In an earlier installment of “The Language Perfectionist,” I presented a list of the most commonly mispronounced words, courtesy of Charles Harrington Elster, a leading expert on pronunciation. In that column, I pointed out that if you don’t pronounce words properly, your image and reputation could suffer.

That Top Ten list, however, hardly exhausted the roster of words that are frequently mangled. So I asked Charlie for a sequel. He emphasizes that the following list, like the previous one, isn’t necessarily in order of offensiveness.

• Pronouncing the “t” in often. Say AWF-in, not AWF-tin.

• Rhyming assuage with massage. Correct: uh-SWAYJ (rhymes with “a sage”), not uh-SWAHZH.

• Putting a spurious “beast” in bestial. Say BES-chul, not BEES-chul or BEES-chee-ul. The word has two syllables, not three.

• Inserting an extraneous “moment” in memento. Pronounce it muh-MEN-toh, not moh-MEN-toh.

• Pronouncing height as if it were highth or height-th. The word rhymes with “right.”

• Stressing the “par” instead of the “dis” in disparate. It’s DIS-puh-rit, not dis-PAR-it.

• Putting a “he” or a “he nee” in heinous. Say HAY-nus, not HEE-nus or HEE-nee-us.

• Finally, two pronunciation crimes often committed in courtrooms: saying “or” at the end of juror and “ant” at the end of defendant. It’s JOOR-ur, not JOOR-or and dih-FEN-dint, not dih-FEN-dant.

Charles Harrington Elster is the author of the quintessential guide, The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations. The current paperback second edition contains 200 new entries.

%%track {} -name {edmen-the-big-book-of-beastly-mispronunciations-book} -group {ETRbusinessskills}%%

Thanks again, Charlie. You have our GRAT-uh-tood!

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]

Click to comment on this article.

Writers and speakers sometimes wonder whether to use “more important” or “more importantly” at the beginning of a sentence. Or “most important” versus “most importantly.”

According to the traditional school, “more important” is correct because it’s an abbreviation of the phrase “What is more important…” But some experts disagree, and their arguments are equally valid.

Thus, in most cases, it makes no difference whether you choose the adjectival or adverbial form. “More important, she has a doctorate” is as acceptable as “More importantly, she has a doctorate.” As one dictionary notes: “Both forms are widely used by reputable writers, and there is no obvious reason for preferring one or the other.”

Some grammatical debates are trivial. This is one of them.

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]  

Comment on this article

Usage experts agree that the pronoun “myself” has only two proper uses: the intensive and the reflexive.

“I’ll do it myself” uses the word as an intensifier, to convey emphasis. “I see myself as a leader” is reflexive – with the action referring to the subject.

Thus, avoid using “myself” where “I” or “me” is appropriate and grammatical. Example: Say “My family and I are glad to be here,” not “My family and myself…”

Observes Bryan A. Garner: “Using [myself] that way… is thought somehow to be modest, as if the reference were less direct. Yet it’s no less direct, and the user may unconsciously cause the reader or listener to assume an unintended jocularity, or that the user is somewhat doltish.”

Often, the word can simply be eliminated: “I bought myself a new suit” is equally as clear as “I bought a new suit.”

The same rules apply to other pronouns: “yourself,” “himself,” “herself,” “themselves,” etc. Many dictionaries are permissive on this subject, but it’s usually wise to follow convention, especially in formal writing.

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]  

Comment on this article

An ETR reader writes: “Could your language columnist look into the correct usage of ‘complimentary’ and ‘complementary’?”

The word “complimentary,” with an “i,” means free. It’s also the adjectival form of “compliment,” an expression of praise. On the other hand, “complementary,” with an “e,” means completing or making up a whole. Here’s an example of the correct use of the latter word: “Rather than contradicting each other, the two historians’ seemingly different views on the Renaissance are in fact complementary.”

Here are a few more “confusables” that I frequently encounter:

• The verb “augur” means predict; an “auger” is a tool for boring or drilling.

• The word “baited” means used as a lure; “bated” means abated or suspended, most commonly in such expressions as, “He anticipated being fired with bated breath.”

• An introduction to a book is a “foreword” (fore + word), not a “forward.” Incidentally, a foreword is traditionally written by someone other than the book’s author. If the author writes it, it’s a preface.

• The word “peek” means look; a “peak” is the top of a mountain; “pique” is irritation or resentment.

