Kirk Mahoney . com

I often see and hear this.

Problem:
This phrase is redundant.

Explanation:
The initialism “ATM” means Automated Teller Machine, so “ATM Machine” means Automated Teller Machine Machine.

Out of curiosity, I searched with the quotation marks for “ATM machine” at Google and got about 1,460,000 matches. Yikes! This is a fairly common problem (at least on the Web).

It seems to me that people who say or write “ATM Machine” (or “ATM machine”)

• have lost track of the meaning of the individual letters in “ATM”,
• never knew the meaning of the individual letters, or
• are comforted by saying a noun after saying an initialism.

Solutions:
“ATM” or “Automated Teller Machine”

I hear “supposably” with increasing frequency when “supposedly” is the correct adverb.

Problem:
The adverbs “supposedly” and “supposably” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
The adverb “supposedly” means reputed or believed to be the case; purportedly.

The adverb “supposably” should be used only in the context of capable of being supposed, and this adverb is valid only in American English.

In a sense, most people who use “supposably” are lucky in that it is a “real word” (in American English). But these same people misuse “supposably” as a synonym for “supposedly” (which it is not!).

As I mentioned several days ago, here is an unorthodox but still fairly reliable method to determine which of “supposedly” or “supposably” is more likely to be the correct form: search Google separately for each of “supposedly” and “supposably”; the one with the dominant number of hits or matches is very likely the correct form (unless the language has fallen apart on the Web!).

For example, I just searched Google for “supposedly” and got about 2,770,000 matches; I searched for “supposably” and got about 66,200 matches. This nearly 42:1 dominance of “supposedly” over “supposably” is a very good indicator that “supposedly” is the correct form — at least, in most situations.

I believe that the misuse of “supposably” as a synonym for “supposedly” — especially in speech — is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “supposably” than to say “supposedly” because the first adverb’s ending is simpler to say than is the second adverb’s ending.

Solution:
Use “supposedly” when “purportedly” makes sense as a replacement adverb; use “supposably” only with an American English-speaking audience and only when the intended meaning is “capable of being supposed”.

I saw this in an email message about worthwhile monthly goals.

Problem:
This goal negates itself.

Explanation:
This monthly goal seems to be written well.

The goal has “Create” — a popular verb for goal setters because one can usually determine (“measure”) whether something has been created.

The goal has “opportunities” — a very popular noun in the corporate world because businesses thrive on taking advantage of opportunities, wherever they may arise.

And the goal refers to process improvement, and who couldn’t love process improvement, right?!

Take a few moments to analyze the goal, though, and you find that it negates itself.

What is a process-improvement opportunity? It is an opportunity for process improvement.

What is an opportunity for process improvement? It is a situation where something is running inefficiently. In other words, it is an inefficient process.

In other words, Create two inefficient processes. is the actual meaning of this monthly goal.

Ouch! Surely, this is the opposite of what was intended. A good business might want to identify inefficient processes, or it might want to create suggestions for process improvement, but a good business would not want to create inefficient processes.

I believe that the writer got carried away with assembling popular corporate buzz-words into something that looked like a worthwhile goal but actually would be bad for business.

Solutions:
“Identify two process-improvement opportunities.”
“Create two process-improvement suggestions.”

I saw this in an email message.

Problem:
A comma is missing.

Explanation:
Without the comma, this sentence is structured such that the writer is thanking the reader for sharing Jim.

What the writer wanted to do was thank Jim for sharing (the information contained elsewhere in the email message).

Commas provide the pauses that let readers “hear” where writers are taking breaks in speech.

The writer of the sentence in the email message was pausing before saying in her mind the name Jim, but she failed to put in her sentence a comma that would indicate the location of that pause.

Solution:
“Thanks so much for sharing, Jim.”

I often hear or read “gender” where “sex” is the appropriate noun.

Problem:
“Gender” and “sex” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
The noun “gender” is a grammatical term that traditionally has been used to refer to categories of pronouns and nouns (masculine, feminine, and neuter).

The noun “sex” refers to the division of living things into the male and female state. Given that “sex” has become overloaded to refer to the act, it seems that a prudishness has developed about using a perfectly good noun — “sex” — to refer to the division of living things.

Sorry, but a person doesn’t have a gender; a person has a sex. Ditto for cats and dogs and other living things.

Solution:
Use “sex” when referring to people and other living things. Reserve the use of “gender” to refer to the kind of a pronoun or noun.

I saw “anytime” used where “any time” was required in a technical document.

Problem:
“Anytime” and “any time” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
“Anytime” is an adjective. “Any time” is an adverbial phrase.

It’s an anytime event to have Bill Clinton visit our donut shop. is an example of the proper use of “anytime”. The adjective “anytime” tells the reader/listener the what type of event it is to have Bill Clinton visit the writer/speaker’s donut shop.

