Kirk Mahoney . com

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.”

Yesterday I wrote about days that I like to label as “Prepositions Gone Wild”.

Today I want to discuss the complement to this: what I like to label as “Prepositions Gone Missing”.

Again, I have to wonder when, where, why, and how American instruction about English prepositions went astray.

There seems to be a growing trend for many Americans to omit necessary prepositions.

And this trend seems to be consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. Omitting prepositions is simpler than including them.

The “Prepositions Gone Missing” label applies to any of these expressions:

• “arrived home”
• “graduated high school”
• “graduated college”
• “graduated university”

I wrote a blog post more than a year ago about “graduated college”. Similar discussions would apply for “graduated high school” and “graduated university”.

The travel-related use of the verb “arrive” requires a preposition between the verb and the destination.

Just as one does not “arrive the Moon” or “arrive England”, one does not “arrive home”.

Instead, one “arrives on the Moon”, “arrives in England”, or “arrives at home”.

Have you noticed any other common expressions with necessary prepositions that have been omitted? Please contact me, and I will write about them here!

I often hear people use one word when they mean the other.

Problem:
These two nouns are not synonyms.

Explanation:
I often hear people say something like “I have a theory about …”, such as “about why Janey stays out late” or “about why Jim does not like his boss” or “about why women generally have more close friends than do men”.

The primary definition of the noun “theory” is a substantiated group of statements that explain a set of phenomena.

In contrast, the primary meaning of the noun “hypothesis” is a proposed, tentative explanation for an observation or phenomenon.

As noted at Wikipedia, “A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

So one starts with observations, then formulates hypotheses to explain those observations, and then tests those hypotheses. Once those hypotheses have been validated, one can create a theory.

I believe that the common English blunder of using the word “theory” where the word “hypothesis” is required is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. (Note that I call this a hypothesis, not a theory!)

It is simpler to say or write the two-syllable, six-letter “theory” than it is to say or write the four-syllable, ten-letter “hypothesis”.

Solution:
Use “hypothesis” for a proposition to explain an observation. Use “theory” to refer to an analysis of a collection of facts and their relation to each other.

I saw this yesterday in an email message.

Problem:
An apostrophe is missing.

Explanations:
The email message was talking about social-work efforts, and “Childrens Protective Service” — with “Childrens” spelled C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N — was the title of one of the sections in the message.

I believe that the absence of a required possessive apostrophe in “Childrens” can be attributable to:

• A typographical error;
• Ignorance about possessive apostrophes.

Given how often I see the apostrophe-free “Mens” and “Womens” in department stores, I doubt that “A typographical error” applies to this situation.

That leaves us with “Ignorance about possessive apostrophes”.

I believe that this ignorance is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis.

It is simpler to write possessive words without apostrophes than to write them with apostrophes.

Solution:
“Children’s Protective Service”

I was reminded of this common English blunder while reviewing a course for employees.

Problem:
The word “less” is inappropriate here.

Explanation:
“Less failed orders due to increased system checks” was given as a benefit of a software application used by sales agents handling inbound orders from customers.

This reminded me of the common English blunder “Ten items or less” that is often seen in checkout lines at grocery stores and other retailers.

The primary definition of the adjective “less” is to a smaller degree or extent In contrast, the adjective “fewer” means of a smaller number.

So, the adjective “less” is incorrect in “Less failed orders” and in “Ten items or less”.

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:

• “items or fewer” — 41,600 matches
• “items or less” — 2,450,000 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the incorrect “items or less” versus the correct “items or fewer” by a ratio of 58.9-to-1, which is absolutely dreadful.

I believe that the preference for “less” over “fewer” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say or write the four-letter, one-syllable “less” than it is to say or write the five-letter, two-syllable “fewer”.

Some stores still get it right, fortunately.

Solution:
“Ten items or fewer”

I read one of these words today where it seemed to me that the other was more appropriate.

Problem:
Most dictionaries treat these two words as synonymous conjunctions, but one is preferable over the other for expressing cause and effect.

Explanation:
Many, if not all, dictionaries indicate that the second or third definition of the word “since” when used as a conjunction is “because”.

An unambiguous example of using “since” as a synonym for “because” is “I kissed her since I love her.”

However, it is easy to construct an ambiguous sentence with the conjunction “since”.

For example, “I decided to learn French since my company moved me to Paris.” has two possible meanings:

1. A causal meaning — “I decided to learn French because my company moved me to Paris.”;
2. A temporal meaning — “I decided to learn French after my company moved me to Paris.”

The temporal version clearly tells us when the writer decided to learn French. The causal version tells us why the writer decided to learn French.

A commenter at another website noted that Bryan Garner wrote in his book Garner’s Modern American Usage that the causal meaning of “since” has existed for more than one thousand years.

I believe that the use of “since” as a substitute for the conjunction “because” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say or write the one-syllable, five-letter “since” than it is to say or write the two-syllable, seven-letter “because”, and clarity can be easily sacrificed for simplicity.

