Recently in usage Category

Someone recently sent me an email asking about the proper use of who and that:

When followed by a verb, how does one know when to say "who" and when to say "that"? Ex: The lady that jumped on the couch or The lady who jumped on the couch?

I prefer to use who when referring to people, but that is merely a preference. My favorite online source for such usage questions, The American Heritage Book of English Usage, explains:

that instead of who

The man that wanted to talk to you just called back. Some people say that you can only use who and not that to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. But that has been used in this way for centuries. It is a quintessential English usage, going back to the Old English period, and has been used by our best writers. So it is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you.

You can read more about such pronoun issues in The American Heritage Book of English Usage at bartleby.com

I just got a very nice note from Andrew, who asked a good usage question:

Hi! I love reading your answers to the grammar questions. Recently, I got into a debate about 'lit' versus 'lighted'.

I lit a match.
I lighted a candle.

The room was lit by the flame.
The room was lighted by the flame.

Any advice?

Andrew, I do have some advice for you: Use whichever word you like. They're interchangeable both as past tense verbs and as past participles.

The only difference between the two words is that lit can be used to mean drunk, but lighted can't.

Extra Credit

Perhaps the most famous use of "lighted" in its adjectival form is in the title of Ernest Hemingway's short story A Clean Well-Lighted Place.

References

• The Columbia Guide to Standard American English
• The American Heritage Book of English Usage

Here is one of the many questions I've received recently:

I was reading a story in the paper and the writer wrote "He hanged himself." My coworkers and I thought it should be, "He hung himself." Are we all wrong or is the journalist?

Here is my answer:

I'm sorry to report that you are wrong, not the journalist. Pictures can be hung, but people are always hanged. It's an odd quirk of the English language. Here is a usage note on the word "hang" from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Hanged, as a past tense and a past participle of hang, is used in the sense of "to put to death by hanging," as in Frontier courts hanged many a prisoner after a summary trial. A majority of the Usage Panel objects to hung used in this sense. In all other senses of the word, hung is the preferred form as past tense and past participle, as in I hung my child's picture above my desk.

Someone recently wrote in with the following question:

I was recently reading a book that used the word "towards" many times. I have always said, "I went toward the lake." But, in this book the author wrote several sentences such as, "I went towards the lake." The author is a professor of liturature at John Hopkins. So, I'm wondering if I have always been incorrect. On the other hand, English is her second language. So, perhaps I am correct. Or, maybe there are times when it should be plural and others when it should be singular. Please advise.

The good news is that you are both correct. Because the word acts as a preposition, not a noun, adding the "s" doesn't make it plural. Frankly, I don't even know which form I use. It probably depends on the context, how it sounds with the words around it. However, the American Heritage Dictionary of English Usage claims that "toward" is used more often in American English, while "towards" is used more often in British English. So, if you are an American and the author is from outside of the U.S. and presumably learned a form of British English, that would explain why you and she use different forms of the word.

The difference between the American and British version of "toward(s)" follows a general pattern that I've noticed. It seems that when Americans and Brits spell words differently, or use slightly different words to express the same thing, the American version is shorter, leaner, with fewer letters than the more decorative British version:

American	British
color	colour
draft	draught
while	whilst
on	upon
dialog	dialogue
check	cheque
program	programme

Please note that this idea of mine is based only on casual observation, so I have no idea if it would hold up to closer scrutiny. Maybe someone will post a comment with either supporting or contrary evidence. That would be nice.

"The question concerns the appropriate use of the words historic and historical. When is one prefered over the other?"

This is a great question, for which the American Heritage Book of English Usage has an excellent answer:

Historic and historical have different usages though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the Moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house. Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel, historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, don't be surprised if you see these words used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times.

Question: When do I use "to" or "too"? Example: too difficult or to stay

Answer: The word too has two common meanings: (1) "also" or "besides" and (2) "excessively." Sometimes people use it informally to mean (3) "very."

The word to is used in all other cases—too many for me to describe in detail. Here are the definitions as listed in the American Heritage Dictionary:

prep.

