Charles Harrington Elster

Click and type in a question or comment

I forget my email kettie_s@hotmail.com

My name is Ketlie Sermeil and I am from Haiti. I just started with the verbal Advantage I could I please have Mr. Elster's email so that I can write him.



Mr. Elster, This is Greg Bergman, author of Bizzwords. I thought you may be interested to know that you were plagiarized virtually verbatim in a review of my book on Amazon.com by Susanna Hutcheson. Oh, and thanks for the review--even the snarky parts.

Thanks to you, Mr. Berman, for being a gentleman about the review (which, if other readers are interested, appeared in The Wall Street Journal July 23, page A-15). And thanks also for the heads-up on the plagiarism. I have informed my editor at WSJ and the legal staff at the Authors Guild and we'll see what we'll see.

It's very hard to punish people who commit these infractions on the Internet, but they should be punished nevertheless (it's the intellectual equivalent of shoplifting!). And Amazon.com — which is maddeningly aloof about feedback regarding factual errors and abuses like this — should also be held accountable for what they post and allow to be posted. — CHE

What's the difference between "practical" and "practicable" ? And is there a word (in English) for describing the surface texture of hard ice cream after a scoop has been scraped across its surface. If not, how could such a word be fashioned, I wonder.

Practical means "having a useful purpose" or "capable of being put to good use." Practicable, which has four syllables (PRAK-ti-kuh-bul), means "workable, feasible, possible, capable of being put into practice." A useful tool is practical; a well-designed plan is practicable.

I'm afraid the Grandiloquent Gumshoe is stumped regarding your ice-cream word. Suggestions are welcome.
— CHE

The 2008 Olympic city is Beijing. The "-jing" part is supposed to sound like the jing- in "jingle" Yet too many commentators are mispronouncing the "j" as if it were the "j" in Woody Allen's jejune, or Zsa Zsa Gabor's Z's. Shades of Muscovian cows!

You're so right, my friend. Perhaps you should compose a mnemonic song for the Olympics: "Beijingle Bells." — CHE

Mr. Elster. I'm no wordsmith, although some words jump out and get my attention. The word "premise" is often used in place of "premises" when speaking of a location. My job is in the security industry, i see the word used in manuals, police/fire department websites, in the company i work for verbally and in print. There is also a local jewelry store with a radio commercial that uses "premise" to speak of their store. Is it ok to use "premise" instead of "premises" when speaking of a physical location? Looking forward to hearing you on 850KOA again. Thank you for your time. John, Denver. CO.

Good question, John, and the answer is straightforward: You should never use premise of a location. What you've been hearing is wrong. Some people mistakenly assume that because there's an s on the end of premises it must be a plural, and so they use it the way we use place and places. But premises means "the house or building along with its grounds." Premise is a different word with a different meaning: "a proposition on which you can base an argument or from which you can draw a conclusion." — CHE

Does "martyr" always have a negative connotation?

No. It's a matter of religious perspective. If the martyr is a member of your religion, carrying out the work of your religion, then he or she dies an honorable and holy death. If the martyr belongs to another religion, he or she is considered heretical and subversive and the death dishonorable. — CHE

Hey Mr. Elster! I was wondering where the phrase vice versa comes from and if it has anything to do with the word vice as in immoral conduct?

Another excellent question. As I note in my BIG BOOK OF BEASTLY MISPRONUNCIATIONS, the vice in vice versa is not the same as in vice squad. The latter vice, which rhymes with ice and nice, comes from the Latine vitium, a fault, defect, and means depravity, immoral behavior. The vice in vice versa is the ablative of the Latin vicis, change, turn, alternation, and is used in English as a preposition meaning "in place of, instead of." This vice is properly pronounced in two syllables, not one: VY-suh (VUR-suh). — CHE

Hi Charlie - I heard you speaking on 850 KOA radio quite a while back, and your comments were excellent. I've been reading and referring to What in the Word ever since hearing that show. I recently looked to your book for clarification on the term "autograph" and found your comments helpful. However, I noticed the distiction that the word "autograph" can actually be anything handwritten was not addressed in your description. Am I correct in my thinking that I might receive an autograph letter from my aunt, even though she may not have signed it? Keep up the great work --Matt, CO

It's a rather fine point, Matt, but yes, you are correct. You may use autograph as an adjective meaning "written in the author's own handwriting." And if you wanted to indicate that your aunt wrote her letter by hand and signed it as well, you could say it's an autographed autograph letter. But, although the noun an autograph may also mean "something written in one's own handwriting," to avoid confusion it is probably best to use holograph for that sense and use autograph to mean "the signature of a person of some distinction." — CHE

Mr. Elster, I would like to know if "a lot" should be spelled as one word or two?