Solution:
To avoid confusion, prefer the conjunction “because” over the conjunction “since” when joining two sentences in a causal relationship. And prefer the conjunction “after” over the conjunction “since” when joining two sentences in a temporal relationship, unless “since” clearly carries a temporal connotation.

I heard this during a radio broadcast this morning.

Problem:
This is a mispronunciation.

Explanation:
The radio broadcast was about The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB).

The news reporter said that UTMB would not lose its “accredidation” in spite of yesterday’s announcement that 3,800 employees there would be laid off.

The noun is correctly spelled A-C-C-R-E-D-I-T-A-T-I-O-N because it comes from the verb “accredit”, which ends with a “t”.

Therefore, the final two syllables of the noun “accreditation” should be pronounced as “tation” (starting with a “t” as in “tango”) instead of as “dation” (starting with a “d” as in “delta”).

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following (without the quotation marks) and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

• “accreditation” — 38,100,000 matches
• “accredidation” — 85,500 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct spelling versus the incorrect spelling by a ratio of 446-to-1, which is superb.

However, this ratio does not tell the complete story because it covers spellings, not pronunciations.

I believe that the mispronunciation of “accreditation” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say “dation” than it is to say “tation”.

Solution:
“Accreditation”

I have seen this in several announcements from one company.

Problem:
The adjective “leader-led” is self-redundant and does not tell you who is doing the leading.

Explanation:
Courses offered by companies before the advent of computers were called “corporate training” or simply “training”.

The advent of computers and authoring tools made “computer-based training” possible.

The advent of the Web and more authoring tools made “Web-based training” possible.

These two phrases forced writers and speakers to look for a special phrase to distinguish non-computer-based training from computer-based training and Web-based training, but “non-computer-based training” was too long and somewhat negative.

This resulted in the creation of the phrase “instructor-led training”.

Unfortunately, this phrase has deteriorated in some quarters into “leader-led training”, which says nothing about who is doing the leading of the training.

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:

• “instructor-led training” — 519,000 matches
• “instructor-led courses” — 85,800 matches
• “leader-led training” — 597 matches
• “leader-led courses” — 410 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the meaningful “instructor-led” versus the meaningless “leader-led” by a ratio of 601-to-1, which is excellent.

However, this does not mean that “leader-led” as an adjective will not grow in popularity. I believe that the replacement of “instructor-led” with “leader-led” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to write or say the two-syllable noun “leader” than it is to write or say the three-syllable noun “instructor”, and “leader” — not “instructor” — is alliterative with “led”.

Solution:
“Instructor-led training”

I saw this on a restaurant receipt.

Problem:
A hyphen is missing.

Explanation:
I ordered some “take-out” food from a restaurant a couple of evenings ago.

While I was waiting for my order to be prepared, I studied the receipt.

Printed in all capital letters in the middle of it was “TOGO” — spelled T-O-G-O.

Beyond the ridiculousness of using all capital letters given the mixed-case font used throughout the receipt, the designer of the receipt surely did not mean to refer to the African country officially known as the Togolese Republic.

No, the designer was trying to indicate that the order was a take-out order — that the order was “to-go” — spelled T-O-HYPHEN-G-O.

The format of the receipt was more than four characters wide, so the omission of the hyphen between “TO” and “GO” could not be blamed on lack of space.

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

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:

• “to-go orders” — using T-O-HYPHEN-G-O — 332,000 matches
• “togo orders” — using T-O-G-O — 3,390 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the correct spelling versus the incorrect spelling by a ratio of 97.9-to-1, which is very good.

I still have to wonder whether the restaurant receipt designer has even heard of the country of Togo. Perhaps if he or she had, then the need for the hyphen would have been more obvious.

Solution:
“TO-GO”

I saw this in a comment below a blog post.

Problem:
A comma is missing.

Explanation:
The comment appeared almost immediately below the bottom of a blog post about how Blackberry can beat iPhone.

The commenter wrote “The only known true competition to the iPhone (yes thats right, the G1 is NOT even close people) is the BB Storm.”

Ignore the other problems, and focus on the end of the parenthetical remark.

The comment writer was telling his readers that the T-Mobile G1 cellphone should not be compared to the AT&T iPhone because the G1 is “NOT even close” to the iPhone in terms of features.

The writer was referring to his readers as “people”.

If you say the parenthetical remark aloud in the spirit of what the writer intended, then you will notice that you pause between the word “close” and the word “people”.

This pause should be represented by a comma, which gives us the solution.

In contrast, if you speak the parenthetical remark exactly as it was written, then the sense of the remark becomes twisted to mean that “close people” are not the G1 cellphone, which makes no sense.

I believe that this type of omission of a comma is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to omit a comma than to write or type one.

Solution:
“(… the G1 is NOT even close, people)”