• If you mean courtesy or diplomacy, say “tact,” not “tack.”

The list of similar-sounding words that are commonly mixed up is almost infinite. So we’ll revisit the subject in future columns.

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]  

Comment on this article

Recently, a friend of mine, attempting to convey the idea that someone was naive, referred in an article to “a babe in the manger.”

She had, I suspect, conflated the image of an innocent infant (from the story of the birth of Jesus) with the phrase “a dog in the manger” (from one of Aesop’s fables). “A dog in the manger” has an entirely different meaning and moral: You shouldn’t senselessly hoard an item, denying it to someone else even though it’s of no value to you.

Such garbled phrases are called “malapropisms” or “malaphors.” Like the one above, the cause is usually the grafting of one recollected proverb or expression onto another. Examples: “He has a mind like a steel sieve.” “Now I’ve given the cat away.” “It’s not rocket surgery.”

Here are a few more of my favorites:

• Listening to a radio program, I heard a report on an embattled jury deliberation that included this colorful phrase: “It’s the pink elephant in the room.”

• A business colleague overheard this description of something that occurred quickly: “It happened in the blink of a click.”

• In a newspaper article, a clinical psychologist was quoted as saying, “The idea that there is some normal level of sexual functioning drives me up the creek.”

These gaffes are often amusing, although the joke is usually at the expense of the hapless writer or speaker. Don’t be the target of this sort of embarrassing humor. Always review your writing to ensure that it’s free of inadvertent malapropisms.

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]  

Comment on this article

Writers are sometimes puzzled about whether to use “because,” “since,” or “as” to indicate a connection between two events.

An old rule commands that “since” be used exclusively for events involving the passage of time, but this ukase is debunked by most grammarians. Other experts say that “since” implies a more tenuous cause-effect relationship than “because.”

But I have a different take on the matter. In my own writing, I avoid “since” wherever “because” works. This helps prevent ambiguity and the possibility of miscuing the reader. Consider the sentence “Since the negative earnings report was published, the stock declined.” Does the writer mean that one event caused the other – or simply that time elapsed between them?

As for “as,” this word may also communicate a confusing or ambiguous message. Example: “As I’m traveling to Chicago, I can run that errand for you.” Does the “as” here mean “because” or “while”? If “because” makes sense, use it instead of “as.”

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]

Comment on this article

A reader of this column asks if any distinction exists between the phrases “in that respect” and “in that regard.”

“I tried to look this up,” the reader reports, “but nothing definitive emerged.”

Although “respect” implies emphasis on a detail or particular, the two locutions are so similar as to be equivalent. Both mean “in reference to.” One may also say “with respect to” or “with regard to” or “in regard to.” Avoid these locutions in the plural form – e.g., “as regards” and “in regards to,” which are mistakes.

Plurals aside, the problem is not that these expressions are wrong but that they tend to sound excessively formal and old-fashioned. The best solution, say usage authorities, is to eschew all of them and substitute a single simpler word, such as “about,” “concerning,” or “considering.” Depending on the context, an even shorter preposition may be suitable, such as “in,” “on,” or “for.”

This is another situation where a venerable rule of effective writing applies: “Omit needless words.”

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]

Comment on this article

As a lifelong blooper spotter and collector, I’m accustomed to encountering the most bizarre and amusing language gaffes and manglings. But even I was taken aback recently when I saw a sign taped to the cash register of one of my favorite neighborhood cafes: “We respectfully ask for a collaborating ID when paying by credit card.” The correct word, of course, should have been “corroborating.”

This reminded me that it’s time for me to give you another list of words that are commonly confused.

• “Blogging can better help you hone in on your online marketing.” The verb “hone” means sharpen. When people say “hone in on,” they mean “home in on.”

• “Limited amount of $20 seats.” For discrete items that can be counted, “number” is correct. “Amount” is reserved for a bulk quantity, e.g., of tobacco or steel. Another way to remember the distinction: “Amount” is singular; “number” is plural.

• “Marianne Hopko, a sergeant with the county sheriff’s office, apprised the scene.” The verb “appraise” means evaluate. “Apprise” means inform.

• “But the principle cause for concern today is the paralysis of the credit markets.” The adjective meaning foremost is “principal.” The noun “principle” means a basic truth, rule, or law.

