The Grumpy Old Man's Guide to Better English

Here is a list of common errors, gaucherie and affectations that I have\r\nencountered in my many years of reviewing documents. They are offered for\r\nyour possible entertainment or education, and are presented in alphabetic\r\norder for your convenience.

Actual and Actually

We start with my pet hate. If I ruled the world, I would criminalize the\r\ngratuitous use of 'actual' and 'actually'. In practice, the chances of these\r\nwords serving a valid purpose in your sentence are about 5%. Or I should say\r\nthat actually the actual chances of such words actually serving a valid\r\npurpose in your actual sentence are actually about 5%.

Added Value

This is a technical term that is often loosely used when 'improvement'\r\nwould suffice. Similarly 'to give something added value' is no more\r\nimpressive than to simply add to it or extend it. If you are using this term\r\nyou are highly likely to be guilty of misuse.

Alternately / Alternatively

Contrary to what the MTV generation would have you think, in British\r\nEnglish 'alternate' is not a noun, nor (I hope) will it ever be in my\r\nlifetime. To alternate is to act in turns. Therefore, an alternate approach\r\nis one to be taken on every other occasion. Sadly, the desire to sound\r\nAmerican and to save speaking the extra syllable proves too much of a\r\ntemptation for many and illiteracy is their reward.

Apostrophes

I believe Apostrophes was the first Ancient Greek to philosophize on the\r\nevils of capitalism. Hence, the apostrophe was named after him. Sadly, he\r\nmust be turning over in his grave to see how many people he has confounded in\r\nthese modern times.

Capitals

There seems to be a common view that giving a word a capital letter will\r\nsomehow elevate its importance or give it an arcane meaning. Consequently,\r\none often encounters text that is riddled with words that carry a capital\r\nletter without apparent justification. Favourites for this treatment are\r\nwords like 'quality', 'customer', 'policy' and 'management', none of which\r\ncarry any greater importance when given capitals.

Certification / Accreditation

Most people refer to 'ISO 9001 accreditation' rather than 'certification',\r\nand most people are therefore incorrect. Accreditation is not a grander term\r\nfor certification; it means something completely different (i.e. LRQA are\r\naccredited to sanction ISO 9001 certification). To those that know the\r\ndifference, you are coming across as a black belt in the art of BS.

Complete / Completed

Something is complete if it is all there. An action is completed when\r\nthere is nothing left to be done. Therefore, you can complete an action but\r\nyou must say it is completed rather than complete.

Complex / Complicated

'Complex' is a mathematical term and should really be restricted to\r\nreferences to mathematical constructs or problems. It is correct to refer to\r\na computer programme's complexity but in most instances when you use\r\n'complex', you probably meant 'complicated'.

Continuous / Continual

For years the Quality Management Gurus and other pundits have been\r\nexhorting us to commit to continuous improvement. Then somebody pointed out\r\nthat 'continuous' implies an uninterrupted continuity and that wasn't really\r\nwhat they meant. So now they are asking for continual improvement. And yet\r\nthese are the same people who tell us that prevention is better than\r\ncure!

Corporate Identity

The received wisdom is that it is wrong to refer to a company in the\r\nplural. Consequently, 'Rentokil has a good pension scheme' is preferred to\r\n'Rentokil have a good pension scheme'. The reality is that both are perfectly\r\nacceptable in British English and it is only in American English that\r\n'Rentokil have...' would be incorrect. Therefore, the rule is quite simple:\r\nif the person challenging you is responsible for your appraisal, then they\r\nare invariably correct but if they are not responsible for your appraisal,\r\nthen you tell them to sod off! Besides which, Rentokil don't have a good\r\npension scheme any more.

Criterion

The reason why Doctor Who never had to face the menace of the Criterions\r\nis because the plural of 'criterion' is 'criteria'. More to the point,\r\nreferring to 'a criteria' is an ignorant howler.

Cross Reference

A cross reference is a reference that, for reasons beyond the ken of\r\nscience, has become very angry. A hyphen will cure the problem, however.

Dependent / Dependant

Your spell-checker will not help you with this spelling because both are\r\nvalid words. Unfortunately, most people seem to use 'dependant' when they\r\nmean 'dependent'. The former is a noun (e.g. those brats you spawned who\r\nwon't leave home are dependants) and the latter is an adjective. I am puzzled\r\nby the frequency of error here, since the law of averages would suggest that\r\npeople would get this right about 50% of the time, and yet they don't.\r\nPresumably this is due to poor pronunciation. We may only have the\r\nspell-checker to thank for not encountering 'dependunts'.

Devolve Responsibility

One can only devolve authority. This favoured term of senior management is\r\nused simply because they feel much more comfortable in offloading their\r\nresponsibilities than they do their authority. Fair enough, but that is not\r\nthe excuse to be an ignoramus. Life was so much simpler when managers used to\r\ndelegate rather than devolve.

Disinterested / Uninterested

Surely, you didn't expect me to leave this hoary old chestnut out did you?\r\nIf you are already bored with it, you will be uninterested in what I have to\r\nsay. However, if you never use these words anyway, then you will be\r\ndisinterested. It's a question of whether you want to know or need to\r\nknow.

Ellipsis

There are only three dots in an ellipsis. Extra dots are just\r\nshowboating.

Etc.

Since this always terminates a list, it is always preceded by a comma.\r\nAlso, indulge a grumpy old man and resist the lazy, modern trend of omitting\r\nthe full stop.

i.e. / e.g.

Are there still people out there who still don't know the difference?\r\nBased upon the evidence, there are many. Note also the use of the full\r\nstops.

Exclamation marks

An exclamation mark is an alternative (note, not an alternate) to using a\r\nfull stop. You would never use two full stops to end a sentence so why use\r\nmore than one exclamation mark? Who are you trying to impress? Have you never\r\nheard of hyperbole? Also, keep in mind that when using an exclamation mark to\r\nconvey your astonishment or contempt you also risk offending or patronising\r\nyour audience. And that just will not do!

Focussed

Not an evil word in itself but in the hands of the average manager it\r\nranks high in the list of top ten cliches. Every now and then, it would\r\ndo no harm to concentrate on something instead of focussing on it. And don't,\r\nin your anxiety to show your commitment, claim to be focussing on all\r\naspects. That just doesn't make sense.

Fulfil

Note the spelling. Fulfill is American English.

How annoying is that?

Very! I can't understand why, suddenly, nobody can express their viewpoint\r\nany more without putting it in the form of a rhetorical question. Another\r\ntransatlantic infection I'll wager.

However

There are consultants out there earning a great deal of money by telling\r\npeople that one should never use 'however' in a bid or sales document. The\r\nreason they give is that it is a word that qualifies the preceding text and\r\nso puts doubt and uncertainty in the reader's mind. This is a bad thing when\r\none wants to put across a clear and unambiguous message.

What a load of crap! The word 'however' has many meanings, most of\r\nwhich are quite innocuous. For example, it can be used to mean 'irrespective\r\nof how'. Tell me how that is supposed to be casting doubt in the reader's\r\nmind.

Imply / Infer

If I were to imply that you are stupid by confusing these two words, then\r\nyou are at liberty to infer that I was just pulling your leg. But you'd be\r\nwrong. I never joke about such vital issues.

Latter / Last mentioned

This is just one example of a class of errors in which the comparative\r\nadjectival is mistakenly substituted for the superlative adjectival. When\r\nreferring to an item in a list of two, one can refer to 'the latter'. If the\r\nlist contains more than two items, then the correct term is 'the last\r\nmentioned'. Some commentators claim this is a pedantic distinction. I claim\r\nthey are morons.

Left Intentionally Blank

Don't you mean 'Intentionally Left Blank'? This is an example of a\r\nmisplaced adverb.

Leverage

'Leverage', particularly when 'lever' is pronounced to rhyme with\r\n'leather', isn't ungrammatical or even catachrestic, it's simply gratuitous\r\nand obscene in equal measure. Avoid like the plague anyone who uses this word\r\nwho isn't describing how to build a see-saw.

Liaise

Unfortunately, some British English versions of Word's spell-checker have\r\nthis word incorrectly spelt. Consequently, its incorrect spelling is a very\r\ncommon error to be found in Word documents.

Methodology

A methodology is a set of methods, though it can also be used to refer to\r\nthe study of the methods used. Experts say it is pretentious to use\r\n'methodology' as a substitute for 'method', but I think they are being far\r\ntoo kind.

Non-Compliance / Non-Conformance

Both are acceptable terms even though neither is advisable in practice. As\r\nlong as you are consistent, you can lose as many certifications as you want\r\nwithout committing a grammatical gaffe. The only thing to look out for is\r\nthat you can be non-compliant with something but you have to be\r\nnon-conformant to it.

Obsolete / Obsolescent

Obsolescence is the process of becoming obsolete. Therefore, an\r\nobsolescent item is not yet obsolete. It is nonsense to refer to a technical\r\nstrategy for replacing obsolete items because such items are already, by\r\ndefinition, out of service. What you mean is the replacement of obsolescent\r\nitems, thereby rendering them obsolete.

Organigram

The next time you are tempted to use this word when you mean 'structure\r\nchart', ask yourself this question: are you really comfortable with the\r\ncontempt in which your readership will hold you? I mean to say, if you want\r\nto show off, you could at least use a word that doesn't appear to have been\r\ninvented by a two year old.

Oriented / Orientated

'Orientated' is the British variation and is not preferred. I can't\r\nbelieve I just said that.

Outwith

This is hardly a common mistake, but an interesting one nonetheless. There\r\nappears to be an aversion to using the word 'without' when meaning 'outside\r\nof'. Consequently, some people opt for the term 'outwith' in preference. The\r\none drawback with this idea is that there is no such word as 'outwith'. My\r\nadvice is to stick to using words that exist.

