Common English usage misconceptions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:18, 14 May 2025

Latest revision as of 07:20, 29 July 2025

(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 5:

With no authoritative [[language academy]], [[linguistic prescription|guidance]] on English language usage can come from many sources. This can create problems, as described by Reginald Close: <blockquote>Teachers and textbook writers often '''invent''' rules which their students and readers repeat and perpetuate. These rules are usually statements about English usage which the authors imagine to be, ''as a rule'', true. But statements of this kind are extremely difficult to formulate both simply and accurately. They are rarely altogether true; often only partially true; sometimes contradicted by usage itself. Sometimes the contrary to them is also true.<ref>[[#Clo64|Close 1964]]. n.p. (Front matter.) In a footnote to this text, Close also points to ''English as a Foreign Language'' by R. A. Close (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1962).</ref></blockquote>

Many [[usage]] forms are commonly perceived as [[nonstandard dialect|nonstandard]] or [[error (linguistics)|errors]] despite being either widely acceptedused or endorsed by authoritative descriptions.<ref>[[#Clo64|Close 1964]]. n.p. (Front matter.)</ref>{{Ref label|A|a|none}}

Perceived violations of correct English usage elicit visceral reactions in many people, or may lead to a perception of a writer as careless, uneducated, or lacking attention to detail. For example, respondents to a 1986 [[BBC]] poll were asked to submit "the three points of grammatical usage they most disliked". Participants stated thatsaid their noted points "'made their blood boil', 'gave a pain to their ear', 'made them shudder', and 'appalled' them".<ref>Jenny Cheshire, "Myth 14: Double Negatives are Illogical" in [[#Bau98|Bauer and Trudgill 1998]]. pp. 113–114.</ref>

Perceived violations of correct English usage elicit visceral reactions in many people. For example, respondents to a 1986 [[BBC]] poll were asked to submit "the three points of grammatical usage they most disliked". Participants stated that their noted points "'made their blood boil', 'gave a pain to their ear', 'made them shudder', and 'appalled' them".<ref>Jenny Cheshire, "Myth 14: Double Negatives are Illogical" in [[#Bau98|Bauer and Trudgill 1998]]. pp. 113–114.</ref>

==Grammar==

* '''Misconception:''' ''"A sentence must not end in a [[preposition]]."''<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 109">[[#Cut09|Cutts 2009]]. p. 109.</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 21.</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">[[#Fog10|Fogarty 2010]]. "Top Ten Grammar Myths.".</ref>

[[Mignon Fogarty]] writes that "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases.".<ref>[[#Fog10|Fogarty 2011]]. pp. 45–46.</ref> ''[[Fowler's|Fowler's Modern English Usage]]'' says,: "One of the most persistent myths about prepositions in English is that they properly belong before the word or words they govern and should not be placed at the end of a clause or sentence."<ref>[[#Bur96|Burchfield 1996]]. p. 617.</ref> [[Preposition stranding]] was in use long before any English speakers [[disputes in English grammar#Examples|considered it incorrect]]. This idea probably began in the 17th century, owing to an essay by the poet [[John Dryden]], and it is still taught in schools at the beginning of the 21st century.<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 109" /> But "every major grammarian for more than a century has tried to debunk" this idea; "it's perfectly natural to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, and it has been since Anglo-Saxon times.".<ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 22.</ref> Many examples of terminal prepositions occur in classic works of literature, including the plays of [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare.]]<ref name="ReferenceA" /> The saying "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put"<ref>{{cite web |url= http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001715.html |title= A misattribution no longer to be put up with |date= 12 December 2004 |work= Language Log |access-date=29 May 2013}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA" />{{Ref label|B|b|none}} satirizes the awkwardness that can result from prohibiting sentence-ending prepositions. [[Associated Press style]] and [[The Chicago Manual of Style|Chicago Style]] both allow this usage.

* '''Misconception:''' ''"[[Infinitives]] must not be [[Split infinitive|split]]."''

"There is no such rule" against splitting an infinitive, according to ''The Oxford Guide to Plain English'',<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 111">[[#Cut09|Cutts 2009]]. p. 111.</ref> and it has "never been wrong to 'split' an infinitive".<ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 17.</ref> In some cases it may be preferable to split an infinitive.<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 111" /><ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. pp. 18–20.</ref> In his grammar book ''A Plea for the Queen's English'' (1864), [[Henry Alford (theologian)|Henry Alford]] claimed that because "to" was part of the infinitive, the parts were inseparable.<ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 19.</ref> This was in line with a 19th-century movement among grammarians to transfer Latin rules to the English language. In Latin, infinitives are single words (e.g., "''{{lang|la|amare, cantare, audire''"}}), making split infinitives impossible.<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 111" />

* '''Misconception:''' ''"[[Conjunction (grammar)|Conjunctions]] such as "and" or "but" must not begin a sentence."''

