Kirk Mahoney . com

I was wondering the other day about the difference between these two words.

Problem:
These two adverbs are not synonyms (except in sloppy speech or writing).

Explanation:
The adverb “continually” means at frequent or regular intervals.

The adverb “continuously” means without cessation, or uninterrupted in time.

In other words, “continually” applies to events, whereas “continuously” applies to processes.

Solution:
Use “continually” when talking about an event that occurs frequently or regularly. Use “continuously” when talking about a process that does not stop.

I heard someone say this recently.

Problem:
This sometimes is a mispronunciation of another idiom.

Explanation:
The other idiom is “It doesn’t cut muster.”

The noun “muster” means an assembly of military troops for inspection.

The verb “cut” in the idiom refers to “making the cut” — that is, “meeting a certain standard, below which whatever is being inspected is cut”.

So “It doesn’t cut muster.” means that something does not meet a certain standard following inspection.

Given that the noun “muster” is not as commonly used as the noun “mustard”, I suppose that it is not surprising that some say or write the idiom as “It doesn’t cut mustard.”

For fun, I searched Google — with the quotation marks included in the search box — for “doesn’t cut mustard” and “doesn’t cut muster” and got about 61,700 and 1,070 matches, respectively.

According to a post at Washington State University’s website, “cut the mustard” first appeared in a 1902 O. Henry story and was used there to mean to achieve the required standard.

Solution:
“It doesn’t cut muster.” or “It doesn’t cut mustard.” — your choice! Simply be conscious about which one you’re using — and why!

I heard U.S. Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) say this yesterday on Fox News Channel.

Problem:
The Congressman used the wrong word for the verb in this popular expression.

Explanation:
The word “error” is a noun and not a verb.

What the Congressman should have used is the word “err”, which looks like “error” but is a verb that means to be mistaken or incorrect.

Perhaps the Congressman simply mispronounced “err” (the verb) as “error” (the noun).

Wondering whether this could be more than a pronunciation problem, I searched Google — with the quotation marks included in the search box — for “error on the side of caution” and “err on the side of caution” and got about 20,200 and 441,000 matches, respectively. That tells me that Web authors have written the expression correctly by a ratio of 21.8:1, which is very good.

Still, over 20,000 matches for “error on the side of caution” indicates a substantial number of confused writers!

Solution:
“We have to err on the side of caution.”

I often hear this, although I certainly can’t hear the possessive apostrophe.

Problem:
These are mispronunciations of a popular February holiday, and one is missing the required possessive apostrophe.

Explanation:
The person whose day is celebrated on February 14 is St. Valentine.

So the proper name of the holiday is “St. Valentine’s Day” or more simply “Valentine’s Day” — not “Valentimes Day” or “Valentime’s Day” or even “Valentines Day”.

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following phrases (with the quotation marks) and got the indicated numbers of matches:

• “Valentimes Day” — 18,800 matches
• “Valentime’s Day” — 7,570 matches
• “Valentines Day” — 1,560,000 matches
• “Valentine’s Day” — 10,800,000 matches

This tells me that Web authors have written the phrase correctly by a ratio of 6.8:1, which is not good!

I believe that the use of “Valentimes” or “Valentime’s” instead of “Valentine’s” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It is simpler to pronounce the “m” sound in “Valentimes” or “Valentime’s” than to pronounce the “n” sound in “Valentines” or “Valentine’s”.

I believe that the omission of the possessive apostrophe in the otherwise-correct “Valentines Day” is also consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It is simpler to omit the apostrophe than to include it, and this holiday is only one of many examples in which writers omit required possessive apostrophes.

Solution:
“Valentine’s Day”

I heard a landscape designer say this yesterday on an HGTV television program.

Problem:
This is a mispronunciation of a noun for one of the three basic dimensions.

Explanation:
The endings of the nouns for the other two basic dimensions seem to interfere with how some speakers pronounce “height”.

The nouns “length” and “width” end with the “th” sound that begins the word “thin”, so it seems that some speakers want to pronounce “height” with this “th” sound, too.

Wondering whether this speech problem also occurred in writing on the Web, I searched Google for “heighth” and “height” and got about 112,000 and 42,500,000 matches, respectively. That tells me that Web authors have written the word correctly by a ratio of 379.5:1, which is excellent. And, because the most popular “heighth” matches on Google talk about why this is a misspelling of “height”, the ratio of correct use to incorrect use probably is much higher.

Solution:
“Height”

I heard the president of Morehouse College say this on C-SPAN yesterday at Tavis Smiley’s “State of the Black Union 2008″ conference in New Orleans.

Problem:
This is a mispronunciation of the correct word.

Explanation:
Although it’s true that one dictionary — Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English — contains this word, one has to realize that dictionaries not only are sources of what’s correct but also are references to incorrect forms.