• “If we lived in a more orderly society the purveyors of such errant nonsense would be hauled off to the nearest public square.” Strictly speaking, “errant” doesn’t mean erroneous. It means roving or straying. In the phrase (or cliche) “arrant nonsense,” the nonsense is thorough, complete.

• Finally, a prestigious job title was characterized in a newspaper article as having “cache.” The word wanted was “cachet.” A “cache” is a hiding place or secret stash of valuables.

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]  

Comment on this article

One of the most frequent misuses is “who” for “whom.” Many people are unable to get it right in everyday speech. But the error is also unforgivably common in major publications that have copy editors and proofreaders on staff.

Here are a few examples, all found in respected newspapers and magazines:

• “On your own, you may not know who you need to contact, while a recruiter has access to the decision makers.”

• “Not only do you have to know who you are talking to, you need to know how they listen.”

• “In China, as in combat, the agonizing choice of deciding who to save – or ignore… .”

Although the mistake is usually the use of “who” where “whom” is correct, as in the above three cases, sometimes it’s the other way around. The writer thinks he’s following the rules but still gets it wrong – a phenomenon called “hypercorrection.” Example: “Cellphones may make it easier for people to reach each other, yet Americans are very guarded about whom they want calling them.” It should be “who.”

Except in occasional tricky cases, it’s not difficult to avoid this error. When the referent is the object of the action, use “whom.” When the subject is the actor, it’s “who.”

Tip: If a preposition such as “to” or “for” is part of the construction, it’s “whom.” If not, “who” is most likely right. After all, no one would ever say “for who the bell tolls.”

The following sentence uses both who and whom correctly: “Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is embroiled in a messy fight with a security engineer whom it fired last month – but who it now fears left with information about a secret plan to boost the giant retailer’s lagging stock price.”

This passage also shows us how to avoid a common trap. You might assume that the second use should be “whom.” But the interpolated phrase “it now fears” can be misleading. Grammatically, it could be deleted, making it clear that “who… left with” is correct. When in doubt about “who” versus “whom” in a complicated sentence, try that quick test.

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]  

Comment on this article

Consider the following, all of which I found in a major newspaper. What’s the common problem?

• “In a story that could be straight out of a Flannery O’Connor short story…”

• “Microsoft… is able to use its money to put on a great show at the Consumer Electronics Show…”

• “One thing Mr. Rosenbluth won’t relinquish is his annual black-tie cattle drive (so named for the black-tie-and-cowboy-boots dinner at the end of the event).”

• “The 10-day program visits Cambridge, England, and Russia, retracing the steps of the Cambridge Spies, a group of Soviet spies who attended Cambridge University.”

You’re right. Each one repeats a word in a manner that’s awkward and clunky.

How could these passages have been written instead? Some possibilities: “In a tale”; “put on a great event”; “formal-dress-and-cowboy-boots dinner”; “a group of Soviet agents.”

H.W. Fowler (1858-1933), a legendary language expert, cautioned against what he called – not approvingly – “elegant variation.” He scolded writers who strain for a different word just to avoid repetition. A classic example: following “He said” with “He stated,” “He averred,” and so on.

Fowler had a point, but he seems to have overlooked the fact that variation can be a good thing. The repetitions in the above examples are obvious, heavy-handed, and… inelegant. When we substitute appropriate synonyms, the passages are stylistically superior.

To find the right synonym, keep a thesaurus handy. But remember that synonyms are not interchangeable. A writer must understand the nuances of each word.

Some thesauri are available free online. But for decades, I’ve relied on The New American Roget’s College Thesaurus in Dictionary Form. I give this volume so much use that every few years I have to replace my worn-out copy.

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]

Comment on this article

Recently, I read an article advising writers to eliminate the word “that” from their work. The word is unnecessary, the article said, and getting rid of it makes your sentences read faster and sound punchier.

True, this rule often works, as in the sentence “Stanley was certain that his college education was worthwhile.” The sentence is equally clear and grammatical as “Stanley was certain his college education was worthwhile.” But as with many rules, it’s unwise to make this one an absolute.

Consider “I recommend my students write an autobiographical essay.” From a quick reading of the first clause, one could jump to the conclusion that the teacher is recommending the students themselves. Ambiguity should be avoided. So the sentence is better as “I recommend that my students write an autobiographical essay.” 

Here’s another example: “You may discover things about me you never knew.” The “me you” juxtaposition is awkward. The sentence should be recast as “You may discover things about me that you never knew.” 

