You Might Be Sick, But You’re Not Nauseous

Posted on March 18, 2008 by languageandgrammar

There’s a stomach flu going around, so I shouldn’t have been surprised when I heard someone in the supermarket announce I’m so nauseous. I mean, when you’re sick, it can get pretty bad for everyone around you. I don’t normally turn to look at every noise or loud conversation, but I couldn’t help it this time; I was curious.

When I saw the young woman, I was shocked that she would have referred to herself as nauseous; sick or not, she was actually quite attractive. Apparently, this was a simple case of mistaken grammar identity:  She had mistaken nauseous for nauseated.

Here’s how I see it:  Some people insist that nauseous really means to feel sick (I’m nauseous means I’m sick), while others insist that it means causing nausea in others (I’m nauseous means I’m so disgusting that I’m causing you to be sick). It seems that everyone agrees, however, that nauseated means to feel sick (I’m nauseated means I’m sick). That leaves us with two words that potentially mean I feel sick and one word that means I’m making others sick.

Actually, there’s an argument for using either nauseous or nauseated to mean I feel sick. Different editions of different dictionaries, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster’s, give different advice, usage explanations, and histories. Some say that nauseous in the sense of feeling sick is gaining in popularity, and others say that nauseous should be used only to mean causing nausea; there were so many other nuances that there doesn’t seem to be a straight answer. Meanwhile, the Online Etymological Dictionary says that in 1604, nauseous meant to be sick, and it didn’t come to be used to mean causing someone else to be sick until 1612.

While that all may be true, it doesn’t make sense to have one word mean two contradictory things (nauseous meaning I’m sick AND I’m making you sick); that would cause unending confusion between writer and reader (or speaker and listener). I’m not saying that I’m questioning the American Heritage sources, the Oxford sources, or the Merriam-Webster sources—well, not entirely—-I’m just saying that there is too much conflicting information out there to be sure about any single explanation.

My advice is to use nauseous to mean making someone else sick and nauseated to mean feeling sick yourself. If it makes you feel better (I know it makes me feel better)—and safe from confusion because the dictionaries are really of no substantial help—-then use nauseating instead of nauseous to mean making someone else sick (That’s a nauseating story) and nauseated to mean feeling sick (I’m nauseated from that story). That way, regardless of which dictionary you follow, there won’t be any confusion or embarrassment. This is also what most Usage Panels suggest.

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

28 Language Errors in One Post!

Posted on March 17, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I did alot of ideating today and decided to start a new regular feature on the blog: a post that highlights all of the entries that Sherry and I have written in the past month. I thought that I would start on your Monday. Organizing the material was like a nightmare or something, but yet I thought it was worth doing. It’s not because it would result in more income coming in, but the reason is because highlighting these ones would point out the inanity of the way in which we speak.

When laying down for a nap, I gave myself some pushback about doing these kind of posts, but I drug myself out of bed, turned on NPR Radio, and soon the keyboard was literally on fire from the speed of my typing. I had enough self-confidence in myself to know that the post would turn out alright.

There’s a couple of things that I may have misremembered—who versus that, eck cetera–but I have to wrap this up since I have to go to the store (I hope I don’t have any problems with SUVs in the parking lot) before the rains begin. I have less things to pick up than I had originally thought, but at least it will still be light out because of Daylight Savings Time (asterik).

Un-Freaking-believable–I actually did it. I’m sorry if anyone was offended by my post.

(asterik) In the year two thousand and eight, DST started earlier than it had in the past.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, humor, language, monthly reviews, writing | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on 28 Language Errors in One Post!

Pushback to Pushback

Posted on March 14, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Since pushback (or is it push back?) has started to replace resistance in nearly every conversation in the business world in this country, I’ve decided that it’s time for me to step in and single-handedly prevent yet another non-word from entering our vocabulary—kind of like a grammar superhero. Alas, I may have been a little too late since pushback now appears on dictionary.com.

