Kirk Mahoney . com

I heard this four days ago on a History Channel television program.

Problem:
I frequently hear “bring” when the speaker means “take” instead.

Explanation:
I was watching a History Channel program when I heard, “Disasters … often bring people closer to God.”

The verb “bring” in the common expression “bring people closer to God” finally caught my ear — as wrong!

You see, one should use “bring” when one is telling the listener to transport something to a location where one currently resides, or when the subject of the sentence is telling another party in the sentence to transport something to the subject’s location.

“Bring” Examples:

1. Please bring the package to me.
2. Jim, who lives in Denver, asked Mary to bring the package to him from his friend in London.

In contrast, one should use “take” when one is telling the listener to transport something to a location other than where one currently resides, or when the subject of the sentence is telling another party in the sentence to transport something to a location other than the subject’s location.

“Take” Examples:

1. Please take this package to my friend in London.
2. Jim, who today is in Houston on business, asked Mary to take the package to his friend in London.

So, if someone says, “X brings Y closer to God.”, then “X” currently resides with God and is drawing or attracting “Y” to the location shared by “X” and God.

In contrast, if someone says, “X takes Y closer to God.”, then the current location of “X” is different than the current location of God, and “X” is transporting “Y” to God’s location.

Some — such as insurance-company policy writers! — might argue that disasters reside exactly where God resides, in which case “bring” is the correct verb.

However, I strongly suspect that most speakers of “Disasters … often bring people closer to God.” either assume that God resides somewhere other than where disasters reside or give no thought to it.

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

• “bring people closer to God” — about 11,600 matches
• “take people closer to God” — exactly 6 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the incorrect vs. correct expression by a ratio of 1933-to-1, which is dreadful on a Biblical scale.

Solution:
“Disasters … often take people closer to God.”

This is a bastardization of a nautical phrase.

Problem:
The word “in” is incorrect in this phrase.

Explanation:
The Phrase Finder has a complete explanation of the correct phrase, which is “by and large”, not “by in large”.

Here are the highlights from that superb explanation of “by and large”.

Regarding “large”: The wind is said to be “large” when it is blowing behind a ship’s travel direction.

For example, if you want to sail to the east and the wind is coming out of the west, then “large” is the correct label for the wind.

Regarding “by”: In contrast, to be “by the wind” is to be facing into the wind.

Although many non-sailors see this as a sailing disadvantage, the physics of sailing show that it is advantageous to sail into the wind.

So being able to sail “by and large” means being able to sail not only downwind (the “large” part) but also into the wind (the “up” part).

This explains why the phrase means on the whole.

And one can understand how “by in large” resulted from a lack of understanding about this nautical phrase and a misinterpretation, upon hearing it, of the conjunction “and” as the preposition “in”.

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

• “by and large” — with the conjunction “and” — 5,090,000 matches
• “by in large” — with the preposition “in” — 44,400 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct “by and large” versus the incorrect “by in large” by a ratio of 115-to-1, which is excellent.

Solution:
“by and large”

My wife heard this two days ago on NPR.

Problem:
The speaker used an adjective where an adverb was required.

Explanation:
National Public Radio on March 12 aired a report in which my wife heard someone say, “Women are still not paid equal to men.”

As is true for “naked” verbs, the passive-voice construction “are still not paid” may be modified by an adverb but may never be modified by an adjective.

The word “equal” is an adjective, not an adverb.

Many adjectives — including “equal” — can be converted into adverbs by adding the “ly” suffix.

I believe that the omission of the “ly” suffix from what should be the adverbial forms of adjectives is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to omit the “ly” suffix, which adds two more letters and an extra syllable, than to include it.

Solution:
“Women are still not paid equally to men.”

I often see or hear this and similar sentences.

Problem:
A preposition is missing.

Explanation:
I heard someone make the statement “She graduates high school this year.” the other day while talking about his daughter.

But the verb “graduate” means to receive a diploma or degree.

So “She graduates high school this year.” literally means “She receives a diploma or degree high school this year.”

This reveals the preposition that is missing from “She graduates high school this year.”

I believe that this omission is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to omit the required preposition than to include it.

