|
Sometimes I’ll go completely around the block to keep from using certain words or constructions.
Some of them are words that sound wrong even when they’re used correctly. Whom is one of these. To my ear, whom always sounds pretentious, whether it’s used properly or improperly. Many people use whom where who would be correct, because they think whom sounds more upper-class. “In general,” one dictionary’s usage note says, “who tends to predominate over whom in informal contexts. Whom may sound stuffy even when correctly used, and when used where who would be correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? whom may betray grammatical ignorance.” Writer Calvin Trillin puts it this way: “As far as I'm concerned, ‘whom’ is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler.”
John McIntyre, former copy editor at The Baltimore Sun, offers this advice to professional journalists: “If your grasp on the distinction between subject and ob ject is a tenuous one, the safe bet is to use who in all cases, since whom is the thing you’re apt to get wrong. At the worst, you’ll be thought casual rather than ignorant. Purists will fret, but they enjoy that. It gives their lives meaning.”
One purist understood and cared about the difference to his dying day. The New York Times reported: “Eugene Ehrlich, a self-educated lexicographer ... died on April 5 at his home in Mamaroneck, N.Y. He was 85 ... Some family members were so used to Mr. Ehrlich’s habit of correcting grammar that some studied up before visiting him. On his deathbed, Mr. Ehrlich heard somebody ask, ‘To who?’ ‘To whom,’ he said, with a weak voice and great authority.”
Here’s another example of a usage that sounds wrong even when it’s right: “August is a great time for we humans to ...” It should be us humans. Test it this way: Take out the word humans and you’d find it perfectly natural to say “a great time for us to.” Inserting humans into the sentence doesn’t change the grammar. Nevertheless, the correct form, us humans, sounds plain wrong. I’d write it another way, since I take little delight in being right when many readers will think I’m wrong.
Other words I avoid are those whose meanings have changed over time because people have used them wrong for so long that the wrong meaning has become acceptable. (Gaaah. Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?)
Comprise is in that category. One usage note had this to say: “The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole ... Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating.” Well, that’s just great. That means somebody will call me an illiterate bozo however I use comprise. To be safe, I just recast my sentences to use some form of compose instead, because I at least know what that word means and how to use it.
Other words or phrases that I won’t use because they muddle me so: Derogate. Belie. Beg the question. Decry. You can probably add others from your own list.
|
Favoured: 0
