Kirk Mahoney . com

I wrote a blog post in November 2007 about “Nauseous” vs. “Nauseated”.

I recently heard an actress on a TV drama say that she felt nauseous when she should have said that she felt nauseated.

She made me think again about the two words.

And I realized something: Saying “nauseous” when one should say “nauseated” instead is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

Many Americans say “nauseous” as if it had only two syllables, as in NAW-SHUHS, instead of pronouncing all three syllables, as in NAW-ZEE-UHS.

Either way, it is simpler to say the two- or three-syllable “nauseous” than it is to say the four-syllable “nauseated”.

Americans would say any of these statements:

* “Are you going to church?”

* “He went to school.”

* “They drove to town.”

But nearly no American would say (quote) “She went to hospital.” (unquote).

Nearly all Americans would say instead (quote) “She went to the hospital.” (unquote).

In contrast, probably everyone from Great Britain would say (quote) “She went to hospital.” (unquote).

What fascinates me is that Americans use (quote) “the hospital” (unquote) — with the definite article “the” — to refer vaguely to any hospital, just as they use “church” or “school” or “town” without the definite article “the” to refer vaguely to any church, school, or town, respectively.

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”.

I heard someone say “inversely” yesterday to introduce a contrary opinion to what he first stated.

Problem:
The adverbs “inversely” and “conversely” are not synonyms, just as the adjectives “inverse” and “converse” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
When I heard someone yesterday state one opinion and then introduce an opposing opinion with the adverb “inversely”, I thought that it sounded odd.

I was expecting him to say “conversely” instead of “inversely”, so I decided to learn more about the adjectives “inverse” and “converse”.

The primary meaning of the adjective “inverse” is reversed in position, tendency, direction, or order.

This adjective dates back to around 1610 from a Latin verb that means to turn inside out or upside down.

So an example of valid use of “inverse” is (quote) “The inverse form of the fraction 3/4 is the fraction 4/3.” (unquote).

The primary meaning of the adjective “converse” is contrary or opposite in sequence, action, or direction.

This adjective dates back to the second half of the 1300s from a Latin verb that means to turn around.

So an example of a valid use of “converse” is (quote) “The converse perspective to ‘The glass is half-full.’ is ‘The glass is half-empty.’” (unquote).

Solution:
Use the adjective “converse” to label something that is contrary or goes in the opposite direction. Use the adjective “inverse” to label something that is upside down or inside out.

I sometimes hear these nouns used interchangeably.

Problem:
These nouns are not all synonyms.

Explanation:
A “baluster” is a moulded shaft that most often supports the handrail of a staircase but also can be used to support the coping of a parapet, which is a wall-like barrier often at the edge of a roof.

The noun “baluster” comes from the Italian word — balaustra — for a pomegranate flower because the traditional shape of a baluster resembles the half-open pomegranate flower.

Balusters often are made of stone or wood and are sometimes made of metal.

A “balustrade” is a sequence of balusters that support a handrail.

A “banister” — also spelled with two “n”s — is another name for a staircase baluster, but many architects and interior designers prefer to reserve the word “banister” for a narrower, more-modern support.

Now here is where it becomes more confusing.

Many Americans — I cannot speak for other countries — also use the word “banister” to refer to the handrail of a staircase.

Solution:

• Use “baluster” to refer to a pomegranate-flower-shaped support of a staircase handrail.
• Use “balustrade” to refer to a sequence of balusters.
• Use “banister” to refer to a non-pomegranate-flower support of a staircase handrail.
• Be aware that some use “banister” also to refer to the staircase handrail itself.

My wife made me think this morning about the verb “sink”.

Problem:
Some pairs of these verb forms are synonyms, which causes confusion.

Explanation:
My wife used the word “sunken” this morning.

This made me wonder about the difference between “sunk” and “sunken”.

And this led me to a dictionary.

The verb “sink” has these basic forms:

• Sink — present simple, as in (quote) “I sink when I do not dog-paddle.” (unquote)
• Sank — preterite, as in (quote) “He sank my battleship!” (unquote)
• Sunk — past participle, as in (quote) “She has sunk the deal.” (unquote)
• Sinking — present continuous, as in (quote) “Hey, your boat is sinking!” (unquote)

But here are the catches that lead to confusion:

• “Sunk” is often used as a synonym for “sank”.
• “Sunken” is definitely a synonym for “sunk”.

Putting the above two lists together, we see that the verb “sink” actually has these basic forms:

• Sink — present simple
• Sank or often Sunk — preterite
• Sunk or Sunken — past participle
• Sinking — present continuous

Solution:
I recommend avoiding “sunk” as a preterite and instead always using “sank” as the preterite. And I recommend using “sunk” in your writing and speech as the past participle but recognizing that “sunken” is a standard alternative as a past participle, especially in literary references such as (quote) “The pirates were looking for sunken treasure.” (unquote).

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 saw the word “ENTRY” yesterday over a door that I would have labeled an “ENTRANCE”.

My personal preference is to use “entrance” to refer to a location and to use “entry” to refer to the act of entering, which explains why “ENTRY” on an over-door sign caught my eye.

This prompted me to learn more about each of these nouns.

The noun “entrance” dates back to the mid-1400s (MF).

The noun “entry” dates back to the late-1200s (L).

Dictionaries’ definitions of “entrance” and “entry” are so similar that I would call them synonyms.

Do you make any distinction between “entrance” and “entry”, or do you use them fully interchangeably?

Please contact me, and tell me where you grew up (your hometown) and how you use each of these nouns.

Once I have enough responses, I will share the results — without your name or email address, but with your hometown.

Thanks!

I often hear one of these expressions when the other one is required.

Problem:
These two expressions are not synonyms.

Explanation:
My wife recently heard a man say (quote) “I will wait on you in the car.” (unquote).

The preposition “on” bothered her, and we discussed how frequently each of us has heard “wait on” when “wait for” was required.

The common English blunder seems to be to use a form of “wait on” when a form of “wait for” is required.

Someone who (quote) “waits on” (unquote) someone else is acting as a waiter or waitress.

So (quote) “I will wait on you in the car.” (unquote) literally means (quote) “I will act as your waiter (or waitress) in the car.” (unquote).

The man whom my wife heard should have said (quote) “I will wait for you in the car.” (unquote) because that person was not saying that he would act as a waiter in “the car”.

Solution:
Use “… wait on you …” when you are a waiter or waitress; otherwise use “… wait for you …”.

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 (quote) “I have a theory about …” (unquote), 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.