Ever since I became an avid reader and consequently fell
in love with words, I've been trying to master the language much like
a musician might memorize chords, scales, arpeggios, and other
musical phrases. Beyond its more visceral rewards, I believe such a
pursuit is worthy of my time and energy. Partly for this reason, I
abhor sloppy writing as a substitute for clear, lucid prose.
I
should mention that both in conversation and on social media
(Facebook, Twitter), I'm that guy who frequently corrects people when
they abuse our otherwise wondrous language. Probably why I'm so damn
popular. (Incidentally, Shaw correctly identifies the preceding
statement as irony, not sarcasm, which is more derisive irony,
something along the lines of “What a great friend you turned out to
be!”)
Because
I love the English language and am grief stricken when it's abused or
treated with indifference, while reading this treasure I was pumping
my fist in the air and affirming this and that entry with a “Thank
you, Shaw!” and a “In your face, illiterates!” Not really, but
at this point you can probably imagine me as the type.
Beyond
the most commonly misused words such as then and than;
there, their, and they're; less and
fewer, effect and affect; exercise and
exorcise; stationary
and stationery; incisive and decisive; allusion,
illusion, elusion, and delusion, Shaw
distinguishes between exceedingly and excessively;
effective, efficient, and effectual; urban
and urbane; lie, lay, and lain; wake,
awake, awaken, awoke, awoken; felicitous, fortuitous, and
fortunate; meticulous, scrupulous; ingenious,
ingenuous, and naive; inhuman, unhuman; precedence, precedent;
and decent distinctions between (not among) myth, fable, and legend.
I've
long since given up correcting people who all too often opt for the
word literally when they mean to say figuratively or
practically or virtually, or, better yet, veritably.
I no longer waste my time pointing out to the alleged educated the
difference between evidence and proof. And I've become
inured to a certain family member who unerringly errs with pronouns:
“Between you and I ...” etc. However, I, too, was given a
valuable education regarding other words I've misused. Egoism
and egotism; dissemble and dissassemble;
prescribe and proscribe. And for those who struggle
with who, whom, whoever, and whomever,
Shaw offers the easiest method I've found for understanding which
pronoun to apply.
Some
differences between the entries are minor or vary only in degree
(refute and deny); some are interchangeable within
certain contexts (relatively and comparatively); some
appear similar but are antonyms (enervating and invigorating);
and some entries are mildly amusing:
corespondent, correspondent. These words differ in spelling, meaning, and pronunciation. It is usually safer to be a correspondent (KOR i spon dent), one who writes letters, than a corespondent (KO ri SPON dent), one charged with adultery in a divorce proceeding.
No comments:
Post a Comment