Getting stuck in the longest line happens any time that I try to pick the shortest line at the grocery store. is an example of the proper use of “any time”. The adverbial phrase “any time” tells the reader/listener when the writer/speaker gets stuck in the longest line.

Solution:
Use “anytime” when you are modifying a noun; use “any time” when you are modifying a verb.

I sometimes see these two words mixed up in writing, and I sometimes hear them mixed up in speech.

Problem:
“Loath” and “loathe” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
“Loath” is an adjective that means reluctant or unwilling. “Loath” is usually followed by “to”, as in “Mary was loath to call her sister about their brother’s death.”

“Loathe” is a verb that means abhor, or dislike greatly, as in “Mary loathes making cold sales calls.”

I sometimes hear the verb “loathe” where the adjective “loath” is required. Misuse of “loathe” as a substitute for “loath” — especially in speech — seems to support my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. The verb “loathe” is simpler to pronounce (with the “th” sound like in “smooth”) than is the adjective “loath” (with the “th” sound like in “thin”).

Solution:
Use “loath” as an adjective (usually followed by “to”); use “loathe” as a verb. Remember that “loath” and “thin” have the same “th” sound, whereas “loathe” and “smooth” have the same “th” sound.

I occasionally hear this.

Problem:
“Conversate” is a slang verb that makes the speaker sound dumb.

Explanation:
“Conversate” is a back-formation of the noun “conversation”.

Maybe some people who use “conversate” know that the noun “obligation” and the verb “obligate” go together and therefore believe that “conversation” and “conversate” go together.

I have heard “conversate” or one of its ‘conjugations’ in sentences such as these:

• “Let’s conversate about the ladder that I borrowed from you.”
• “I was conversating with her yesterday about the weather.”
• “I conversated with him about the outrageous telephone bill.”

At least in my experience, it seems as if some of those who say “conversate” are trying to sound more intelligent than those who are listening to them. After all, “conversate” is longer than “converse”, so the former must be a “fancier” word than the latter (or at least that’s their reasoning).

Whatever the reason, “conversate” makes the speaker sound dumb.

Solution:
“Converse” (or — keeping it simple — “Chat”)

I often hear people say this.

Problems:
1. A possessive apostrophe-S (‘s) is missing.
2. The noun makes much more sense in singular form.

Explanation:
Even in speech, one can hear when a possessive apostrophe-S is missing.

The English noun “sake” (not the Japanese noun) means interest, benefit, advantage, motive, purpose or cause. For example, “for the sake of Jim” means for the benefit of Jim.

We can rewrite “for the sake of Jim” (“for the benefit of Jim”) as “for Jim’s sake” (“for Jim’s benefit”). It doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “for Jim’s sakes” (plural). That would be analogous to saying “for Jim’s benefits”, which most people would not say because one vague, all-encompassing benefit is enough!

Apparently, the original expression was “Oh, for God’s sake!” This expression got softened to “Oh, for Heaven’s sake!”, which got converted into the problematic expression.

I believe that “Oh, for Heaven sakes” supports my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “Oh, for Heaven sakes” than to say “Oh, for Heaven’s sake”; saying the latter requires one to pause between “Heaven’s” and “sake” so that the listener hears the two S sounds.

Letting the expression devolve further, we get the original, problematic expression: “Oh, for Heaven sakes!” It’s as if the speaker is indicating that he knows that an S sound belongs somewhere, so he puts it at the end of the expression, where it sounds as if it might belong.

Solution:
“Oh, for Heaven’s sake!”

I saw this in a headline on the Weather Channel.

Problem:
The adjective is misspelled.

Explanation:
The correct spelling of the adjective is “arctic”.

Wondering about the frequency of the misspelling of “arctic”, I searched Google separately for each of “artic front” and “arctic front” with the quotation marks included in each search. I got about 3,110 matches for the former and about 44,300 matches for the latter. That’s a dominance ratio of more than 14:1 in favor of the correct spelling.

I then searched Google for each of “artic” and “arctic” (with no quotation marks necessary for the searches). I got approximately 11,300,000 matches for the misspelled adjective(!) and approximately 63,000,000 matches for the correctly spelled adjective. That’s a dominance ratio of less than 5.6:1 in favor of the correct spelling.

That’s equivalent to saying that more than fifteen percent of all occurrences of this adjective on the Web are misspelled! Shame on the Weather Channel for having at least one staff member in that 15%. The adjective “arctic” is a weather term, after all!

I believe that the misspelling of “arctic” as “artic” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “artic” than to say “arctic” (given that it takes concentration to say the hard “c” sound immediately before the “t” sound), and speech has a spillover effect into spelling.

Solution:
“ARCTIC FRONT”