A lot is two words, never one. — CHE

Mr. Elster, you are truly Mr. Vocabulary! My AP English class went through all ten levels of Verbal Advantage this year, and it was fun to hear your voice every week. I can definitely say that your program enhanced my essays for the AP exam, and due to the myriad words now in my vocabulary, no longer do I sound redundant! -- Caitlin, IL

Thanks, Caitlin! Mr. Vocabulary sounds more dignified than what my wife and daughters call me: Wordman (which has a whiff of the troglodyte about it). By the way, if you're going to take the SAT again before applying to college, you might want to review Verbal Advantage beforehand to make sure your vocabulary is still up to snuff. I hope you did well on the AP exam. — CHE

Hey Charles! Alright I have two questions for you. First I would like to know if the word Pirate has related in any way to the word Irate? Second I would like to know who came up with the grading system (A,B,C,D,F), and why do we skip E?

Pirate and irate are unrelated except, only coincidentally, in their spelling. There seems to be a reliable answer to your question about letter grades at http://ask.yahoo.com/20060103.html.

The article confirmed my surmise that we don't use the letter E as a grade because it can too easily be confused with "excellent."

Oh, and by the way, just to be helpful, it's properly all right, two words, not alright. — CHE

I recently started listening to your Verbal Advantage audio course and find it vastly superior to other audio products I've tried. I really hope that you produce new volumes.

Thank you! I am considering writing another program. Stay tuned. — CHE

Increasingly these days I hear the word "invite" used as a noun, with the stress on the first syllable, to mean "invitation," analogously to how "quote" is often used instead of "quotation." How do you feel about these two shortcuts? Personally, I am comfortable with "quote" but not at all with "invite." - Joe Freeman (San Diego, California)

Great question. Let me ponder it and I'll post an answer soon. — CHE

Hey Mr. Elster. I would like to know if there is a word for 'a word derived from an animal'?

So, you want to know what to call words like "skunked," "sheepish," and "mousy," and expressions like "to rat on" and "to pig out"? I don't think there's an established word for that yet, but the best candidate for the job would have to be zoonym, pronounced ZOH-uh-nim, which combines "zo-," denoting an animal, and "-(o)nym," from the Greek "onoma," word, name. — CHE

If you're looking for the distinction between EFFECTIVE and EFFECTUAL that I promised to post, you'll find it at the bottom of this page of comments.
— CHE

Ever since computers have come into the mainstream I have been seeing statements like "It is important to backup your computer and store the backup in a safe place." This bugs me, and even carefully written user manuals seem to do it. I would much rather see "It is important to back up [two words] your computer and store the backup [one word] in a safe place." Can't people distinguish between a verb and a noun? Am I being too picky?

Pickiness is the language lover's prerogative. If you happen to be wrong in exercising your prerogative, you may be guilty of pickiness, but when you are right, as you are in this case, your pickiness is unimpeachable. The verb is open, "to back up," and the noun is closed, "a backup." The adjective, too, is closed: "a backup copy"; "a backup quarterback." — CHE

I enjoyed your website. I also went to SPELL and plan on becoming a member. I really enjoyed your Verbal Advantage book and audio course, it has literally changed my life. I hope you plan on writing and recording another one!

Thanks! I am working on a proposal for another vocabulary-building program, which I hope to publish both in print and audio editions. It will be like Verbal Advantage but with a different title. When I have more information to share I will post it prominently on this website, so please check back again soon. — CHE

I loved the books "Tooth and Nail" and "Test of Time." I love reading super complicated book. (Complicated for my age) and I was wondering if you were planning on writing another SAT books???? -Anne

I'm delighted that you enjoyed my SAT vocabulary-building novels. Thanks for the kind words. Since Tooth and Nail came out in 1994 there have been numerous imitators of my "novel approach," some of them even claiming to have originated it (you can imagine how annoying that is to this hardworking author). And a few years ago the Kaplan test-prep empire started publishing novels that are in the public domain (like Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights)with the literary words printed in boldface. So with all these other books now on the shelf competing with mine, it's doubtful that I'll have an opportunity to write another vocabulary-building novel for high-schoolers. — CHE

My sister is an author, illustrator, and publisher of books, and on the back cover of her latest book is the sentence: “This is a story about courage, determination and self acceptance.” I created and maintain her Web site, and, when I received an image of the book’s back cover for use on the Web site, I told her I was surprised to see “self acceptance" without a hyphen. I Googled this compound word and discovered that it is spelled both with and without a hyphen, but the unhyphenated version seems very awkward to me. Do you have an opinion about the proper spelling of this sort of word? — Joe Freeman

Self-acceptance is properly hyphenated, Google’s hyphenless citations notwithstanding. Printing it without a hyphen (either as self acceptance or selfacceptance) is an error. There are only a handful of words with self- that are compound: selfhood, selfsame, selfless, selfward, selfism. All the rest — in which self- combines with a stand-alone word — are hyphenated. — CHE

When I was young my grandfather used the term Cripes Mariah when he was upset. I never really understood what he meant. I have seen the term cripes in Warner Brothers cartoons. But, with no real explanation. I was hoping that you could tell me the origin and true meaning.

Cripes is a classic example of what, back in the day, they used to call "cheating the devil." This is a kind of euphemistic expression that employs creatively disguised variants on common execrations, such as dadblamed, dadgummed, and dingbusted for goddamned, dagnabit for goddammit, what in tarnation for what in damnation, and Jeepers creepers and jiminy Christmas for Jesus Christ. Cripes and criminy are euphemistic alterations of Christ. The Mariah part could be a euphemistic alteration of Mary or perhaps just your grandfather's own euphonious embellishment.

