Kirk Mahoney . com

I instant-messaged this to a friend last week.

Problem:
The statement is ambiguous without a hyphen.

Explanation:
What does “Face time matters.” mean to you?

Soon after I instant-messaged this statement, I realized that my friend could interpret what I wrote in two ways.

One interpretation of the statement is that I was commanding or imploring my friend to seriously consider “time matters”.

In other words, one interpretation of “Face time matters.” is that this was an imperative statement.

The other interpretation of “Face time matters.” is that I was telling my friend that “face time” with other people makes a difference.

These two interpretations are possible because the word “face” is both a noun and a verb and because the word “matters” is both a noun and a verb.

The solution comes from using a hyphen to indicate whether one is talking about about “time matters” or about “face time”.

Written schematically, what we have is [NOUN|VERB] NOUN [VERB|NOUN], and any sentence that follows this pattern will be ambiguous without a hyphen between the first and second words or between the second and third words.

Some might argue that using an exclamation mark instead of a period in “Face time matters.” would make it clear to the reader that the statement is an imperative.

Unlike Spanish, which tends to favor the use of exclamation marks for imperative statements, American English seems to have dropped the common use of exclamation marks for imperatives a long time ago.

Using a period instead of an exclamation mark at the end of an imperative statement is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to write a period than it is to write an exclamation mark (one stroke versus two strokes). And it is simpler to type a period than it is to type an exclamation mark (one key versus two keys).

So the absence of the exclamation mark does not assure American readers that the statement is not an imperative.

But I would counter-argue that the presence an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence with this pattern does not ensure that the sentence will be interpreted as imperative. Instead, the exclamation mark could be interpreted as turning a declarative statement into an exclamatory statement.

Solution:

• Use “Face time-matters.” — with a hyphen between “time” and “matters” — to ensure that the statement is interpreted as an imperative sentence about facing matters of time.
• Use “Face-time matters.” — with a hyphen between “Face” and “time” — to ensure that the statement is interpreted as a declarative sentence about the importance of spending face-to-face time with others.

I overheard a conference call in which someone said this a few days ago.

Problem:
The speaker used the wrong word for the verb after “We need to” in this statement.

Explanation:
The speaker who said “We need to error on the safe side.” was discussing a company policy with others on the conference call.

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

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

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

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:

• “err on the safe side” — 23,600 matches
• “error on the safe side” — 1,260 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used “err on the safe side” versus “error on the safe side” by a ratio of 18.7-to-1, which is good by not great.

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

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.”

I heard this four days ago on a CNN evening-news broadcast.

Problem:
There is no problem with this statement in and of itself. But the reporter was referring to the state of the person found, so there is a problem.

Explanation:
The CNN reporter said “She was found safely.” as part of a longer report about a robber and father who took his daughter to his robbery of a convenience store.

Security-camera videos implied that the daughter apparently was unaware that her father was robbing the store, but police were very concerned for her safety, the reporter said.

So the police searched for the girl and eventually found her in a safe condition.

But the reporter said “She was found safely.”, even though the search for the girl had no hint of danger.

This is an example of hypercorrection.

To say “She was found safely.” is to say that the finding of the girl was done in a safe manner — because “safely” is an adverb that modifies the verb “found”.

The solution comes from understanding the role of a predicate adjective.

Solution:
“She was found safe.”

I heard this in a police-car windshield-camera video.

Problem:
The word “constitute” is inappropriate in this statement.

Explanation:
The video has been played on several Houston television news broadcasts.

The video, captured by the windshield camera in the police car of Dallas Police Officer Robert Powell, shows some of what happened when Officer Powell stopped NFL football player Ryan Moats for running a red light.

Mr. Moats explained to Officer Powell that he and his family were rushing to the hospital where his mother-in-law lay dying — and eventually died before Moats was released by Powell.

Powell responded, “That does not constitute running a red light.”

It seems that Officer Powell was over his head not only with exercising common sense but also with the definitions of basic verbs.

Solution:
“That does not justify running a red light.”

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.”

I heard this recently during a TV news broadcast.

Problem:
A preposition is missing.

Explanation:
The news broadcaster made the statement “He escaped prison.” while describing a prisoner who had managed to illegally free himself from a prison.

But the verb “escape” means to get away, or to gain or regain freedom.

So “He escaped prison.” literally means any of these:

• “He got away prison.”
• “He gained freedom prison.”
• “He regained freedom prison.”

Any of these sentences reveals to us the preposition that is missing from “He escaped prison.”

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 this blog post illustrates a simple method for discovering whether a preposition is missing, excessive, or just right. The method entails simply rewriting the sentence or phrase or expression with the definition of the verb in place of the verb.

Solution:
“He escaped from prison.”

Most people do not confuse these two verbs, but their similarity deserves a blog post.

Problem:
These two verbs are spelled so similarly that there definitely is potential to treat them as synonyms, which they are not.

Explanation:
This verb “persecute” dates back to the first half of the fifteenth century.

“Persecute” begins with the prefix “per”, which means utterly or thoroughly.

The other part of “persecute” is related to the word “sequence”, a definition of which is something that follows.

Knowing these roots, it is easy to understand how the verb “persecute” means to pursue persistently with oppressive or harassing treatment.

The verb “prosecute” dates back to 1432 but apparently did not get applied as a legal term until 1579.

“Prosecute” begins with the prefix “pro”, which in this verb means favor for some party.

As with “persecute”, the other part of “persecute” is related to the word “sequence”, a definition of which is something that follows.

Knowing these roots, one can understand how the verb “prosecute” means to seek to enforce or carry on.

Solution:
Think harassment when you see the verb “persecute”; think legal proceeding when you see the verb “prosecute”.

An American wrote this sentence the other day in an email message to my wife.

Having lived several years in England, she told me that it looked odd to her.

She would have written “Photos are always welcomed.” — with a “d” at the end.

In other words, she sees this as a passive-voice sentence (in which the actor is not specified).

The active-voice form of the sentence could be “We always welcome photos.”

Given that speaking or writing in the passive voice requires the use of the past participle of a verb, the passive-voice form of “We always welcome photos.” requires the past participle “welcomed” — with a “d” at the end.

I believe that the American tendency to drop the “d” from the past participle “welcomed” in “Photos are always welcomed.” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to say “welcome” (without the “d”) than to say “welcomed” (with the “d”). And, even if someone says “welcomed” (with the “d”), many American listeners will not hear the “d” and will write “welcome” (without the “d”) instead.

This verb bugs me.

What is wrong with using the verb “moisten” instead of “moisturize”?

Why must it be “Moisturize your face with Wet-o!”?

Why cannot it be “Moisten your face with Wet-o!”?

Perhaps some people who use “moisturize” like the “z” sound at the end of the verb.

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

• “moisten” — 1,540,000 matches
• “moisturize” — 1,520,000 matches

This tells me that “moisten” is 1.01 times as popular as “moisturize” on the Web.

The verb “moisten” dates back to the 1570s, whereas the verb “moisturize” dates back to World War II.

I have a hunch that the verb “moisturize” was coined by advertisers. If this hunch is true, then the Google search results show that advertisers within about sixty-five years have made “moisturize” almost as popular as a word that had a 370-year head start.