Phase and Stage

When describing lifecycles, these two words are often treated as synonyms.\r\nStrictly speaking, this is not the case. The stages are the milestones that\r\ndelimit the phases. Think of a stage as a platform and a phase as something\r\nyou go through and you may start to see my point. You may also start to gain\r\nan insight into the anguished existence of the grumpy old man.

Pleonasms

These are implicitly tautological expressions, i.e. when expanded they\r\nreveal a repetition of meaning. For example, 'comprising of' is a pleonasm\r\nsince it translates as 'consisting of of'. Similarly, 'revert back'\r\ntranslates as 'change back back'.

Pleonasms are very common; much more so than you might think. They have\r\nbecome so deeply ingrained within the patois of the hoi polloi that they\r\noften go unnoticed. Take, for example, the use of the phrase 'the hoi\r\npolloi'. Since hoi polio is Greek for 'the masses' it follows that the phrase\r\n'the hoi polloi' translates into 'the the masses'. How gauche!

Once one becomes sensitised to pleonasms one starts to see them\r\neverywhere, as in saying 'Mount Fujiyama' (this is tautological because\r\n'Yama' is the Japanese for 'Mount'). Will the gaucherie never end?

Practical / Practicable

'Practical' is easier to say and write and so it is used in preference to\r\n'practicable'. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean the same thing. If you want to\r\nsay that something can be done without too much effort, then you use\r\n'practicable' (e.g. a practicable solution). If you are appertaining to\r\npractice, as opposed to theory, then you use practical (e.g. a practical\r\napplication).

Prescribe / Proscribe

Procedures include instructions on what to do and, therefore, they are\r\noften said to prescribe. However, they also often include statements that\r\nprohibit particular actions, in which case they also proscribe. This nicety\r\nis usually overlooked.

Predicative clauses

When using a predicative clause, please remember the comma.

Preventive / Preventative

Believe it or not, I just don't care. I just wonder why there is no such\r\nword as 'correctative'.

Principle / Principal

These two words are often confused. One can speak of a principle of\r\noperation or the principal method of operation. If you get these mixed up,\r\nyou are probably hanging out with the wrong sort.

Proactive

My shampoo is proactive, I prefer my managers just to act.

Programme / Program

There was once a time when 'program' was reserved specifically to refer to\r\na computer program and all other usages still required the British English\r\nspelling 'programme'. I should have known that a word that required two extra\r\nkey strokes never stood a chance!

Quality

'Quality' is not an adjective and so it is wrong to refer to 'a quality\r\nservice'. Do you mean high quality or low quality? Let the reader out of\r\nhis/her suspense.

Shall / will

Yes, Cinderella, you will go to the ball. If, on the other hand, the poor\r\ngirl has no choice, then she shall go. 'Will' predicts the future but 'shall'\r\nprescribes it.

Situation

This word seems to attract more than its fair share of gerunds. Why, for\r\nexample, is it better to have a putting things right situation, rather than\r\njust to put things right? Have you no shame?

Subcontractor

It isn't necessary to hyphenate this word but I don't suppose there is any\r\nharm if you do. Whatever you decide, you must be consistent. And don't opt\r\nfor 'sub contractor', since this is a contractor that works on\r\nsubmarines.

Synergy

Perhaps the most abused word in the managerial lexicon. 'Synergy' has a\r\nvery precise technical meaning. It should never be used when 'overlap',\r\n'commonality' or 'mutual benefit' would do. 'Synergy' applies to a system\r\nthat is more than the sum of its parts. Usually, people who use this term are\r\nless than the sum of theirs.

Upcoming

Whatever happened to 'forthcoming'? When I use 'forthcoming' nowadays\r\npeople react as though I am quoting from Shakespeare. I blame television.

Verify / Validate

The world seems replete with Quality Management Gurus and other pundits\r\nwho are paid princely sums to pounce upon me every time I try and use these\r\nwords as they are defined in the dictionary, rather than as defined by\r\nQuality Management Gurus and other pundits. For the benefit of the countless\r\nhoards of experts out there:

a) 'Validate' means 'confirm the soundness of'. Since 'verify' is\r\nsynonymous with 'confirm', it follows that an act of verification is serving\r\nto validate.

b) Confirmation (i.e. verification) that a process is sound, by comparing\r\nits outputs with its inputs is, by the definition of the term, a means of\r\nvalidating the process.

Therefore, the distinction between 'verify' and 'validate', as offered by\r\nthe experts, (i.e. that the former refers to producing a product right whilst\r\nthe latter refers to producing the right product) sounds good only to those\r\nwho haven't consulted a dictionary. Validation is a type of verification used\r\nto confirm soundness and, as such is a term that can be applied equally well\r\nto both the product and the processes by which it is produced; by the same\r\ntoken, so can the term 'verification'.

It is also worth noting that an alternative definition of 'validate' is\r\n'to declare as valid'. And yet this perfectly germane definition seems to\r\nhave been quietly overlooked by the QA cognoscenti.

Unfortunately, once such a gaffe has become institutionalised, it is\r\nvirtually impossible to remedy it. But perhaps there is still hope. See, for\r\nexample, my commentary on Continuous / Continual.

Win-Win

No-no