* '''Misconception:''' ''"[[Conjunction (grammar)|Conjunctions]] such as "'and"' or "'but"' must not begin a sentence."''

Those who impose this rule on themselves, or on their students, are following a modern English "rule" that was neither used historically nor universally followed in professional writing. Jeremy Butterfield described this perceived prohibition as one of "the folk commandments of English usage".<ref>[[#But08|Butterfield 2008]]. p. 136.</ref> The ''Chicago Manual of Style'' says: <blockquote>There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as "and", "but", or "so". In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice.<ref>[[#Uni10|University of Chicago Press 2010]]. p. 257.</ref>{{Ref label|C|c|none}}</blockquote>

Those who impose this rule on themselves or their students are following a modern English "rule" that was neither used historically nor universally followed in professional writing. [[Jeremy Butterfield]] described this perceived prohibition as one of "the folk commandments of English usage".<ref>[[#But08|Butterfield 2008]]. p. 136.</ref> The ''Chicago Manual of Style'' says:

Regarding the word "and", ''[[Fowler's Modern English Usage]]'' states, "There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with ''And'', but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards."<ref>[[#Bur96|Burchfield 1996]]. p. 52.</ref> ''[[Garner's Modern American Usage]]'' adds, "It is rank superstition that this coordinating conjunction <!-- meaning the word "and" --> cannot properly begin a sentence."<ref>[[#Gar03|Garner 2003]]. p. 44.</ref> The word "but" suffers from similar misconceptions. [[Bryan A. Garner|Garner]] says, "It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with ''but'' is stylistically slipshod. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, as many style books have said (many correctly pointing out that ''but'' is more effective than ''however'' at the beginning of a sentence)".<ref>[[#Gar03|Garner 2003]]. p. 118.</ref> ''[[Fowler's]]'' echoes this sentiment: "The widespread public belief that ''But'' should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. Yet it has no foundation."<ref>[[#Bur96|Burchfield 1996]]. p. 121.</ref>

<blockquote>

Those who impose this rule on themselves, or on their students, are following a modern English "rule" that was neither used historically nor universally followed in professional writing. Jeremy Butterfield described this perceived prohibition as one of "the folk commandments of English usage".<ref>[[#But08|Butterfield 2008]]. p. 136.</ref> The ''Chicago Manual of Style'' says: <blockquote>There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as "and", "but", or "so". In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice.<ref>[[#Uni10|University of Chicago Press 2010]]. p. 257.</ref>{{Ref label|C|c|none}}</blockquote>

</blockquote>

Regarding the word "and", ''[[Fowler's Modern English Usage]]'' states,: "There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with ''And'', but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards."<ref>[[#Bur96|Burchfield 1996]]. p. 52.</ref> ''[[Garner's Modern American Usage]]'' adds,: "It is rank superstition that this coordinating conjunction <!-- meaning the word "and" --> cannot properly begin a sentence."<ref>[[#Gar03|Garner 2003]]. p. 44.</ref> The word "but" suffers from similar misconceptions. [[Bryan A. Garner|Garner]] says,: "It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with ''but'' is stylistically slipshod. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, as many style books have said (many correctly pointing out that ''but'' is more effective than ''however'' at the beginning of a sentence)".<ref>[[#Gar03|Garner 2003]]. p. 118.</ref> ''[[Fowler's]]'' echoes this sentiment: "The widespread public belief that ''But'' should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. Yet it has no foundation."<ref>[[#Bur96|Burchfield 1996]]. p. 121.</ref>

Despite this, some versions of Microsoft Word would flag a sentence beginning with a coordinating conjunction.

* '''Misconception:''' ''"The [[English passive voice|passive voice]] is incorrect."''