The unabridged second edition of the Random House Dictionary says that cripes first saw print about 1905. Chances are that in the spoken language it is considerably older than that. — CHE

Hi Charles. Many thanks for the audio course: "verbal advantage". It is certainly by far the best audio course on the market - nothing even comes close. I'm only half way through but I now realise what you mean when you say a whole new world opens up before you (not to mention you can perform better Google searches without the unnecessary salacious content). Perhaps when cloning becomes the social norm you'll have the time to produce a follow up audio course? What really fascinates me is that once I've learnt a new word it uncannily appears everywhere! Obviously, this says something about how the human mind ignores that which it does not comprehend. Anyway, I've got a tricky question for you. I'm a Brit. How do I find a way of pronouncing some of the more obscure words in UK English? As you're well aware, you Americans pronounce a lot of the words wrong (joking!). Apart from the option of hanging around with a bunch of bombastic, grandiloquent 'toffs' who have a proclivity for garrulous verbosity I'm at a complete loss of what to do. Would be much appreciated if you can come up with an alternative solution! Thanks again: The stylus really is more potent than the rapier, and of course easier to write with ....

Thanks for your kind words about Verbal Advantage. Your best bet is to consult the Oxford English Dictionary. If you can't get your hands on the big one, pick up a copy of the abridged version, called the Shorter Oxford. Some public libraries subscribe to the online edition and you can access it free with a library card. Also see my answer to the next question . . .

CHE, What would you recommend a moderate-purist Australian use as a pronunciation resource? We have the luxury, I believe, of selecting from either the American or English variation in certain instances. It is a unique situation in this country, where many British pronunciations seem to be preferred, whereas others are regarded as being most pretentious! The American Heritage Dictionary, as endorsed in VA, has been very helpful - especially the online version. Are you aware of an English equivalent? Regards, Malcolm Brunker.

The most thorough and up-to-date (though not always reliable in the American department) treatment of both British and American pronunciation is The Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English edited by Clive Upton et al. and published in hardcover in 2001, paperback in 2003. If you want a British-only source to complement the American Heritage (or Webster's New World or Random House), I'd suggest the Shorter Oxford or Concise Oxford. — CHE

further. farther. shall we call the whole thing off or can you specify their meanings?

No need to call the whole thing off; the distinction is rather simple. Farther is literal and refers to actual physical distances, while further is figurative and refers to every other kind of distance. Thus, you (physically) walk a little farther toward your destination, but you go another step further toward your (figurative) goal. Unfortunately, the Brits confuse things by using further for both physical and figurative distance. — CHE

Charles, Is there any way I can get the older episodes of "A Way With Words" that had you and Richard Lederer? I would love to listen to them.

KPBS owns the recordings of those shows, and they do not make copies for listeners. However, they produced three CDs of shows that Richard and I did, and there may be copies of those lying around that you could buy. I suggest that you contact KPBS (and please let me know what they say, if you can). — CHE

I have been reading Verbal Advantage for several weeks now, and it is incredible. In fact, I was reviewing Level 3 when I stopped to write you. I plan to take the GRE next summer, so I am writing all of the vocabulary words that you discuss on notecards. Your book has been extremely helpful. Thanks so much. :)

I'm delighted that you're finding Verbal Advantage helpful, and I'm confident that if you keep at it — and then review the program diligently right before taking the GRE next summer — you'll profit from your labors by doing well on the test. Good words and good luck to you! — CHE

Hi Charles. I'm wondering about the pronunciation of the word "Appalachian." I've lived in Southeastern Ohio since birth, and have always heard the pronunciation app-uh-LATCH-uhn. Your book lists many correct pronunciations, but says that app-uh-LAY-shun is wrong. I have been corrected many times now by my friends, who say that the latter (which you list as incorrect) is now the correct pronunciation, and that I need to "get with the times." I'm wondering: has the pronunciation of that word really changed so much since the publication of your book? (I have the first edition of both Is There A Cow in Moscow? and There Is No Zoo In Zoology.) Also (what has me asking this question now), Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source, but I'd really love to correct the page) claims that app-uh-LAY-shun is used everywhere outside of here, and is actually the correct pronunciation. However, the source that they list for their claim (American Heritage Dictionary: Fourth Edition) says the same thing that you say in Is There a Cow in Moscow?: AP-uh-LAY-chee-in. What's right, and what's wrong? -Isaac

I heartily commend you, Isaac, for not taking Wikipedia's word for it and consulting a more reliable source. If you upgrade to the second edition of my Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations (2005), you'll find the ammunition you need to refute Wikipedia's nonsensical claim. Putting an /sh/ sound in this name — though recorded by two dictionaries (NOT American Heritage) because it is now often heard — is neither the correct pronunciation nor the usual regional one; it's pseudo-French. Generally speaking, the third syllable will be /latch/ if you're from around those parts or points south, and it will be /lay/ if your speech is midland or northern. You may say the word in either four or five syllables, but with /ch/ as in "chin," never /sh/ as in "shin." — CHE

Hello Charlie. It irks me to no end when people not in favor of dieting like to say things like, "You know what happens when you take the 't' off of the word 'diet'? That's right, you get the word 'die'!" I've always wanted to be able to tell them how inaccurate they are—what is the origin of the word 'diet'?

