GUTOD

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. …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: y’all (3). Read More »

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. …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: y’all (2). Read More »

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: y’all (1). Read More »

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 …

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

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 …

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

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, …

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

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 …

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

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 …

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

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 …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: wrangle; wangle. Read More »

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. …

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: wrack; rack, vb. Read More »

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 »