For many people, when something appears in a dictionary (any dictionary), it automatically qualifies as a word. That is understandable; while Ms. Coven and I have discussed on a couple of occasions that we believe that it takes more than comman usage (which is often common misusage)  in order for something to become a word, it is not well understood–or agreed upon. I will expand on that topic soon.

Pushback, though, is a classic example. It was not in the 1984 edition of Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, but it’s in the ultra-modern dictionary.com. The reason is clear: pushback is now used, but, apparently, it wasn’t even a sparkle in the eyes of even the trendiest of speakers in 1984.

We now say The client is giving us  pushback about the price rather than The client is giving us resistance about the price or even The client thinks the price we gave them was too high because it’s the trendy thing to say.

It’s just not the best way to communicate since many of us don’t consider pushback to be a word.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

And Yet, But Yet

Posted on March 13, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I’ve noticed that many people are interested in the use and misuse of the coordinating conjunctions but yet and and yet, so I’ve re-written my Pick a Coordinating Conjunction, Any Coordinating Conjunction post in order to provide more precise information. I hope that it helps all who have been searching for answers.

Sherry

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on And Yet, But Yet

2008

Posted on March 12, 2008 by languageandgrammar

This falls more into the category of a language observation than a language abuse or grammar error, but it’s interesting to note that ever since the beginning of the 21st century, we’ve nearly unanimously changed the way in which we refer to the year.

In the last century, we invariably referred to the year in terms of two separate numbers, “19” and the year in question, such as “85,” “73,” or “98.” The only exception was when making a reference to the years before 1910, which were typically referred to as “19” and “oh 8” or, less frequently, “zero 8.” Rarely were the years referred to in words, such as “nineteen hundred and seventy three” or “nineteen hundred and eight.”

Something magical happened when the clock struck midnight on January 1, 2000 (and I’m not talking about world-wide disasters related to Y2K since that was one of the most overblown threats in the history of the world)–we suddenly changed the way in which we refer to years. It is now extremely rare to hear someone refer to the year as “20” and “oh 8” or “zero 8.” Nearly without exception, the year is referred to as “two thousand and eight.”

I’m not sure why this change has happened or what it says about language, but it’s an interesting thing to ponder.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language, writing | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Subject-Verb Agreement with There Is/There Are

Posted on March 11, 2008 by languageandgrammar

In an article about shopping for a car: There’s other ways to save money when buying a car.

This grammar error has been spreading over the past few years like germs at a nursery school. Is (there’s, of course, means there is) is a singular verb; why would it be paired with a plural noun (ways) after it? There are only one reason (see how ridiculous that sounds?)—I mean, there is only one reason: confusion with subject-verb agreement.

If you use there is (or the abbreviation there’s), then there had better be a singular noun after it. There is a way to save money. Here, is is singular, and way is singular. If you use there are, then there should be a plural noun after it. There are other ways to save money when buying a car. Here, are is plural, and ways is plural.

I actually saw a website that said that in informal speech, there is is being used with plural nouns. I’m always shocked and dismayed when I find a popular source perpetuating grammar errors. People may be using there is with plural nouns, but whether it’s informal conversation or formal writing, it’s always wrong. Subject-verb agreement is just that—subject-verb agreement, not disagreement. Just because people are doing it doesn’t mean that it’s correct.

Here are some other examples of there is/there are use.

  • There’s a lot of reasons to be optimistic. (incorrect)
  • There are a lot of reasons…. (correct)
  • There’s two sides to every story. (incorrect)
  • There are two sides….(correct)
  • There’s several storms arriving in the West. (incorrect)
  • There are several storms arriving in the West. (correct)
  • There’s not options out there that they like at the moment. (I actually heard this one on ESPN.) (incorrect)
  • There aren’t options…. (correct)

Use the singular case, there is, with non-countable nouns, for example, food, electricity, and air. (There’s a lot of food, there is a lot of electricity, and there’s a lot of air.)

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Unbelievable…

Posted on March 10, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Some words are annoying because they’re overused. Some words are annoying because they’re too pop culture. Some words are annoying because they’re inarticulate. A few very special words are like getting three lemons in the slot machine with no payoff–annoying because they’re all three. That’s certainly the case with the word unbelievable and its especially annoying pseudo-word, un-freaking-believable.  

