What do the words acme and acne have in common, besides being next to each other in a dictionary? The word acne began its life as acme. As a result of a misreading, it took on a new spelling. There are many more such words in the English language. Buttonhole once was buttonhold. Shamefaced used to be shamefast in the sense of restrained by shame. Cherry was originally cherise, but as that seemed to be plural, people spoke of a cherry when referring to a single fruit. The same happened with pease which was wrongly assumed to be plural and became pea. The list goes on and on.
Next time you see someone misspelling the word "definitely" as "definately" don't snicker. Chances are the new spelling will find a way into the dictionary [e.a.] (
that doesn't mean I'll stop snickering! 
)just as "miniscule" did for the original word "minuscule" because people thought the word had its origin in prefix mini-. It's the usage that determines the flow of language. This week we'll see a few words that are in their current incarnation because someone misread, misprinted, misheard, or misunderstood the term.
-Anu
anu@wordsmith.org
Hmm--just because Anu
lists "wrong" words, doesn't mean he's a descriptivist, she said prescriptively.
However, I'd almost be willing to bet a small amount of money that he is--he's evinced too much joy in the process for me to think otherwise.
It's the usage that determines the flow of language. Can the same be said for grammar? What about punctuation--can the apostrophe be saved?
Punctuation? Yes, the same thing can be said. Take a look at the punctuation of documents from the 18th century, for instance, with the hearty and hefty peppering of punctuation marks. We've discussed the former generosity of such marks several times here in the last couple years.
...
Back to spelling. Can't you just imagine the collective sigh of relief among those who want definitely to be definately whenever the grand lexicographical announcement is made? They will say, "It's about time! We knew we were right in adavnce."
They will say, "It's about time! We knew we were right in adavnce."
Are you suggesting that they are presciptive in their descriptivity (or is that descriptivistness? Heck! whatever most of y'all think!).
And what about the disappearance of my good friend Whom? Will Whom become extinct?
Will Whom become extinct?
Ye did as did Thou, Thee and Thine. We lost a whole number when wit/unc/uncer and git/inc/incer disappeared. You're worried about Whom but I'll bet you've never used Whon.
Since I never whin, I never need ...oh, you know.
My personal battle is to preserve the semi-colon; if I keep using it perhaps it will survive. Not for prescriptive reasons; I just like it.
To wit, I would fain admit I have not used “whon” a whit!
I have to admit that my whon is a WAG reconstruction. The OE was hwone. Compare this with the OE hwæm from whence, whom and you don't get that good a match. Whon would be the word you would use for the accusative to whom's dative.
I remember a girlfriend in grade school making fun of me because I pronounced all my "wh-" words as "hw."
It was only later (high school?) that I learned that that was the original way!
I pronounced all my "wh-" words as "hw." ??
Using your ex. above, would that be something like huh-wine?
Did/do you ever put the h back in, as in huh-whine, do you know?
It's just one of my . . . aspirations!
Augh! CB, come here a minute--I have something for you...
Getting somewhat back on topic: I sure wish the other word for emotion or touch was spelled fell, 'cause that's how I type it, about 90% of the time! And I vote for changing extremely to extrememly.
Coffeebean, forgive me, but ROTFLMAO!!
Will Whom become extinct?
one favorite bit i stumbled across in a grammar book said:
whom is never correct. if you have used it correctly, you should recast the sentence to use WHO, rather than whom. If you are unsure that you have used it correctly, it is more important to recast the sentence to eleminate the use of whom.
now i always use whom correctly.. i never use it!
In reply to:
whom is never correct. if you have used it correctly, you should recast the sentence to use WHO, rather than whom.
And did this tome say why whom is never correct? Did it explain why this perfectly valid word is so egregious that one should rework sentences just to avoid using it. Did it suggest an alternative title for Ernest's book?
It's all a bit like my personal bugbear - the tendency to use 'myself' due to the existential fear of 'me' in business writing. Nobody seems to want to use 'me', and because they're all deathly afraid of misusuing 'I', every personal pronoun is of the 'myself' form. It is ugly, awkward, uneuphonious and just plain wrong.
Ah well....
cheer
the sunshine warrior
To which I will simply add that "uneuphonious" is eminently self-descriptive.
I was aiming for an onomatopœic effect, of course.... :-)
I was pleased to read an advertisement from my telephone service provider the other day which asked the question: "Whom do you call?"
I thought, well, good for you! They were not afraid to use proper English!
Hmmm......I'm not sure my friend Whom is ready for extinction quite yet. There are too many people left in the world who still can differentiate between the subject and object of their sentences. So I guess I would tend to disagree with the writer of that grammar book.
Sure, I'll recast a sentence to avoid sounding stilted -- especially in casual speech. But to say that every sentence should be recast??? Mmm...don't think so.
There are too many people left in the world who still can differentiate between the subject and object of their sentences.
So why do they need a separate word to do it?
Sometimes they even need a separate verb just to tell if it has an object or not.
"Sometimes they even need a separate verb just to tell if it has an object or not," said Tom accusatively.