It’s not Latin itself that trips people up, per se, but it’s the spelling of the dead language. When interwoven with our everyday speech, Latin usage sometimes allows us to say our ideas in a more sophisticated tone, but this sophistication crumbles if we spell it “per say.”
Before you start any fires in your fireplace, make sure the flue is open. Fingers crossed, no bird flew into your chimney and made a nest there. That would sure as heck freak me out—not to mention perhaps bring up concerns of avian flu.
My bird phobias aside—they are fierce little dinosaurs, aren’t they?—please make sure you’re not confusing “flu” vs. “flue” vs. “flew.”
When the conversation drifts from wild chickens in Kauai to the mongoose population across the Hawaiian islands, one question comes up every time. Actually, a lot of questions come up every time—ranging from reckless introductions of invasive species to the potential collection of wild chicken eggs—but most importantly for our discussion is the question of the word “mongoose.” When you have one, we have no doubt about the singular form, but…
Every year around Thanksgiving, someone usually asks me, “What is the difference between ‘bird’ and ‘fowl’?” And it’s finally time to address it in writing.
“Fowl” comes from the from the Old English word fugel, which is related to the Latin word flēogan, which means to fly. A long time ago, “fowl” was used to represent birds of any kind, and this usage still sneaks out today; however, most sources seem to agree that there is a difference between these two words.
I’m not sure what it would mean if someone had a rye sense of humor. Maybe it’s as refreshing as a breeze through the stalks of rye fields.
Conversely, if we’re talking about “wry bread,” I’m a bit fascinated. This bread talks? And it sounds quite intelligent. Wherever did you find it?
Of course, neither of these are probably what you mean to be saying.
When you drive, which one of these should you aspire to? Which one should you avoid? Ignoring the fact that only one of these is a real word, I think logic directs you to one side rather than the other.
Hint: a police officer might pull you over for reckless driving, but if you’re a wreckless driver, you won’t have any points taken off of your record.
Let’s go beyond the double-negative in NSYNC’s lyrics about “it ain’t no lie,” and talk about “bye,” “by” and “buy.”
It really is a waste if all you can think about is your waist. There are so many better things in the world to think about than something so vain—like kindness, like love, like Shakespeare’s potential co-authors, or even your word choice, for example.
You might have your own waste management practices that include recycling and composting, or you might have your waist management practices which involve sit-ups and some cardio. How are you doing with yours? Actually, don’t answer that. It’s not the point of this conversation. What is important is how you spell these words.
President Obama has gotten it wrong. Judas Priest has gotten it wrong. Your friends have gotten it wrong on social media (or at least mine have). Do you know the correct version of this idiom?
While “you’ve got another thing coming” might sound better to your ear, the expression is actually “you’ve got another think coming.” As in, “if that’s what you think, you’ve got another think coming.”
Does the correct version make a noun-fussy grammarian shudder? Perhaps. But this correct form dates back at least to the early 1910s and possibly before.
H.L. Menken actually uses it as an example of how words switch parts of speech—from verb to noun, in this case—in his 1921 edition of The American Language, though others have remained disquieted by this use of “think” as a noun.
In 1932, M.H. Weseen used “another think” as an example of wordings that simply aren’t correct in his collection, “Words Confused and Misused.” He didn’t say this, offering “thing” up as the better option. Rather, he just didn’t agree with the use of the expression at all.
And I hear you, Mr. Weseen. The evolution of the English language is a bit strange at times. We can’t always just let new words become standard, but this is one instance of a phrase that has become so commonly used that it is, in the twenty-first century, officially okay.
To be fair, the Oxford English Dictionary has been correcting people about this eggcorn since 1919—though it wasn’t until the 1980s that mass confusion seemed to have set in. I’m looking at you, Judas Priest. Heavy metal and heavy influence apparently.
And did I just say “eggcorn”? Yes, I did, that’s an awesome term that refers to a confused word. Imagine saying “acorn” with a deep southern accent. What would you have? Eggcorn. There’s no such thing as an “eggcorn,” but that doesn’t mean that people won’t call “acorns” by that term. You might hear reference to an “escape goat,” but a “scapegoat” is probably the term that speaker is looking for. We don’t “pass mustard,” unless maybe you’re at a picnic, but you might “pass muster.” Eggcorns one and all. Aren’t you happy we have a word for such things?
Meanwhile, how fun is it to connect Barack Obama to Judas Priest? Obama’s mistake was a passing remark, which I can absolutely forgive. He’s an otherwise eloquent speaker. But Judas Priest? It was a hugely popular song title!
We can do better. We absolutely can. But at least you now know the difference.
Plus who needs seven degrees of separation for Obama and Judas Priest? I did it with a single word. You’re welcome.
Sign up for my writing and editing email newsletter for more tips and trivia like this.
You can definitely blame Hollywood for the confusion that’s become commonplace around Mary Shelly’s famous monster. Bookish types and horror aficionados are particular on this point, so it’s time you know the truth.