Lexical Vexations

Lee requested this classic lexical vexation, one that trips up the best of us from time to time. Thanks, Lee!

their adj. the possessive form of the pronoun they.

there 1. adv. a word used to designate a location that is at a distance, near or far, from the one using the word. 2. pronoun used to introduce the existence of something (ex. There is truth in what she says).

they’re a contraction of the words they and are .

Words in the Wild: They’re going to their cabin in the woods this weekend, and they’re hoping their nosy neighbours won’t be there.

This trio of homophones is just as vexing as the tricky its vs. it’s. You’ve probably noticed that we don’t need to constantly stop people in conversation to ask which of the above spellings they just spoke. That’s because the rest of their words give us all the clues we need to know which meaning was intended. So when we switch to the written word, it’s easy for a writer to choose the wrong one of these spellings. Even a seasoned grammarian who knows these spellings inside and out will mix these words up from time to time. And that’s okay…catching these sorts of oversights is exactly what proofreading is for, after all.

In writing as in speaking, we don’t really need the correct spelling of these words to make sense of what people have written. It’s only tradition and habit that require these different spellings at all. But now that we’ve grown used to the visual distinction between these words, it can confuse us when it’s gone. When a writer chooses the wrong spelling, it can, at least briefly, send readers down the garden path before they find their way to the intended meaning. Try to quickly read these incorrect uses of their, there, and they’re to see if you notice the extra work they require:

✗ It was their that I found the lost kitten.

✗ There’s is the brown sedan.

✗ There at odds with they’re upstairs neighbours these days.

It makes reading a lot easier on readers when we spell these words correctly (and we lose fewer points on grammar tests, too), so I hope this blog post helps your choose your theres, theirs, and they’res wisely.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

I don’t know how I’ve missed the grandaddy of  lexical vexations for so long, so thank you, Susan, for requesting this post.

its the possessive form of the pronoun it.

it’s a contraction of the words it and is or it and has.

Words in the Wild: It’s my intention to see to it that every one of those toys ends up back in its place.

This vexation is a classic case of mistaken identity, and if you’re prone to mixing these two words up, you’re in fine company. I’d wager that everyone who’s ever written in English has made this mistake at some point, if not often.

There are 3 facts that conspire to confuse us:

1. these words sound identical,
2. we seldom if ever need the apostophe to tell us which meaning is intended, and
3. current grammar rules suggest that both of these words ought to have the apostrophe.

Yes, both words cry out for an apostrophe, but only one gets to have it. English language rules say that you should add an apostrophe to make up for missing letters in a contraction. So by that logic it + is should equal it’s, right?

And the rule for creating possessives says that adding ’s to a word makes it possessive, and by that logic the object belonging to it should be it’s object, right?

But somewhere along the way it was decided that their weren’t enough apostrophes lying around for the both of them. One would have to do without. And the loser was…the possessive its. (Seems kind of odd that the possessive lost possession, doesn’t it?)

If  you’re checking your work or someone else’s, and you want to be sure you’ve got these right, try saying “it is” or “it has” every time you see either one of these words. If “it is” works, toss in that apostrophe; if it doesn’t work, leave it out.

Those of you in academia are in luck—since contractions are frowned upon in scholarly writing, you shouldn’t see any it’ses at all. Except—yes there’s always got to be an exception, right?—when you’re directly quoting someone who has written it’s.

Now that you’ve mastered these pesky words, I’m sure you want to know some more about the apostrophe’s spotted history. For an illuminating article on the apostrophe’s origins and its dubious helpfulness, head on over to Sesquiotica.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

role 1. n . a part one plays in a dramatic production or in relation to other people in a real-life situation.

roll 1. v. to move around a central axis. 2. n. a small bun served at dinner. 3. n. any number of other items that have been rolled up in their preparation (a roll of parchment, a spring roll, etc.). 4. n. a sound reminiscent of one that might be made by a rolling object (a drum roll, for instance).

Words in the Wild: Mr. French was pleased that he’d found a role in the Thanksgiving pageant for every last one of his students. Aisha played a drum roll as the curtains came up, Cairo and Kenta were the bread rolls, Lily played the part of the gravy boat, Eliana and Matthias were cabbage rolls, and Spot played the lead role of the turkey. The review that came out in the student paper the following week read “I laughed, I cried, I drooled.”

This lexical vexation is for Heidi, who wants to live in a world where roles are parts and parts can roll.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

flounder 1. v. to move about with difficulty, often losing one’s footing. 2. n. a fish.

founder 1. v. to sink or succumb. 2. n. one responsible for beginning a venture or organization.

Words in the Wild: The first sign the Lollipop was foundering was the flounder the founder of the International Candy Society found swimming about his ankles. He immediately floundered his way toward the life preservers only to find they’d been replaced with Life Savers®.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

wet 1. adj. soaked with or coverd by liquid. 2. v. to cause to be soaked with or covered by liquid.

whet v. to sharpen, both literally (as in to whet a knife) and figuratively (as in to whet one’s appetite).

Words in the Wild: Nancy’s curiosity was whetted when she saw the fluffy mogwai at the pet store. And though the clerk said she shouldn’t get it wet, she couldn’t wait to take it home and give it a good bath.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

defuse v. to disarm a bomb or, more metaphorically, a tense situation.

diffuse adj. spread or scattered over an area.

Words in the Wild: There wouldn’t have been a diffuse pink mist in the room if the secret agent had managed to defuse the bomb in time.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

allude v. to reference indirectly.

elude v. to escape or evade.

Words in the Wild: Whatever Prof. Dobson was alluding to in his mention of academic misconduct seemed to elude Sarah’s notice altogether—she continued to copy the contents of her arm onto her test paper, unabashed and unabated.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

systematic adj. following a devised plan in a methodological way.

systemic adj. relating to a complex but cohesive system. This was originally a term specific to the body (ex. systemic infection) but is now used to describe other complex systems as well (ex. systemic racism in governments).

Word in the Wild: The only way your company can address this systemic breakdown in communication between departments is by following my innovative and systematic approach to employee seating arrangements.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

Today’s post was requested by reader Elaine, who writes, “Please add ‘Then vs Than.’ Then refers to a time element; than is used in a comparative sense.”

As you can see Elaine has a lockdown on this tricky pair, but she’s picked a perfect lexical vexation. These words refer to pretty abstract ideas and are easily confused even by seasoned writers, especially when they’re pressed for time.

than conj. or prep. in comparison with.

then adv. at that time.

Word in the Wild: “I’ll show them,” Jamie said. “After I graduate from spelling-bee boot camp, I’ll be able to spell every word in the dictionary backwards and forwards. Then I’ll win the citywide spelling trophy and show that know-it-all Kerry I’m better than him.

Taming this tricky pair: With practice you can train your brain to send up a red flag whenever you see the word than or then in a document you’re editing. Whenever you spot one, ask yourself whether the phrase in question is really about time or if it’s a comparison.

Most people don’t have too much trouble remembering that the word then refers to time; once you’ve done that, you can deduce that than must be for comparisons. I’ve been trying to think of an easy mnemonic for this lexical vexation for a long time, but haven’t come up with anything yet. If you know of a trick for keeping these two words straight, I hope you’ll let us know about it in the comments!

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Lexical Vexations

ordinance n. a municipal regulation.

ordnance n. military supplies, esp. artillery

Word in the Wild: If you’re researching your next move and the city’s website keeps mentioning various municipal ordnances, you may want to consider moving somewhere a little safer. Perhaps a municipality with an ordinance against the use of heavy artillery?

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.