It is a misconception that the passive voice is always incorrect in English.<ref>[[#Wal04|Walsh 2004]]. pp. 61, 68–69.</ref> Some "writing tutors" believe that the passive voice is to be avoided in all cases,<ref>[[#Pul09|Pullum 2009]].</ref> but "there are legitimate uses for the passive voice", says Paul Brians.<ref name="Brians 2009. p. 169">[[#Bri09|Brians 2009]]. p. 169.</ref> [[Mignon Fogarty]] also points out that "passive sentences aren't incorrect"<ref>[[#Fog10a|Fogarty 2010]]. "Active Voice Versus Passive Voice.".</ref> and "If you don't know who is responsible for an action, passive voice can be the best choice".<ref>[[#Fog10a|Fogarty 2010]]. "Active Voice Versus Passive Voice.".</ref>{{Ref label|D|d|none}} When the active or passive voice can be used without much awkwardness, there are [[disputes in English grammar#Examples|differing opinions]] about which is preferable. [[Bryan A. Garner]] notes,: "Many writers talk about passive voice without knowing exactly what it is. In fact, many think that any BE-VERB signals passive voice."<ref>[[#Gar03|Garner 2003]]. p. 592.</ref>

Some proscriptions of passive voice stem from its use to avoid accountability or as [[weasel words]], notrather than from it allegedly being ungrammaticalits orsupposed nonstandardungrammaticality.

* '''Misconception:''' ''"[[Litotes]]'' ''or [[double negation]] (sometimes called "'[[Double negative|double negatives]]"') are always incorrect."''

Some style guides use the term [[double negative]] to refer exclusively to the [[nonstandard dialect|nonstandard]] use of reinforcing negations ([[negative concord]], which is considered standard in some other languages), e.g., using "I don't know nothing" to mean "I know nothing". But the term "double negative" can sometimes refer to the standard English constructions called [[litotes]] or nested negatives, e.g., using "He is not unhealthy" to mean "He is healthy". In some cases, nested negation is used to convey nuance, uncertainty, or the possibility of [[Three-valued logic|a third option]] other than a statement or its negation. For example, an author may write "I'm not unconvinced by his argument" to imply they find an argument persuasive, but not definitive.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/double-negative|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130627233213/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/double-negative|url-status = dead|archive-date = June 27, 2013|website = Lexico|publisher = Oxford|title = double negative}}</ref>

Some writers suggest avoiding nested negatives as a [[rule of thumb]] for clear and concise writing.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2011-02-16 |title=Politics and the English Language {{!}} The Orwell Foundation |url=https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ |access-date=2023-07-29 |website=www.orwellfoundation.comThe Orwell Foundation |language=en-GB}}</ref> Overuse of nested negatives can result in sentences that are difficult to parse, as in the sentence "I am not sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become&nbsp;[...]".

==Usage==

Line 51 ⟶ 53:

==Semantics==

* '''Misconception:''' ''"Some commonly used words are not "'real words'.""''

Common examples of words described as "not real" include "funnest", "impactful", and "mentee",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-funnest-a-word.aspx|title=Is "Funnest" a Word?|first=Mignon|last=Fogarty|date=2008-09-12|access-date=2012-09-25|archive-date=2014-04-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083003/http://bridgingtheunbridgeable.com/2012/03/21/thusly-is-not-a-word-2/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.volokh.com/posts/1187887242.shtml|title=Is Not A Word|first=Eugene|last=Vokloh|date=2007-08-23|access-date=2012-09-25}}</ref> all of which are in common use, appear in numerous dictionaries as English words,<ref>[[#Dictionary.com|Dictionary.com]]. "Conversate"; [[#AllWords|AllWords.com]]. "Conversate"; [[#Lexicus|Lexicus]]. "Conversate".</ref><ref>[[#Dictionary.com|Dictionary.com]]. "Funnest"; [[#Oxford|Oxford English Dictionary]]. "Fun" [[#Scrabble|Scrabble Word Finder]]. "Funnest"; [[#AllWords|AllWords.com]]. "Funnest"; [[#Lexicus|Lexicus]]. "Funnest".</ref><ref>[[#Dictionary.com|Dictionary.com]]. "Impactful"; [[#Oxford|Oxford English Dictionary]]. "Impactful"; [[#Scrabble|Scrabble Word Finder]]. "Impactful"; [[#Collins|Collins Dictionaries]]. "Impactful"; [[#Lexicus|Lexicus]]. "Impactful".</ref><ref>[[#FreeDictionary|Free Dictionary]]. "Mentee"; [[#Dictionary.com|Dictionary.com]]. "Mentee"; [[#Oxford|Oxford English Dictionary]]. "Mentee"; [[#YourDictionary|YourDictionary.com]]. "Mentee"; [[#Scrabble|Scrabble Word Finder]]. "Mentee"; [[#AllWords|AllWords.com]]. "Mentee"; [[#Vocabulary.com|Vocabulary.com]]. "Mentee"; [[#Collins|Collins Dictionaries]]. "Mentee"; [[#Lexicus|Lexicus]]. "Mentee".</ref> and follow standard rules for constructing English words from [[Morpheme|morphemes]]. Many linguists follow a [[linguistic description|descriptive]] approach to language, where wordssome mayusages beare labeled as merely nonstandard, not improper or incorrect.

