Category Archives: Vocabulary

Some, Certain, Any

Dear Navi,

You wrote:

1-They did not know if SOME of those medications would have a positive effect on the patient.

2-They did not know if CERTAIN of those medications would have a positive effect on the patient.

Can’t these sentences mean two things:

a-As regards some of the medications, they did not know if they would have a positive effect on the patient.

b-They did not know if ANY of the medications would have a positive effect on the patient.

There is really no difference among any of the 4 sentences. Usually CERTAIN would be used if the speakers or writers were expecting specific medications to have the effects, but the overall meaning is the same. “As regards” is considered stilted. It is understandable but needlessly wordy and not commonly used. Just say “Regarding” or “Concerning.”

Just with Participles

Dear Navi:

You wrote:

 Are these sentences correct:

1-He is as hard-working as ever, just changing his job. (Meaning: He is as hard-working as ever. He is just changing my job.)

I think you mean “his job.” Yes, that would be what it means.

2-John was really happy, just standing there listening to the waves.

This is fine.

3-John had a smile on his face, just standing there listening to the waves.

This is fine.

4-John was not doing anything, just standing there listening to the waves.

This is fine.

I do not like ‘1’. I think the “meaning” sentence is better. ‘1’ makes it sound that he is hard-working AS he is changing his job.  

No, remember that in English participial phrases are usually very literal. He is merely changing his job, not his work ethic.

I believe in spoken English, a full stop instead of a comma would solve the problem.

I am as creative as ever. (I am) Just changing my job. In written English, the second ‘I am’ has to be there.

Either way is fine.

I think ‘4’ also could use a full stop instead of the comma. It would then be equivalent to:

4a-John was not doing anything. He was just standing there listening to the waves.

Either one is fine and says the same thing.

I might sound as if I think I know what I am talking about. If I did not have strong doubts about what I was saying, I would not ask the question!!

I hope this helps.

 

 

More on Only

Dear N T:

You wrote:

 1-We only did not open the front door.

Is this sentence correct and does it mean:

We did everything else, but we did not open the front door.

Or:

We opened all the doors except the front door.

This totally depends on context. Either makes sense. You are saying that the one action you did not do was open the front door. If the context is talking about opening doors, then the second one would fit. If the context is speaking of a number of activities then the first one could make sense. What this says is “The one thing we did not do was open the front door.”

If you think about it, “only” as an adverb is the adverb form of  ‘one.”

2-We did not open the front door only.

Is this sentence correct and does it mean:

We opened doors other than the front door as well.

Since this follows “front door,” that is what “only modifies.” This would mean that other doors were opened, too.

Usually when a sentence ends with “only,” that add emphasis. You could also say “We did not open only the front door.”

 

Using Just and Only

Dear N T:

You asked:

1-You do not have to go to only one of these cities.

2-You do not have to only go to one of these cities.

3-You do not have to go to one of these cities only.

4-You do not only have to go to one of these cities.

Which of the above mean:

a-You can go to more than one of these cities.

and which mean:

b-You have to go to more than one city. Or maybe, you have to do something other than going to one of these cities?

The words “just” and “only” are notorious for being difficult to manage without context. However, what is important is that the “only” normally modifies the word that follows it. (Obviously, #3 is different.)

Therefore, #1 means that you must go to more than one city (i.e., not only one).

#2 means that you must do more than just go to one of the cities (i.e., not only go, but do something else).

#3 means that your choice of cities is not limited to these cities (i.e., not only these cities but others, too).

#4 means that you must go to one of the cities and do something else (i.e., you not only have to go, but do something else). Because “have to” is modified by the “only,” this means the only is modifying something that is imperative.

Having said all that, occasionally in everyday speech people will put an “only” where it technically does not belong, but it is understood because of the context.

Each vs. All

Dear N:

You wrote:

1-How much will it cost to go to each of these museums?

Can’t this sentence mean two things:

a-How much will it cost to go to ALL of these museums?

No. It could be asking for an itemized list, but the question is about EACH museum. This question is asking for a TOTAL only.

b-How much will each of them cost? (In this case we would be asking for a list of prices.)

Yes, this is what it is asking.

If the sentence cannot mean ‘b’, how can one formulate ‘b’?

2-How much will each of these museums cost to go to?

This is asking the same thing. #1 is a bit more direct and clear.

Loan as a Verb

Dear Prof. C:

You wrote:

 You write, “In standard English lend is a verb, and loan is a noun.” But “loan” is the standard verb in a banking context, used by the most literate of bankers and banking lawyers—people who write well and care about good usage. I’m not sure why “loan” is preferred. Perhaps “lend” has overtones of a brief, informal loan (much as I might lend you a pencil) rather than a formal, structured transaction that could last for years.

I understand the common usage of “loan.” The style preference from a number of sources likely has to do with the original meaning, where “loan” was the noun form of  the verb “lend” (or vice-versa). Even bankers, though, call themselves “lenders.” A “loaner” is what you get from the repair shop if they are working on your car for more than a few hours.

This is more a question of style. Your observation is worth a follow-up. Thank you.

Use of All

Dear N T:

You wrote:

 A says: Harry was talking about AN EXPENSIVE RED SPORTS CAR. or: Harry was talking about EXPENSIVE RED SPORTS CARS.

B replies:

1-I hate ALL OF THEM.

2-I hate THEM ALL.

3-I hate THEM.