Garner’s Modern American Usage, an excellent style guide, notes, “The writers who ill-advisedly omit ‘that’ seem deaf to their ambiguities and miscues.” I agree. Rules of thumb are helpful, but beware of using them blindly or unquestioningly. Exceptions usually exist. Which may be why we have more fingers than thumbs.  

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]

As a copywriter, I collaborated from time to time with a friend, a marketing consultant, and we worked as a team. On one occasion, we drove to another city to spend a day with a client – let’s call him Dave.

After the meeting, as we walked back to the car, I asked my colleague, “Did you notice the word that Dave mispronounced repeatedly?” My friend didn’t hesitate. “Lambaste,” he said. Dave had pronounced the second syllable, as many people mistakenly do, with a short A, to rhyme with “fast,” instead of correctly, with a long A, to rhyme with “taste.”

The incident slightly tarnished our opinion of this client. And if you don’t pronounce words properly, your own image and reputation could similarly suffer.

Charles Harrington Elster may be America’s leading expert on pronunciation. At my request, Charlie agreed to share “Elster’s Top 10 Pronunciation Pet Peeves” with you. He wants to make it clear, though, that the following aren’t necessarily listed in order of offensiveness!

1. One of the most frequent mispronunciations, even by presidents and TV personalities and others who should know better, is nuclear as NOO-kyuh-lur. Correct: NOO-klee-ur.

2. The word loath (meaning reluctant) is pronounced differently from loathe (hate). Loath rhymes with oath, while loathe rhymes with clothe.

3. Don’t stress the second syllable in affluent, affluence, and influence. The correct stress is on the first syllable: AF-loo-int, AF-loo-ints, IN-floo-ints.

4. It’s wrong to stress the “or” syllable in mayoral, pastoral, pectoral, and electoral. The correct pronunciations are MAY-ur-ul, PAS-tur-ul, PEK-tur-ul, and eh-LEK-tur-ul.

5. The words foliage and verbiage are pronounced not with two syllables but three. Correct: FOH-lee-ij, VUR-bee-ij.

6. A mispronunciation that’s particularly irritating to Charlie is coupon as KYOO-pahn. Correct: KOO-pahn.

7. In the words succinct, flaccid, and accessory, pronounce the “cc” as X or KS, not as S. Correct: suhk-SINGKT, FLAK-sid, ak-SES-uh-ree.

8. The second-syllable stress in preferable and formidable is not only wrong but pretentious. The stress should be on the first syllable. Correct: PREF-ur-uh-bul, FOR-mih-duh-bul.

9. In negotiate, controversial, and species, pronounce the “ti,” “si,” and “ci,” as SH, not S. Correct: nih-GOH-shee-ayt, kahn-truh-VER-shul, SPEE-sheez.

10. The word forte, meaning a skill or strong point, is commonly mispronounced as for-TAY. Correctly pronounced, it rhymes with port or short. But FOR-tay, with first-syllable stress, is now also acceptable.

Charles Harrington Elster is the author of the quintessential guide The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations. The current second edition paperback contains 200 new entries.  

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]

Some language issues don’t lend themselves to a judgment of right or wrong, but rather are matters of style or rhetoric. Haven’t you encountered words and expressions that, though grammatically correct, strike you as awkward or grating?

Here’s one of my own pet peeves, illustrated by the following examples drawn from major newspapers:

• “The human body is complex, and effects seen in tests on small laboratory animals and in human cells don’t necessarily mean health risks to people.”

• “The technique for making embryonic stem cells without compromising the embryo has yet to be adapted to people… .”

• “MySpace uses algorithms and people to strike harassing or bullying images and content… .”

To my ear, this use of “people” sounds peculiar and even childish. To differentiate our species from others, “human beings” or “humans” is more appropriate. In the third example, “staffers” or “employees” or “human monitors”would have done the trick.

Again, the above examples aren’t wrong. But where superior and more eloquent alternatives exist, why not use them?

If these writers had followed my advice, I wouldn’t have been reminded of that scene in Soylent Green in which Charlton Heston screams… well, if you haven’t seen the film, I won’t be a spoiler!

[Ed Note: For more than three decades, Don Hauptman was an award-winning independent direct-response copywriter and creative consultant. He is author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book recently published by AWAI that shows writers and other creative professionals how to diversify their careers into speaking, consulting, training, and critiquing.]