And, as with yesterday’s blog post, this post illustrates a simple method for discovering whether a preposition is missing, excessive, or just right: Simply replace the verb with the verb’s definition.

Solution:
“She graduates from high school this year.”

Reader Rick Mallonee submitted this one to me a few days ago.

Problem:
“Myself” is the wrong pronoun.

Explanation:
Rick wrote to me four days ago (Thanks, Rick!) that he heard the statement “Please send it to Joe and myself.” in a meeting.

This sentence is an imperative.

The speaker is imploring the listener to send something to Joe and to him.

This sentence can not be reflexive because the speaker is not talking about something that he is doing for/by himself.

“Myself” is a reflexive pronoun, so it is not the correct first-person-singular pronoun here in this non-reflexive sentence.

Instead, “me” is the correct pronoun.

To confirm this, imagine the speaker asking the listener to send something only to him: “Please send it to me.”

Adding “Joe and ” has no effect on the pronoun; “me” remains the correct pronoun.

Solution:
“Please send it to Joe and me.”

I recently announced that I am finishing a new book about hyphenation.

I searched far and wide for a book like this one, to no avail, so I decided to write my own!

Actually, the book is almost done, but I am also working on some bonuses to accompany the book.

You see, I found that I had so much to say that I could not fit it all in one book, but I want you to have it all.

Here is an excerpt from the opening section of my upcoming book about hyphenation.

I hope that you enjoy it.

Typographically speaking, a hyphen is different than a dash, of which there are several:

• a figure dash (U+2012), which has the same width as a digit in typefaces with equal-width digits, commonly is used within telephone numbers (e.g., “555‒1212″), and is represented in HTML with the numeric form “‒”;
• an en dash (U+2013), which typically has the width of the letter “n”, commonly is used in ranges (e.g., “5–7 years”), and is represented in HTML with the numeric form “–” or as the entity “–”;
• an em dash (U+2014), which typically has the width of the letter “m”, commonly is used to identify a parenthetical thought, and is represented in HTML with the numeric form “—” or as the entity “—”;
• a quotation dash (U+2015), which is used for introducing quoted text, is used in some languages to print dialogue, and is represented in HTML with the numeric form “―”.

If you enjoyed this informative discussion about dashes, then you will enjoy my new book. Stay tuned!

Oh, and by the way: I highly recommend that you use, as appropriate, the above HTML codes in your own Web authoring. They will “class up” the text on your Web pages!

I sometimes see or hear pairs of these words confused.

Problem:
These four verbs are not synonyms.

Explanation:
I was watching an episode of the Fox TV show “Fringe”, which included some FBI agents chasing a bad guy.

One actor seemed to say “alluded” — spelled A-L-L-U-D-E-D — when telling another actor that the bad guy had escaped.

The verb “allude”, which dates back to the early 1500s and is spelled A-L-L-U-D-E, means to refer indirectly or casually. This verb comes from the Latin verb “alludere” (to play beside), from “al-” (toward) and “ludere” (to play).

What the actor should have said instead was “eluded” — spelled E-L-U-D-E-D — when referring to the bad guy’s escape.

The verb “elude”, which dates back to the mid-1500s and is spelled E-L-U-D-E, means to escape or avoid by trickery, cleverness, or speed. This verb comes from the Latin verb “eludere” (to evade or deceive), from “e-” (out of, from, or beyond) and “ludere” (to play).

I believe that many English speakers tend to pronounce “allude” and “elude” identically as “uh-lude”.

This is a mistake. The solution is to pronounce the “al” in “allude” in just the same way that one should pronounce the “al” in “allegory”, and to pronounce the “e” in “elude” in just the same way that one should pronounce the “e” in “email”.

Some people confuse the verb “elude” with the verb “delude”, perhaps because these two words differ by only one letter.

The verb “delude”, which dates back to the early 1400s and is spelled D-E-L-U-D-E, means to mislead the judgment or mind of. This verb comes from the Latin verb “deludere” (to play false), from “de-” (down) and “ludere” (to play).

