Author: Kirk

“Can Hillary be beat?”

Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Passive Voice, Verbs

I heard this while listening to a radio talk-show’s discussion of the former first lady’s race for the 2008 U.S. presidency.

Problem:
The verb “beat” is incorrect here.

Explanation:
The question is written in abbreviated passive voice, albeit incorrectly. The subject of the sentence (Hillary) is acted on by the verb, and we do not know who potentially is beating her. A question in active voice must identify the person who potentially will beat Hillary.

“Can Joe beat Hillary?” is an example of a question in active voice. We get “Can Hillary be beaten by Joe?” when we rearrange the question to put it into passive voice. Abbreviating this question, we correctly get “Can Hillary be beaten?” in abbreviated passive voice.

In other words, “beaten” — not “beat” — is the passive form of the verb “to beat”.

I believe that the use of “beat” instead of “beaten” when the latter is appropriate represents

  • ignorance about passive voice, and
  • a laziness that favors shorter, fewer-syllable words over longer words.

The one-syllable “beat” is easier than the two-syllable “beaten” to say. Throw in a common lack of understanding how sentences in the active voice are converted to sentences in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice, and it’s no wonder that many English speakers choose “beat” (incorrectly) instead of “beaten” in a question posed in the passive voice or abbreviated passive voice.

Solution:
“Can Hillary be beaten?”

“Literally, we’re bursting out of the walls.”

Adverbs, Common English Blunders, Versus

I heard this from an apartment dweller in an HGTV television program.

Problem:
The adverb “literally” is incorrect here.

Explanation:
A bad habit has developed among many English speakers to use “literally” when “figuratively” is the correct adverb. They use “literally” as an intensifier. Unfortunately, this negates the true meaning of “literally”, which is actually, without exaggeration. The speaker in the above program was trying to say that she, her husband and her child had outgrown their small apartment. However, they still resided within the walls of their apartment, and the walls were still intact. The correct adverb to describe this situation is “figuratively”. The family had not literally burst out of the walls. Instead, the family had figuratively burst out of the walls.

I believe that the use of “literally” instead of “figuratively” represents

  • carelessness with word meanings,
  • a belief that “literally” sounds better than “figuratively”, and
  • a laziness that favors shorter, fewer-syllable words over longer words.

Not only does “figuratively” have more syllables than “literally” has (five syllables vs. four syllables), but it also is more difficult to say. Throw in the abusive overuse of “literally” and the fact that it sounds more “literary”, and it’s no wonder that many English speakers choose it (incorrectly) instead of “figuratively”.

Solution:
“Figuratively, we’re bursting out of the walls.”

“It is to provide more than 58,000 jobs.”

Common English Blunders, Verbs

I heard this during an NPR news story about a theme park in South Korea.

Problem:
The verb phrase “is to provide” is awkward (at least).

Explanation:
The reporter was discussing the theme park’s projected effect on employment in South Korea. Either she meant to say “will provide” or she left out “projected” (as in “is projected to provide”). If she intentionally left out “projected” so as to sound more sophisticated, she did not achieve her goal (at least not with me).

Solutions:
“It will provide more than 58,000 jobs.”
“It is projected to provide more than 58,000 jobs.”