For fun, I searched Google for “supremist” and “supremacist” (the correct word) and got about 84,700 and 1,280,000 matches, respectively. That tells me that Web authors have written the word correctly by a ratio of 15.1:1, which is good, but not excellent.

I believe that the use of “supremist” instead of “supremacist” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. The incorrect word has three syllables to the correct word’s four syllables, and it is simpler to pronounce the “ist” sound than to pronounce the “acist” sound.

Solution:
“Supremacist”

I sometimes see or hear pairs of these words confused.

Problem:
These three nouns are not synonyms.

Explanation:
The noun “allusion” means a casual or incidental mention of or reference to something. The key part of this noun comes from the Latin verb “alludere” (to play with), from “al-” (toward) and “ludere” (to play).

The noun “delusion” means a false opinion or belief. The key part of this noun comes from the Latin verb “deludere” (to mock or deceive), from “de-” (down) and “ludere” (to play).

The noun “illusion” means something that deceives. The key part of this noun comes from the Latin verb “illudere” (to ridicule or mock), from “il-” (in) and “ludere” (to play).

I sometimes see or hear “allusion” and “illusion” used interchangeably (even though they should not be), apparently because the two words sound similar to one another.

I sometimes see or hear “illusion” and “delusion” used interchangeably (even though they should not be), apparently because writers or speakers see “ill”, which looks negative and somewhat like “de”, instead of “il”, which is the actual prefix of “illusion” and is simply a variation of “in”.

Note that one can have a delusion because of an illusion.

Solution:
Use “allusion” when one means reference. Use “delusion” when one means mistaken belief. Use “illusion” when one means deception or magic trick.

Huge numbers of people use “they” when they should use “he” or “she” instead.

Problem:
The pronoun “they” is not a synonym for the pronouns “he” or “she”.

Explanation:
The pronoun “they” is a plural, third-person pronoun. For example: When the customers called, they complained about having to press several buttons to speak to an agent.

The pronoun “he” is a singular, third-person, masculine pronoun. For example: When the customer called, he complained about having to press several buttons to speak to an agent.

The pronoun “she” is a singular, third-person, feminine pronoun. For example: When the customer called, she complained about having to press several buttons to speak to an agent.

Unfortunately, many people erroneously will use “they” as if it were a synonym for “he” or “she”: When the customer called, they complained about having to press several buttons to speak to an agent.

The problem with this approach is that “the customer” is singular whereas “they” — which refers to “the customer” — is plural.

There are four possible solutions to this problem, which arises when the speaker or writer does not know the sex of the subject:

1. Use “he” instead of “they”.
2. Use “she” instead of “they”.
3. Use “he or she” instead of “they”.
4. Reword the sentence to avoid having to use a pronoun.

Some feminists object to solution #1, even though the use of “he” as a neuter pronoun was the standard in English (American and otherwise) for decades, if not centuries.

Others object to solution #2, even though some feminists see this as getting even for the long history of solution #1.

Still others object to solution #3. They see it as stilted or awkward, especially when several such sentences exist in a paragraph or set of paragraphs.

Solution #4 suffers from none of these objections, so this is the one that I recommend. For example: The calling customer complained about having to press several buttons to speak to an agent.

Solution:
Use “he” when one knows that the subject is male. Use “she” when one knows that the subject is female. Reword the sentence to avoid having to use a pronoun, when one does not know the subject’s sex.

I often see these used interchangeably.

Problem:
The phrase “all together” and the adverb “altogether” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
“Altogether” is an adverb that means completely, wholly, quite. For example: He’s not altogether certain about his mother’s sanity.

“All together” is a phrase that means in a group. For example: The dogs were all together in the kennel. This can be restated as All of the dogs were together in the kennel. And, without seriously affecting the meaning of the sentence, one can remove the “all”: The dogs were together in the kennel.

I believe that the mistaken use of “altogether” for “all together” — or vice-versa — in writing comes from the fact that “altogether” and “all together” sound alike.

Solution:
Use “all together” in a sentence when one can separate “all” and “together” in the sentence and still get the same meaning or when one can remove “all” without severly affecting the sentence’s meaning. Use “altogether” when one means completely, wholly, quite.

I frequently see one of these used when the other is required.

Problem:
The adjectives “historic” and “historical” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
The adjective “historic” means important in history or well known.

The adjective “historical” means characteristic or pertaining to history, belonging to the past, or concerned with history.

Therefore, all historic events are historical, but all historical events are not necessarily historic.

A “historical house-restoration project” would be a project involving the restoration of a house in such a manner as to be concerned with the history of the house.

In contrast, a “historic house-restoration project” would be a house-restoration project that is noteworthy for the techniques used in the project, for the accomplishments of the project, or for something else important about the project that will be remembered in the future.

Solution:
Use “historical” when modifying a noun or noun phrase so as to relate it to history. Use “historic” when modifying a noun or noun phrase so as to relate it to something important in history.