For me, it’s more the inarticulate nature of the word and its overuse that are the biggest problems. As I mentioned a couple of days ago (It Was Like a Nightmare or Something), the only way to communicate effectively is to be articulate, and statements similar to It was unbelievable or I couldn’t believe it or That was un-freaking-believable–did you believe that? do absolutely nothing to describe whatever allegedly shocking event apparently happened. (I can’t be certain that it happened since no one seems to believe it.) This is not to mention that much of the shock has faded over the couple of hundred times it was said just in the last week.

By the way, saying, unnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnbelievable, isn’t any better.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in language, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

47-Hour Weekend

Posted on March 7, 2008 by languageandgrammar

I have a confession to make: I didn’t know that it was daylight-saving time rather than Daylight Savings Time (with an s, no hyphen, and caps) until co-blogger Sherry Coven corrected me. She is, of course, right–as she always is–so you might be wondering why I, not she, am writing a blog about daylight-saving time.

The reason is simple: I was looking for any lame excuse to go on a rant about the senselessness of turning the clocks ahead so early in the year, and the rant is dedicated to my friends at AccuWeather.com, who are, quite understandably, not interested in hearing the “incessant whining” that they claim to have heard about the topic last year. This year, they can read it.

First, the grammar part. I used the 1998 edition of the AP Stylebook as the source. It doesn’t give much of an explanation, but the Language Log does, so please follow the link for a more detailed explanation. I’d rather move on to my rant about my 47-hour weekend.

It’s not the shorter weekend that’s my main concern, and it’s not even the idea of daylight-saving time in the first place. It’s great to have that extra hour in the evening during outdoor activity season. Since I’m in Pennsylvania, that means June through October; it certainly doesn’t mean March–unless watching big piles of snow in the parking lot become smaller piles of snow constitutes an outdoor activity. You get the point.

In an effort to be fair, there are some advantages, so let me list a few:

–an extra hour in the evening to walk through the slush and mud before it re-freezes

–an extra hour in the evening to enjoy the biting wind and late-season snow squalls

–an extra hour in the evening to enjoy the special kind of exhaustion that only comes from waking up before the sun rises

–the money saved by using the much cheaper morning rates of electricity

As far as I’m concerned, with advantages like that, we can stay on standard time until five minutes before the fireworks go off.

–Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, humor, language, off topic, weather | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

The Conjugations of Lie and Lay

Posted on March 7, 2008 by languageandgrammar

The verb to lie means to rest or recline and is conjugated lie, lay, have/has lain. He lies silently in his bed. Yesterday, I lay on the beach. The dog has lain on the couch many times.

The verb to lay means to put or to place and is conjugated lay, laid, have/has laid. We lay the books on the desk when we’re finished reading. He laid the baby in the crib yesterday. He has laid the keys on the table every day this week.

In order to avoid this grammar error, just remember that when you use the verb to lay, there should be an object after it—the thing that you are laying (putting or placing).

Sherry

Sherry’s Grammar List and Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Posted in grammar | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Say No to Income Coming In

Posted on March 6, 2008 by languageandgrammar

Don’t get me wrong–I’m not saying no to income, but I’m saying no to the redundant phrase income coming in. Income, of course, is money that you receive, which means money that comes to you. In other words, saying income coming in would be the same as saying money coming in coming in.

It’s not more money; it’s just more words.

Note: Many of you may have noticed that we at Languageandgrammar.com did not comment on National Grammar Day on Tuesday. There’s a good reason; actually, there are two possible reasons, and it’s for you to decide which you prefer.

It’s either because it’s always national grammar day at languageandgrammar.com or because it’s a silly occasion after which to name a day. It’s as useful as Frozen Food Month, which, by the way, was February. I hope you didn’t miss it.

 –Paul

Paul’s book–Literally, the Best Language Book Ever

Sherry’s Grammar List

Posted in grammar, language | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment