usage

Their vs. There vs. They’re

by Heather on April 29, 2012

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.

Be the first to comment

Its vs. It’s

by Heather on January 21, 2012

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.

Be the first to comment

Role vs. Roll

by Heather on October 10, 2011

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.

Be the first to comment

Wet vs. Whet

by Heather on June 12, 2011

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.

Be the first to comment

Defuse vs. Diffuse

by Heather on May 16, 2011

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.

Be the first to comment

English Down Under

by Heather on May 4, 2011

The past couple of weeks I’ve been wandering around in Sydney, Australia, so it seems fitting to make today’s post a roundup of fun and informative links about the ways that English happens down here.

And now I’m off to the beach…but purely on a language fact-finding mission, I assure you.

Be the first to comment

Allude vs. Elude

by Heather on March 29, 2011

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.

Be the first to comment

Systematic vs. Systemic

by Heather on February 23, 2011

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.

Be the first to comment

The Dead Hand (of Something or Other)

by Heather on February 13, 2011

Twists & Turns of Phrase

When something is held by the dead hand of something else, it is being prevented from attaining its goals. For instance, social progress might be held back by the dead hand of the status quo.

By extension we also get the adjective dead-handed, which means oppressive and out-dated. For example, a teenager might rail against his parents’ dead-handed authority.

The phrase dead hand, which inevitably puts me in mind of zombies and rigor mortis, actually has medieval origins in French property law. Although church leaders were the ones in practical possession of lands and monies, they didn’t want this wealth reverting automatically to the state upon their death. So instead the institution of the church was defined as an individual under the law. Since it could never die, nothing need be forfeited to the state. Thus such property was said to be in the dead hand (or mortmain) of the church.

The concept of mortmain was taken up in medieval England and was used there in the same way. Since then, the dead hand has also applied to the holdings of charities and other corporations.

From this legal meaning, the phrase dead hand slowly came to mean anything that is an “oppressive or retarding influence.” (OED)

Bonus meaning!

Someone who is an expert at something can also be described as a dead hand: She was a dead hand at throwing darts.

Be the first to comment

← Previous Entries