It comes through South Beach and Scarsdale originally from the Mediterranean word for "olive oil." Just kidding. It comes through Middle English and Old French from the Latin diaeta, a way of living, especially one prescribed by a physician, a regimen, ultimately from the Greek diaita, a way of life. I hope that's helpful to you. — CHE

You've suggested reading as the most effective way to build a rich vocabulary, but there is a myriad of books, newsletters, and articles that do not meet any higher standard of linguistic precision. Now, my question is: How does one build on the prescriptive approach of using the language? What should you read? Who should you read? I have the impression that one's steps to improvement can be either beneficial or deleterious.

You can start by surrounding yourself with, and immersing yourself in, reputable guides to good usage and effective writing. A short list of some of the best would have to include Garner's Modern American Usage, The Careful Writer and other books by Theodore Bernstein, Edward D. Johnson's Handbook of Good English, Mark Davidson's Right, Wrong, and Risky, William and Mary Morris's Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, and, for historical interest and its author's legendary style, H. W. Fowler's classic Modern English Usage.

In your general reading, strive to read with a critical eye and rely on your intuition. If a writer's turn of phrase or style seems faulty or suspect, ask yourself why. Is the problem redundancy? Prolixity? Jargon? Poor diction? Also take to heart the advice of the great teacher, historian, and language lover Jacques Barzun, in his book Simple and Direct: "You must attend to words when you read, when you speak, when others speak. Words must become ever present in your waking life, an incessant concern, like color and design if the graphic arts matter to you, or pitch and rhythm if it is music, or speed and form if it is athletics."

For more advice on this, please read my article "Seven Steps to Word Power" (there's a link in the sidebar on the left). — CHE

I was watching the O'Reilly Show the other day and someone made this statement: "Her ratings have been falling very precipitously" Isn't this a solecism? A sounds-like syndrome?

I applaud you for doubting whether what you hear on that show meets any standard of linguistic or factual propriety. "Ratings falling precipitously" is not a solecism (a gross error of grammar or usage), and it's not a clear-cut example of the sounds-like syndrome (the substitution of a word, usually a more refined word, for another word that sounds like it, as in the pretentious use of "reticent" to mean "reluctant"), but it is a poor word choice.

"Precipitous" means very steep, like a precipice; it is used only of physical characteristics, not of intangible things like ratings. The speaker may have been confusing "precipitous" with "precipitate," a common error. But "precipitate" is not the right word here either, for it means abrupt, hasty, impetuous, rash. The speaker should have said the ratings were falling sharply or plummeting. That would have implied both a steep and a sudden drop. — CHE

I am in complete agreement with you as far as the artfulness and rightness of anglicizing wherever possible (I have an older copy of Beastly Mispronunciations). What do you do with the following words: ambergris, grosgrain?

For "ambergris," authorities are about evenly divided between AM-bur-grees and AM-bur-gris; I favor the -grees pronunciation for the idiosyncratic reason that it helps suggest what the word denotes. "Grosgrain" has resisted full anglicization — perhaps because of the related word "grogram" (GRAHG-rum), from the same French source — and for many years the only standard pronunciation has been GROH-grayn (like "grow grain"). — CHE

I have your book There's a Word for It, and I love it. I am writing an early chapter book for the elementary school age, and my protagonist collects words and uses approximately one fancy word per chapter. I found the word "tatterdemalion" in your book, which is close. But her little brother needs a haircut. Is there a fun word for "unkempt hair" or "in need of a haircut"? Thanks for your help. — Penny Holland

I'm glad you're enjoying my book. Now, let's see if I can help you with this . . . "Unkempt" is a useful word, but probably too general. "Disheveled" by derivation refers to loose and untidy hair, and you often hear it in the technically redundant phrase "disheveled hair," but it doesn't connote hair that is too long, so you might have to use it in conjunction with another word. "Tousled" (TOW-zuld, first syllable rhymes with HOW) is also often used of hair to mean disordered or unruly. "Draggletailed" is a delicious word for untidiness, but it's more appropriately used of clothing and its etymology, with its connection to sluts and slatterns, makes it somewhat unsavory for a children's book. "Ragamuffin" is another evocative old word, but like "tatterdemalion" it also refers to untidy or dirty clothing rather than hair — although you could write something like, "With that unruly mop of hair you look like a ragamuffin."

If you want something more technical you could riff on the word "trichology," the science of hair, and call him "trichologically challenged." You could also make humorous use of the word "hirsute," which usually refers to body hair or sometimes facial hair. The same goes for the lesser-known "pilose" (PY-lohs), with the corresponding noun "pilosity"; these refer to general hairiness, especially to being covered with soft, downy hair, but for fun they could be used of a hairy head. "Crinite" (rhymes with "finite") and "comose" are even more obscure technical terms for hairiness.