Finally, the verb “illude”, which dates back to the mid-1400s and is spelled I-L-L-U-D-E, means to trick or deceive. This verb comes from the Latin verb “illudere” (to ridicule or mock), from “il-” (in) and “ludere” (to play).

I sometimes see or hear “illude” and “delude” used interchangeably, apparently because writers or speakers see “ill”, which looks negative and therefore somewhat like “de”, instead of “il”, which is the actual prefix of “illude” and is simply a variation of “in”.

The verbs “illude” and “delude” are not quite synonyms. Although both verbs generically mean to deceive, the verb “delude” is more about unconscious or unintentional misleading, especially reflexively, whereas the verb “illude” is more about conscious or intentional trickery.

Solution:

• Use “allude” when one means to refer indirectly or casually.
• Use “delude” when one means to mislead the judgment or mind of. The verb “delude” is often used reflexively.
• Use “elude” when one means to escape or avoid by trickery, cleverness, or speed.
• Use “illude” when one means to trick or deceive.

I heard someone say this in an interview the other day.

Problem:
The adverb “back” in “reciprocate back” is redundant.

Explanation:
I heard an Internet-marketing guru make the statement “They’ll reciprocate back for you.” in an audio file recorded as part of an interview series sponsored by Brad Callen, the maker of Keyword Elite.

The verb “reciprocate” when used without an object usually means to make a return, so the meaning of “reciprocate back” would be to make a return back.

Because the “re” in “return” means back, one could argue that someone who “reciprocates back” would never make a return (e.g., for something given).

For fun, I searched Google for the expression “reciprocate back” (with the quotation marks, to avoid variations) and got about 7,920 matches, which is relatively low.

I continue to believe that the growing tendency, at least in American English, to add the adverb “back” after many “re” verbs reflects a growing ignorance about the meanings of the roots of English words.

Solution:
“They’ll reciprocate for you.”

I hear this a lot, often from supposedly educated people.

Problem:
The preposition should not appear in this expression.

Explanation:
The full sentence goes something along the lines of “Let’s see where we’re at in this project.”

Whoever says or writes “where we’re at” is making the common English blunder of applying “where at” — a mistaken way to use “where” — to a location (physical or virtual).

I believe that this expression when spoken is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say “where we’re at” than to say “where we are”.

Try saying each expression. You will hear and feel what I mean. The words “we’re” and “at” blur together in speech to become a one-and-a-half-syllable “whurrat”. In contrast, the words “we” and “are” must be spoken distinctly.

Given a choice, most speakers will choose 1.5 syllables over two syllables almost any day, especially in informal speech.

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

• “where we are” — 17,400,000 matches
• “where we’re at” — 479,000 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct “where we are” versus the incorrect “where we’re at” by a ratio of 36.3-to-1, which is good but not wonderful, especially considering nearly half of a million instances of the incorrect expression.

Solution:
“where we are”

I heard a gardening expert say this today.

Problems:
1. The speaker misused the pronoun “on”.
2. The speaker misused the verb “need”.

Explanation:
I was listening this morning to a talk-radio program about gardening.

A caller asked the host about a topic.

The host responded with “You need to do a little bit more reading on it.”

The phrase “read on” is correct in sentences such as these:

• “I read on the website that he is divorced.”
• “I read on the subway the entire booklet.”
• “I read on the electrical panel that it was rated for only 120 volts.”

But “read on” is incorrect in a sentence such as “I read on the topic.”

Such a sentence requires the preposition “about”, not the preposition “on”.

The pronoun “it” in the statement made by the host to the caller referred to a topic.

So “reading on it” is incorrect, and the host should have used “reading about it” instead.

I believe that the use of “on” in place of “about” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to say or write the one-syllable, two-letter “on” than it is to say or write the two-syllable, five-letter “about”.

The second problem was that the talk-show host used the verb “need” where another verb was required.

There are very few actions that humans need to take because there are very few things that humans need.

The verb “should” is the correction for “need to do” in the statement.

The avoidance of “should” in favor of “need to” in American English has become a common blunder.

My impression is that this blunder originated in the popular psychology of the 1960s, when the focus was on needs and when many started to say the catch-phrase “Don’t should on me!”

Solution:
“You should do a little bit more reading about it.”