Devolution toward Simpler

“Supposedly” vs. “Supposably”

Adverbs, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Versus

I hear “supposably” with increasing frequency when “supposedly” is the correct adverb.

Problem:
The adverbs “supposedly” and “supposably” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
The adverb “supposedly” means reputed or believed to be the case; purportedly.

The adverb “supposably” should be used only in the context of capable of being supposed, and this adverb is valid only in American English.

In a sense, most people who use “supposably” are lucky in that it is a “real word” (in American English). But these same people misuse “supposably” as a synonym for “supposedly” (which it is not!).

As I mentioned several days ago, here is an unorthodox but still fairly reliable method to determine which of “supposedly” or “supposably” is more likely to be the correct form: search Google separately for each of “supposedly” and “supposably”; the one with the dominant number of hits or matches is very likely the correct form (unless the language has fallen apart on the Web!).

For example, I just searched Google for “supposedly” and got about 2,770,000 matches; I searched for “supposably” and got about 66,200 matches. This nearly 42:1 dominance of “supposedly” over “supposably” is a very good indicator that “supposedly” is the correct form — at least, in most situations.

I believe that the misuse of “supposably” as a synonym for “supposedly” — especially in speech — is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “supposably” than to say “supposedly” because the first adverb’s ending is simpler to say than is the second adverb’s ending.

Solution:
Use “supposedly” when “purportedly” makes sense as a replacement adverb; use “supposably” only with an American English-speaking audience and only when the intended meaning is “capable of being supposed”.

“Loath” vs. “Loathe”

Adjectives, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Verbs, Versus

I sometimes see these two words mixed up in writing, and I sometimes hear them mixed up in speech.

Problem:
“Loath” and “loathe” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
“Loath” is an adjective that means reluctant or unwilling. “Loath” is usually followed by “to”, as in “Mary was loath to call her sister about their brother’s death.”

“Loathe” is a verb that means abhor, or dislike greatly, as in “Mary loathes making cold sales calls.”

I sometimes hear the verb “loathe” where the adjective “loath” is required. Misuse of “loathe” as a substitute for “loath” — especially in speech — seems to support my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. The verb “loathe” is simpler to pronounce (with the “th” sound like in “smooth”) than is the adjective “loath” (with the “th” sound like in “thin”).

Solution:
Use “loath” as an adjective (usually followed by “to”); use “loathe” as a verb. Remember that “loath” and “thin” have the same “th” sound, whereas “loathe” and “smooth” have the same “th” sound.

“Oh, for Heaven sakes!”

Apostrophes, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Nouns, Possessives

I often hear people say this.

Problems:
1. A possessive apostrophe-S (‘s) is missing.
2. The noun makes much more sense in singular form.

Explanation:
Even in speech, one can hear when a possessive apostrophe-S is missing.

The English noun “sake” (not the Japanese noun) means interest, benefit, advantage, motive, purpose or cause. For example, “for the sake of Jim” means for the benefit of Jim.

We can rewrite “for the sake of Jim” (“for the benefit of Jim”) as “for Jim’s sake” (“for Jim’s benefit”). It doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “for Jim’s sakes” (plural). That would be analogous to saying “for Jim’s benefits”, which most people would not say because one vague, all-encompassing benefit is enough!

Apparently, the original expression was “Oh, for God’s sake!” This expression got softened to “Oh, for Heaven’s sake!”, which got converted into the problematic expression.

I believe that “Oh, for Heaven sakes” supports my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “Oh, for Heaven sakes” than to say “Oh, for Heaven’s sake”; saying the latter requires one to pause between “Heaven’s” and “sake” so that the listener hears the two S sounds.

Letting the expression devolve further, we get the original, problematic expression: “Oh, for Heaven sakes!” It’s as if the speaker is indicating that he knows that an S sound belongs somewhere, so he puts it at the end of the expression, where it sounds as if it might belong.

Solution:
“Oh, for Heaven’s sake!”