But the winner, for me at least, is the word "flocculent" (FLOK-yuh-lint), which comes from the Latin "floccus," a tuft of wool (it is also an English word). "Flocculent" means fluffy like wool or covered with loose woolly tufts; the noun "flocculence" could denote a profusion of woolly tufts. — CHE

I am sure you've been asked this tons of times before, but what's the right way to pronounce "oxymoron"? Is it stressed on the second syllable or the third?

The stress is on the third syllable, and the /y/ in the second syllable should sound like short /i/ in "sit": AHK-si-MOR-on. — CHE

Hi Mr. Elster, I once heard a whining politician on radio and I remember him say "Kangaroo Court". Although I know what it means, I am much curious how the phrase evolved? Is a kangaroo known for treachery, or could it possibly came from its character which is leaping from one place to the other? I'm just guessing! I hope you can help me find a more stable answer. Thanks! -Grace, Philippines

Unfortunately, the word hunters and phrase dicks are still guessing on this one too. In the QPB Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson presents a number of theories. Because kangaroos are indigenous to Australia, some experts believe the phrase must have come from there, but Hendrickson notes that "there are no quotations supporting the use of 'kangaroo court' in Australia at any time." The phrase may be an American invention, writes Hendrickson, either based on the British use of "kangaroo" for "anything unusual or eccentric," or, probably more likely, it was invented during the California gold rush "as a humorous term for courts that tried 'claim-jumpers,' miners who seized the mining claims of others." — CHE

Hi Charles. I was fascinated to hear the correct pronunciation of covert should not include an "oh" sound (traditionally speaking) and did not until the Watergate scandal. I wonder though - why should overt have the "oh" sound, and not "covert". Presumably these words have some common derivation? Regards, Dave Klein

These days the word "overt" is often pronounced with the accent on the second syllable; this is a re-Frenchified pronunciation, or what I would call a de-anglicization. Traditionally "overt" is stressed on the first syllable, the /o/, and because this /o/ is a vowel ending a stressed syllable, it has its long English sound. By contrast, the first, stressed syllable of "covert" is traditionally "closed," meaning it ends in a consonant, cov-, so it has the obscure /o/ of "cover." "Overt" and "covert" come to English from Anglo-French words that had similar spellings and pronunciations and that meant, respectively, to open and to cover. — CHE

Mr. Elster: In browsing Random House Webster's College Dictionary, I was surprised to find that the first listed pronunciation of eros is "EE-ros." This is consistent with other English words from Greek that begin with the letter eta, such as Eos (dawn goddess), Elis (site of the Olympic games), Hebe (wife of Hercules and cupbearer to the gods), hero and hedonism — to name but a few. And yet I have never heard anyone, even among learned Greek scholars, pronounce the word eros with a long E. Instead, I have consistently heard "ER-os." (Consider, in this connection, other such analogous pronunciations as echo, ethical, hegemony, and the prefix "hemi" — all of which are derived from Greek words beginning with eta. As a final note, the adjectival form of the word is, of course, not pronounced "ee-ROT-ic." Can you offer any guidance here? Thanks, Max Gabrielson

Addendum / clarification to my previous submission: "eros" in Greek begins with epsilon, a short e, which would seem to offer even greater support for a pronunciation "ER-os" rather than "EE-ros". M. Gabrielson

Thanks for the great question. "Eros" does indeed begin with (short-e) epsilon, and if you follow the classical method, as your Greek scholars surely do, the analogous pronunciation in English is ER-os (with the "o" in the second syllable short as in "cost" or "floss," not long as in "dose" or "most"). However, there is a long tradition in English of pronouncing Greek proper names according to the English method of pronouncing Latin. In this method, a vowel that ends an accented syllable has its long vowel sound. Thus, older dictionaries divided it /E-ros/ and gave the pronunciation EE-ros, and current dictionaries continue to honor this tradition and record the long /e/, though usually as EER-os, a more natural rendering. But at least since Webster 2 (1934), most authorities, cognizant of the modern favor given to the classical pronunciation of Greek, will also list ER-os. In fact, Random House Webster's is the only one of the six major current American dictionaries that gives priority to EE-ros, which other evidence suggests is now chiefly a British preference. So rest easy with your ER-os: you are correct in claiming it is now the dominant pronunciation, and, if it's any further consolation, it is my preference as well. — CHE

Is "Aluminium" the right spelling or is "Aluminum" (without the "i")?

It depends whether you're spelling in British English or American English. It's aluminium in the former and aluminum in the latter. The respective pronunciations follow the spelling: Brits say it in five syllables, Yanks in four. — CHE

A word that means "placing the United States at the center of one's world view" - Amerocentric. There's some evidence of precedence to this, so I am calling it legitimate, although it sort of does the rest of the nations in the Americas a little disservice, n'est pas? Sid Chitnis

Scroll down about halfway through the rest of these comments and you will find my answer to this question. (And yes, I agree that Amerocentric, perhaps better spelled Americentric, is problematic because it does not specify the United States and could be construed as pertaining to all of the Americas.) — CHE

HI Mr. Elster, I am Grace Pomantoc, a research officer of a neophyte outsourcing company in Manila, Philippines.Having confined in a 4 cornered office space 8 hours a day, 5 times a week, I can feel my soul creativity is screaming out of me. I wanted to write essay, poetry and short story. I am fond of words and expressions but i know my knowledge is limited. I know i just have to grab a pen and paper,I mean make a step but i don't want to just write. I wanted to come up with something substancial. Now, I got hold of your just published book, "What in the Word" and i fell in love with it. It is exactly what i need. Damn! It deserves a better section in the bookstore. What if i miss looking the lower portion of the bookshelf? But thanks anyway! now you have BIG FAN in a goofy island of the Pacific. "MORE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!!! " mwah!