In this context do the sentences 1-3 mean: a-I hate all EXPENSIVE RED SPORTS CARS. b-I hate all RED SPORTS CARS. c-I love all SPORTS CARS. It seems to me that “1” and “2” are ambiguous but “3” means “a”.

1 and 2 are saying the same thing. They would both be saying the same thing as a. 3 would also mean a. 1 and 2 are being more emphatic.

 

Meaning of Know

Dear N:

You wrote:

Do these mean:  

a-They had robbed the bank and they knew about it.

b-Someone had robbed the bank and they knew about it.

c-They knew how the bank could be robbed.

d-They knew how they could rob the bank. 

1-They knew about robbing the bank.

 b is most likely, though somewhat ambiguous. Gerunds are not usually used this way. Normally one would use a clause to make it clearer.

2-They had information about robbing the bank.

 c, but again, a clause would normally be used.

3-They had insight into robbing the bank.

 d, possibly c (insight suggests something more personal).

All of these could vary slightly depending on context.

Idiomatic Use of It

Dear Navi:

You wrote:

 The war taught us how to survive, and it was worth it. What do the two its stand for? What does the sentence mean?

This is a very good question. There are two things going on in this sentence, both are idioms.

The first it is usually seen as referring to the previous sentence—in this case the lesson learned from the war. It is not referring to just a single noun, like war, but rather the whole clause, that is, the experience of survival.  English often uses it that way when there is an expression of value. Sometimes, of course, it can be completely idiomatic as in “it is raining.” Pronouns are used that way in many of the European languages, not just English.

“Worth it” is also an idiomatic expression. Most literally “worth it” refers to the price of something. It means “worth the price.” Usually it suggests something that appears to have a high price  but is a good value nevertheless. “The extra cost for flood insurance was worth it. We would not have been able to pay for the restoration of our basement after the hurricane if we did not have that insurance.”

But many times “worth it” can refer to an experience—usually one considered difficult or costly in some way. That is what the person is saying here. “Surviving the war was difficult, but the lessons we learned from our survival experience were quite valuable. They were worth the price we paid.”

I hope this helps. (I could even say to myself—“I hope my explanation was worth it!”)

Word Fugitives – Review

Barbara Wallraff. Word Fugitives: In Pursuit of Wanted Words. New York: Collins, 2006. Print.

First, I tell my students, define the key terms. A word fugitive is word or phrase that does not (apparently) exist in a language, but ought to because the experience is common. In this case, the language is English, which already has a far larger vocabulary than any other language.

Wallraff nevertheless claims that there are hundreds of such fugitives like a name for the habit of opening a refrigerator out of boredom or when there are multiple waiting lines, say in a bank or a store checkout, thinking that your line must be the slower or slowest.

Some of these are fun. Wallraff makes heavy use of portmanteau words—words formed by combining parts of two or more words, like the word smog, formed from smoke and fog. Some are clever, but after reading over a hundred pages, it begins to feel like déjà vu. Haven’t I heard this joke before?

For the condition of the repeat refrigerator opener there are such terms as smorgasbored, freonnui, and Walraff’s favorite, tough an adjective, fridgety. The proposed words for believing that other lines are faster include misqueue, quevetousness, or misalinement.

While some of these are funny, it seems like many of these word fugitives are abstractions or behaviors. People usually manage to coin terms that are useful or that describe concrete objects. In some cases there actually are regional terms that have yet to catch on more widely. In some parts of the North American snow belt the frozen lumps of snow and ice that accumulate in wheel wells are called snards, but this has not caught on everywhere. Irishmen call plastic bags caught in tree limbs witches knickers, but this might not catch on in America because NPR or someone like them finds the term offensive.

One item struck me as being a little silly, at least if you know some French. Someone asked for a terms to describe the following: “Often I’ve heard of something for the first time—a food, a place, a person—I start hearing about it everywhere.” (33) Wall raff cited attention surplus disorder and déjà new, an obvious play on déjà vu.

Word Fugitives tells us that shortly after this was coined in a magazine, pop singer Dion came out with an album called Déjà Nu. Clever, except that the French word nu means “naked,” from the same root as the English nude. Already naked? I don’t know…I think that fugitive is still at large.

Among her lists of proposed fugitives, Wallraff does include a few handfuls of little used words that are actually recorded in serious references like the Oxford English Dictionary. Such words include peenge (to complain in a whining voice), paradiorthosis (a false correction), and nudiusterian (having to do with the day before yesterday). I am pretty sure I have heard someone use peenge before.

I came across a few expressions that Wallraff was seeking which, I believe, do exist already in our language. For example, she was looking for a term for when a person believes that two coincidental events are related. As a high school English teacher who attempts to introduce logic, that sounds very similar to the post hoc fallacy.

Honestly, most of these abstractions and conditions do not need a single word or phrase. Who really cares if there is no word to describe fridge boredom?

At time, I confess, I was near to getting bored with the book. Some ideas were downright stupid to me, like a whole lot of made-up words beginning with the letter x just so there would be more words beginning with that letter. Dr. Seuss’ On Beyond Zebra was far cleverer and sillier (at least it was when I discovered it in first grade).

But then, some entry would catch me a certain way and I would begin to laugh—once I could hardly contain myself. Word Fugitives is a lot like many joke books. It can be worth reading one, enduring pages of lame jokes for the half dozen or so that will make your friends laugh out loud when you share them. Ah, the serendipity!