realize is that one ‘which’ leads to another. . . . Your inveterate whicher . . . is not welcome in the best company.” “Ladies’