* '''Misconception:''' ''""Inflammable" can only mean "'flammable'."" / {{""'}}Inflammable"' can only mean "'not flammable'.""''

The word "inflammable" can be derived by two different constructions, both following standard rules of English grammar: appending the suffix ''-able'' to the word ''inflame'' creates a word meaning "able to be inflamed", while adding the prefix ''in-'' to the word ''flammable'' creates a word meaning "not flammable". Thus "inflammable" is an [[auto-antonym]], a word that can be its own antonym, depending on context. Because of the risk of confusion, style guides sometimes recommend using the unambiguous terms "flammable" and "not flammable".<ref>[[#Bri09|Brians 2009]]. p. 124.</ref>

* '''Misconception:''' ''"It is incorrect to use'' 'nauseous'"nauseous" to refer to a person's state."''

It is sometimes claimed that "nauseous" means "causing nausea" (nauseating), not suffering from it (nauseated). This prescription is contradicted by vast evidence from English usage, and Merriam-Webster finds no source for the rule before a published letter by a physician, Deborah Leary, in 1949.<ref>[[#MW1995|Merriam-Webster 1995]]. p. 652.</ref>

* '''Misconception:''' ''"It is incorrect to use "'healthy"' to refer to things that are good for a person's health."''

It is true that the adjective "healthful" has been pushed out in favor of "healthy" in recent times.<ref>{{cite web |date=20 April 2011 |title=Healthful vs healthy |url=http://grammarist.com/usage/healthful-healthy/ |access-date=2013-06-11 |work=Grammarist}}</ref> But the distinction between the words dates only to the 19th century. Before that, the words were used interchangeably; some examples date to the 16th century.<ref>{{cite web |last1=O'Coner |first1=Patricia |last2=Kellerman |first2=Stewart |date=2012-02-24 |title=Healthy choices |url=http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/02/healthy-healthful.html |access-date=2013-06-11 |work=Grammarphobia Blog}}</ref> The use of "healthful" in place of "healthy" is now regarded as unusual enough that it may be considered [[Hypercorrection|hypercorrected]].<ref>[[#Bri09|Brians 2009]]. p. 108.</ref>

Line 71 ⟶ 73:

:'''a.'''{{Note label|A|a|none}}For example, among the top ten usage "errors" submitted to the BBC was the supposed prohibition against using double negatives.

:'''b.'''{{Note label|B|b|none}}[[The Churchill Centre]] describes a similar version as "An invented phrase put in Churchill's mouth".<ref>[[#Chu11|The Churchill Centre and Museum at the Churchill War Rooms, London 2011]]. (The original text is italicized.)</ref>

:'''c.'''{{Note label|C|c|none}}''Chicago'' elaborates by noting Charles Allen Lloyd's observations on this phenomenon: "Next to the groundless notion that it is incorrect to end an English sentence with a preposition, perhaps the most wide-spread of the many false beliefs about the use of our language is the equally groundless notion that it is incorrect to begin one with "'but"' or "'and'." As in the case of the superstition about the prepositional ending, no textbook supports it, but apparently about half of our teachers of English go out of their way to handicap their pupils by inculcating it. One cannot help wondering whether those who teach such a monstrous doctrine ever read any English themselves."<ref>[[#Llo38|Lloyd 1938]]. p. 19. cited in [[#Chi10|University of Chicago Press 2010]]. p. 257.</ref>

:'''d.'''{{Note label|D|d|none}}These authors are quick to point out, however, that the passive voice is not necessarily ''better''—it's simply a myth that the passive voice is ''wrong''. For example, Brians states that, "it's true that you can make your prose more lively and readable by using the active voice much more often,",<ref name="Brians 2009. p. 169"/> and Fogarty points out that "passive sentences aren't incorrect; it's just that they often aren't the best way to phrase your thoughts".<ref>[[#Fog10a|Fogarty 2010]]. "Active Voice Versus Passive Voice.".</ref>

{{refend}}