Grace, I'm delighted that my book inspired you and I'm thrilled to have you as a fan. I also think it's great that you are interested in writing as an outlet for the creativity that you can't use in your job. Here's my advice: Becoming a competent writer begins with being an avid reader. Pick up a copy of my book Verbal Advantage and follow my five principles for effective reading (the discussion begins on page 58). A good writer also needs a large and precise vocabulary, and Verbal Advantage can help you with that; you may also be interested in my two vocabulary-building novels, Tooth and Nail and Test of Time. Finally, don't let your desire to write something substantial stand in the way of simply beginning to write. To write well you have to accept that there will be many false starts, many failures, and a hell of a lot of hard work. So start small. Keep a journal. Write to your friends and family. Write short poems and prose pieces. And above all, follow the Knickerbocker Rule: "Apply ass to chair." You must be diligent and patient if you want to succeed. Good words to you! — CHE

What is the deal with people now using apostrophes for any and all plurals? Have the rules changed since I was in first grade? I see this everywhere and it drives me INSANE! C Edlin

Goodness, no! The rules haven't changed. People have just gotten sloppier and brazenly promiscuous in their use of apostrophes, to the point where those of us who are more careful and prudent are going nuts. Recently I saw a menu for a local pizza parlor that wantonly, almost gleefully misused apostrophes, offering up "appetizer's," "soup & salad's," "pasta's," "lunch special's," and of course "award winning pizza's" (yes, they left out the hyphen in "award-winning"). There's a fellow in England who decided to turn his exasperation over this into action, and he formed the Apostrophe Protection Society. But I worry that there's little we can do to address this increasingly serious problem, which I fear is a sign of creeping illiteracy. — CHE

A friend of mine at work (English teacher) showed me a paper from a student where he (my friend) marked the phrase "point of view" as a hyphenated singleton: i.e. "point-of -view". I remarked that I'd never seen "point of view" hyphenated. I've checked the OED, a couple of Merriam Webster New Collegiates (2nd and 9th editions), a Random House Unabridged, etc., and I can't find a citation that hyphenates this phrase (word?). Any point of view on point of view (or point-of-view)? Thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, Steve Lerner

As you observed in the sources you checked, "point of view" is not hyphenated and should not be, with one possible and hard-to-imagine exception: if it happens to be used as a phrasal adjective — in other words, when the phrase is understood as modifying a following noun. Note how, in the preceding sentence, I used the phrase "hard to imagine" as an adjective modifying the noun "exception." That's a phrasal adjective. In all other contexts you would not hyphenate "hard to imagine," and the same is true of "point of view." — CHE

Charlie! I miss you on "A Way With Words" in San Diego. I was just listening to some of my recordings from those years and was again struck by how concise and intelligent your comments and answers were on that show with Richard Lederer. Ms. Barnett is good, but I really wish you had never left the show. You're the one I could always count on to agree with me! From banning "impact" (or taking a break from it) to proper use of all kinds of English bits, I could always count on you to be the Word Warrior. OK, a bit over the top. Anyway, I'm glad I found your site. I hope you are well. I've kicked myself several times for not calling to the show before you left to talk about (among many others) the word "kinder." When the first Bush admin. came up with "Kinder, gentler nation," I just shook my head and translated it: "More childish, more obedient nation," because "kinder" is not a word in English; it's a German word meaning "children." "Kinklier" is the word they were looking for, but that's too many syllables for politicians. Of course you see it everywhere, and never do you see "kindlier." Oh, well, thought I'd share that. Be well, Tim Brittain (Chula Vista) twbrit@cox.net

Yes, I wish you had called in about "kinder" before I left the show. It would have given me a chance to make a couple of cracks at the expense of Bush pere and fils — maybe something like "It would be kinder nice if those Bushes were more gentler on the English language," or "Sometimes you just want to send those Bush gentler-men back to kinder-garten." I miss me on the show too and there are times when I still can't believe how arrogant and narrowminded the people who run KPBS are, how they are so smugly satisfied with aspiring to mediocrity. If they had some decent competition in this town, it might be a different story. But life goes on. Since leaving "A Way with Words" I've been extremely busy. I've published three books, recorded all the pronunciations in Black's Law Dictionary, written a cover feature for Copy Editor, and written a bunch of columns for the Boston Globe. And on top of that I've just finished remodeling my house, an ordeal that took eight months, during which my family and I had to move into an apartment nearby. — CHE

Hi! This may be a silly question, but one that has been on my mind for a while. In elementary school, I was taught that you use an before vowels and a before consonants. Recently I have heard more and more people say an before words beginning with h, mainly in the following context: an historic event. Is this correct? James