1. a. In a direction toward so as to reach: went to the city. b. Towards: turned to me.
2. a. Reaching as far as: The ocean water was clear all the way to the bottom. b. To the extent or degree of: loved him to distraction. c. With the resultant condition of: nursed her back to health.
3. Toward a given state: helping minority women to economic equality.
4. In contact with; against: their faces pressed to the windows.
5. In front of: stood face to face.
6. Used to indicate appropriation or possession: looked for the top to the jar.
7. Concerning; regarding: waiting for an answer to my letter.
8. In a particular relationship with: The brook runs parallel to the road.
9. As an accompaniment or a complement of: danced to the tune.
10. Composing; constituting: two cups to a pint.
11. In accord with: job responsibilities suited to her abilities.
12. As compared with: a book superior to his others.
13. a. Before: The time is ten to five. b. Up till; until: worked from nine to five.
14. a. For the purpose of: went out to lunch. b. In honor of: a toast to the queen.
15. a. Used before a verb to indicate the infinitive: I'd like to go. b. Used alone when the infinitive is understood: Go if you want to.
16. a. Used to indicate the relationship of a verb with its complement: refer to a dictionary; refer me to a dictionary. b. Used with a reflexive pronoun to indicate exclusivity or separateness: had the plane to ourselves.

adv.

1. In one direction; toward a person or thing: owls with feathers wrong end to.
2. Into a shut or closed position: pushed the door to.
3. Into a state of consciousness: The patient came to.
4. Into a state of action or attentiveness: sat down for lunch and fell to.
5. (Nautical.) Into the wind.

I've received a number of questions about the proper use of shall and will. Unfortunately, this issue is so difficult and convoluted that crafting an answer would take more time than I have at the moment. I usually go with my intuition, realizing that since I live in the United States I'll get away with making a mistake every now and then, as Americans seem to be a lot more relaxed about this rule than the British are.

For those of you who are more concerned about this rule than I am, you may want to read the entries in the following two usage books:

• In the U.S. – The American Heritage Book of English Usage
• In the U.K. – H.W. Fowler's The King's English. Keep in mind, though, that this one is an oldie, published in 1908, so the rules may have changed a bit.

Kanika recently asked, "When do we use 'rather than' and when do we use 'instead of'?"

The short answer is that in most cases, the two phrases are interchangeable, although "rather than" often has a more formal tone than "instead of."

The American Heritage Book of English Usage offers a much lengthier answer:

The phrase rather than consists of an adverb and a conjunction and often means "and not," as in I decided to skip lunch rather than eat in the cafeteria again. It is grammatically similar to sooner than in that it is used with a "bare" infinitive—an infinitive minus to: I would stay here and eat flies sooner than go with them.

Rather than can also be used with nouns as a compound preposition meaning "instead of": I bought a mountain bike rather than a ten-speed. But some people object to this use, insisting that than should be used only as a conjunction. They therefore object to constructions in which rather than is followed by a gerund, as in Rather than buying a new car, I kept my old one.

In some cases, however, rather than can only be followed by a gerund and not by a bare infinitive. If the main verb of the sentence has a form that does not allow parallel treatment of the verb following rather than, you cannot use a bare infinitive, and you must use a gerund. This is often the case when the main verb is in a past tense or has a participle. Thus, you must say The results of the study, rather than ending (not end or ended) the controversy, only added to it. If the main verb was in the present tense (add), you could use the bare infinitive end.

Curiously, when the rather than construction follows the main verb, it can use other verb forms besides the bare infinitive. Thus you can say The results of the study added to the controversy rather than ended it.

The overriding concern in all of this should be to avoid faulty parallels, as in sentences like Rather than buy a new car, I have kept my old one and Rather than take a cab, she is going on foot.

Clearly, it is grammatically defensible to follow rather than with a gerund, but if you prefer to avoid the controversy, use instead of with gerunds.

Someone recently asked about the correct use of "lie" versus "lay."