That's not a silly question at all; in fact, it is one that many smart and observant people have asked me. Your elementary school teachers taught you right: if a word begins with a vowel or vowel sound, use "an" (an idea, an hour). If it begins with a consonant, use "a" (a friend, a story). The problem with words beginning with /h/ like "historic" is that the first syllable is unstressed and the /h/ seems to be suppressed, so the speaker is tempted to use "an"; this perhaps sounds more cultivated to those with tendencies toward Anglophilia. But in American English, the /h/ is pronounced in "historic," "hysterical," "hypnosis," etc. So you should say "a" when the /h/ is pronounced and "an" when the /h/ is silent: a historical, an honor. — CHE

Hello! I just bought your "Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations" and love it, but I have a question. You state that there is no -eye in alumnae (however in Latin -ae is pronounced -eye). When I looked up the word in the New Oxford American Dictionary, they had both -eye and the -ee pronunciation as correct. Perhaps I shouldn't base my pronunciation on a dead language.... Jami

A little Latin can be a dangerous thing. How do you pronounce "algae"? How about "vertebrae," "antennae," and "curriculum vitae"? I'm guessing that you (like so many speakers) say AL-jee, VUR-tuh-bray, an-TEN-eye, and curriculum VEE-ty. Not much consistency in that, is there? There's some English, some Latin, and some who knows what else. I am a strong advocate of using anglicized pronunciations for assimilated words, and the traditional anglicized pronunciation of Latin /-ae/ is -ee (as in "see"). As you note, the Latin /-eye/ is now in dictionaries, but that's only because so many speakers have de-anglicized the word, not because doing so was a good idea in the first place.
— CHE

Knowing I'm an English and grammar enthusiast, for Mother's Day my step-daughter bought the second edition of "The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations." What a FUN book! For your third edition, maybe you can add the word "literally"... is it "LIT-ruh-lee" or is it "LIT-ter-awl-lee"?

Thanks for your kind words, and for the suggestion. I will indeed add literally to the next edition. Your first pronunciation for it, LIT-ruh-lee, is acceptable but a bit British — they say LI-truh-lee. I've never heard your other pronunciation, LIT-ter-awl-lee; it's nonstandard. I do often hear this word mispronounced LIT-ur-lee. The cultivated American pronunciation has four syllables: LIT-ur-uh-lee.

Hi, Charles — I enjoyed your segment on WGN-AM radio in Chicago this morning. You had mentioned at one point that if you hear that a word's origin comes from an acronym that you should immediately not trust that explanation of the origin. So my question comes from my always having heard that the word "snafu." When I was 12, I read in my parents copy of "Mrs. Byrnes' Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Obscene Words" (the title has since been changed to "... and Preposterous Words") that the word "snafu" came fron an acronym that was born in the Army: "situation normal: all f***** up" So is this also a myth? or is this actually the derivation of "snafu?"

"Snafu" is an exception to my general rule. It is in fact army slang, as you say, and specifically World War II slang. The military is especially fond of acronyms, and military jargon is replete with them. So it's not surprising that the practice of using acronyms has spilled over into military slang. Another well-known army slang acronym is "fubar": f***** up beyond all recognition. — CHE

A friend of mine gave me There's a Word for It! which I read with much pleasure. I have a question for you, though. I've been asked to find a word that corresponds with Eurocentric but meaning placing the United States at the center of one's world view. I'm finding many hyphentated constructions like "America-centric" and "United States-centric," but they all seem rather awkward. This seems an important concept yet I can't find the right word for it. Do you have any suggestions?

You're not the first to ask me whether there's a word for this concept. Clearly we need one, but I'm afraid we haven't settled on an appropriate word yet. Some object to coinages that use "America" because that word already connotes a United States-oriented perspective. "United States" makes for a cumbersome combining form, and "-centric" doesn't blend easily with other elements either. So what do we do? Keep trying. I invite visitors to this site to submit their coinages for public evaluation. — CHE


Hi Mr. Elster, I MISS hearing you on 'A Way with Words'. I would like to know why the following word is not in your book 'The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations'. The word is ANYWAYS. To my knowledge, there is no 'S' following ANYWAY.My ears cringe when I hear it and my opinion of whoever has just said it changes. (Miss high and mighty me-lol) Can you please tell me what is going on with that word? I APPRECIATE, LOVE, and can't get enough of words and your book is my bible. Thank you for sharing it. Jo Ellen Adelman Museum of Making Music Carlsbad, California

Jo Ellen — I miss me on "A Way with Words" too. (Browsers of this site who know me from that show should be sure to read my Letter to Listeners — link in the sidebar on the left.) "Anyways" is not in my Big Book simply because it's a dialectal variant of "anyway"; in other words, it's a usage problem, not a beastly mispronunciation. — CHE