The Confusion

A common mistake is for people to use "lay" instead of "lie." For example, they might say, "I'm feeling dizzy, so I should lay down." One might ask what exactly the person should lay down. Their arms, perhaps?

I know, that was a snobbish joke. Actually, I suspect that the mistake is so common that it will soon become acceptable use, if it hasn't done so already.

Lie

The definition of "lie" that pertains to the question is "to be at rest in a horizontal position." It's an intransitive verb, which means that it's not followed by an object. In other words, you can't lie something.

Lay

To lay means to set or place something down. It's a transitive verb. You can lay something—besides an egg.

Any questions about this one? Post a comment.

Sandy Mendenhall wrote in to ask about the proper use of farther and further: "What are the rules for further and farther? Everyone I ask doesn't seem to have an answer."

Apparently, the two words have been used interchangably by many writers since the Middle Ages. More recently, however, some people have tried to make a distinction between the two words.

The strictest rule would have writers use farther only for physical distance and further only for figurative, or metaphorical, distance.

A more "tolerant" rule allows for both farther and further to describe literal distance, but only further to describe figurative distance.

Sources

You can read more about the subtle distinctions between these two words in the following books, both of which are available online at bartleby.com:

• The Columbia Guide to Standard American Usage
• The American Heritage Book of English Usage

A friend asked if I could tell him what the difference is between capital (with an "a") and capitol (with an "o"). The basic rule is that capitol refers to a government building, while capital refers to everything else. Here are abridged definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

capitol

1. a building or complex of buildings in which a state legislature meets 2. (with a capital "c") the building in Washington, D.C., where the Congress of the United States meets [full definition]

capital

(noun) 1a. a town or city that is the official seat of government; b. a city that is the center of a specific activity or industry, e.g. the financial capital of the world. 2a. wealth in the form of money or property; b. material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth; c. human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy 3. an asset or advantage 4. a capital letter

(adjective) 1. first and foremost; principal 2. first-rate; excellent 3. relating to or being a seat of government. 4. involving death or calling for the death penalty, e.g. a capital offense 5. of or relating to financial assets [full definition]

(noun, in architecture) the top part of a pillar or column [full definition]

Someone just asked about the rule for bring versus take.

The general guideline is to use bring when something is being moved closer and to use take when something is being moved farther away. Sometimes, though, either word could be used just as well.

Source: Capital Community College's Guide to Grammar and Writing

A visitor to the site asked about when to use than or then. Here is the answer:

• Use then to show sequence, what happens next. Other meanings include "at that time" and "as a necessary consequence"
  Examples:
  - The whole family had a leisurely breakfast. We then went outside to enjoy the beautiful weather.
  - He was just a little child then.
  - If she is going to write another novel, then she should find another editor.
• Use than to compare things.
  Example: The dinosaur bones were older than anything I had ever seen before.

Mable Scott asks, What is the rule for using affect or effect?

Affect

Affect is typically used as a verb meaning "to influence."
Example: "The rain affected the skier's performance."

It can also mean "to put on a false show of; simulate."
Example: "Frank often affected a British accent because he thought it made him sound smart."

It is less commonly used as a noun to mean "feeling or emotion, especially as manifested by facial expression or body language." As a noun, affect is pronounced with stress on the first syllable rather than the second (also, with a short "a" sound rather than a schwa).
Example: "It was difficult to tell whether Harold's flattened affect was a result of his mental disease or the medication he took to treat it."

Effect

Effect is typically used as a noun meaning (1) "something that follows a cause," or (2) "an influence," or (3) "a distinctive impression."
Examples:

1. Politicians are arguing about what the effects of Social Security reform will be.
2. That movie had a profound effect on the way I think about Rwanda.
3. The blue tint gives the painting the effect of being cold and austere.

It can also be used as a verb meaning "to cause to come into being."
Example: "The sweeping reforms effected a dramatic change in the way citizens viewed their civil liberties."

The distinction between affect as a verb and effect as a verb can be quite subtle, so beware. Thanks to Mable for the great question.