I heard you on Public Radio today and admire the work you are doing. I wonder why it is that we seem to have adopted an acceptance — even an admiration — for low quality? I, too, am very unhappy with the words and pronunciations that [Merriam-] Webster's accepts. Some of the street language would be more appropriate in a dictionary of either slang or of vulgar words, if they must be published. Apparently, the United States now rates rather low on the academics scale. We used to rank with the best. Since the purpose of language is express oneself, I think it is too bad to ignore the rules or make fun of of them. Often, when reading something now, it is necessary to guess at what a person means. It is beneficial to be clear in personal relationships and I, for one, want my doctors, attorneys, and business associates to be very clear about what they are saying. I am sure I sound very pompous to some people. I wish, instead, they would learn to be proud of speaking well. I am 70 years old and still have much to learn. I use my OLD Webster's dictionary frequently; I will now refer to your books. I hope they will become standard reference material in schools. As I write this, it has occurred to me to give one or more of your books as a present to a young friend who is studying to be a teacher and who, unfortunately, was caught up in the era of phonetic spelling. May your teaching spread as an epidemic (new Irish proverb). MR

Thanks, MR! Don't worry about sounding pompous. Just be yourself and keep insisting on precision and clarity. Cheers, CHE

Listening to Verbal Advantage has been a joy and I have enjoyed every moment, especially the parts on proper usage and abusage. Your writing is wonderful and your mastery of the language admirable. It may be asking too much to hope to emulate you, but I will certainly strive to imitate you! I hope that you will continue to publish more books and audio programs. May I make a request regarding your dictionary recommendations? Could you please consider extending your recommendations to computer-based dictionaries, as well as on books on correct usage? I would find it very useful, and I'm sure others will too. Many thanks! Noor-Allah nnoorani@rogers.com

Good suggestion. Now I just have to find the time!

Your book Verbal Advantage is very helpful to people seeking to exercise greater command of the language. My English class studies from Verbal Advantage; last year, we studied levels one through five, and this year we are learning the words from levels six through ten. We can all benefit from your erudite speech and help in avoiding banal verbiage. I find myself using stronger language in my essays and other writing.

Many thanks for your kind words. I'm so glad you've found Verbal Advantage helpful, and I'm delighted to hear that an English teacher has been using it in class. Please tell your teacher about my vocabulary-building novels TOOTH AND NAIL and TEST OF TIME. Cheers! — CHE

In addition to any other gifts he has, Charlie has a great voice for radio. I had the pleasure of interviewing him on the Aug. 15, 2005 segment on College Planning, for "Poor Richard's Shoebox" on VoiceAmerica.com. Besides focusing on just taxes and personal finance, we also added practical hints to help advance a child's chances for a spot in the college of their choice. My daughter used the first novel, Tooth and Nail, in her SAT prep class, and she's now doing well as a nursing student, so it must have helped. That novel is fun, and a mystery-tale as well, as it forces you to think continually about the context of the characters, and where they are physically in the story. Read it with a sketchpad, to keep track of the plot. 8-20-05 end message.

Thanks, Joe Dunphy. It was a pleasure to be on your show. Tooth and Nail (over 250,000 copies sold) now has a companion, Test of Time, that teaches even more SAT words, and ACT words as well. — CHE

A Way with Words isn't the same... where did you go?

KPBS tried to force me to sign a flawed contract and they refused to discuss or negotiate its terms, so I resigned. To learn more, please click on my letter to listeners in the sidebar on the left. — CHE

I hear so many people use "John and I" in the predicate that I am actually uncomfortable speaking the correct form in meetings. The people that I work with aren't stupid; they're college educated instructors in a trade school. At some point you just have to throw the moment on a scale and weigh the 'win' of proper usage against the double 'lose' of distracting your audience from your point by giving them something to reflexively and improperly correct, and having a room full of people who suddenly think you're stupid because you don't know the simple (incorrect) "John-and-I-no-matter-where-it-occurs-in-the-sentence" rule. The balance usually falls to the negative, which encourages me to word my way around the issue altogether. At what point does popular incorrect usage become the rule in language?

William Safire, language columnist for The New York Times Magazine, once answered that question by saying, "When enough of us are wrong, we're right." That's generally true, but it's too passive for me. I prefer to follow the poet and etymologist John Ciardi's advice: "In the long run the usage of those who do not think about the language will prevail," he wrote. "Usages I resist will become acceptable. . . . It will not do to resist uncompromisingly. Yet those who care have a duty to resist. Changes that occur against such resistance are tested changes. The language is better for them — and for the resistance."

Though "for you and I" and "between him and I" may seem universal, this construction has not been accepted by people who think and care about the language, and usage mavens still encourage us to resist it. And though other correct but unpopular forms may sound stilted, in this case saying it right sounds natural and unaffected in whatever company you keep. So try not to feel uncomfortable. Hold your head high and say it right, knowing that you have oodles of authority to back you up. Or think of it this way: Which would make you feel worse, being thought unrefined by unrefined people or cravenly mimicking their mistakes? Courage! — CHE

Here is the distinction between EFFECTIVE and EFFECTUAL, according to H. W. Fowler in his classic Modern English Usage: "Effectual applies to action apart from the agent, and means not falling short of the complete effect aimed at. [Note Fowler's proper use of a terminal preposition.] "Effective applies to the thing done or its doer as such, and means having a higher degree of effect." Though effective, ineffective, and ineffectual may all be used to describe a person, action, or thing, effectual is best used of actions or things, not people.