Posts Tagged ‘ words ’

Eight Words You’ve Probably Mixed Up (That Aren’t the Usual Ones)

It’s been kind of a heavy week, so how about a little lighthearted fun with words to finish us off?

These are all pairs of words that are not quite homophones. Maybe we could call them queeraphones? Very easy to mix up, at any rate, but you can potentially end up saying some very funny things if you use the wrong one.

I’ve tried to stick with ones that I haven’t seen on other writing-related websites. I assume most of you already know how to use those properly — if you’re still missing up “affect” and “effect” you need to switch to an easier blog than mine. These are the fun ones!

Ravish vs. Ravage

Barbarian hordes are fond of doing both of these! However, one happens specifically to people, while the other happens to your whole town, city, or farm in general:

  • Ravish: To take by force (often used sexually)
  • Ravage: To affect destructively; to wreak chaos on.

Therefore they might ravish your womenfolk, but ravage your farms. Hilariously, they can do both to your cattle, depending on whether they carry them off or just leave them all horrifically slaughtered with their inside bits on the outside. But hey, you were gonna do it to the cow anyway, so don’t get all huffy about it.

Eminent vs. Imminent

The only person who should ever be referred to as “Your Imminence” is an unsatisfactory bed partner:

  • Eminent: Prominent or noteworthy; standing out so as to be readily perceived
  • Imminent: About to take place; soon

Could a newly-minted celebrity still in the early stages of adulation be described as imminently eminent? Why yes. Yes he/she could.

Regime vs. Regimen

Regimes are often fond of strict regimens for their citizens! However, they are not the same thing:

  • Regime: a government in power
  • Regimen: a systematic plan or course of regular action

So you shouldn’t talk about your “dieting regime,” unless you are a right-wing commentator complaining about Michelle Obama, who is taking away your pizza for socialist purposes. Then it’s okay. (Grammatically okay. Socially/politically/intellectually you’re still an idiot.)

Discrete vs. Discreet

It is technically possible for you to be both of these at once, but for the most part you don’t refer to other people as being discrete no matter how true it is:

  • Discreet: Unobtrusive; being possessed of good judgment in speech and conduct
  • Discrete: Comprised of separate parts; having a finite or countably infinite number of values

Your maid can be very discreet, but until you murder her and chop the body up to protect your secrets she will probably never be described as discrete. Now what did you go and do that for? We already said she was discreet.

I suppose that last one was a homonym, now that I think about it, but it is not one that makes the usual lists (affect vs. effect, they’re vs. their vs. there, etc.), so I will let it stand. Eminently! But not imminently. We’re past that now.

Got your own to share? Leave a comment! I will try and think up funny things to say with your queeronyms. Or whatever they are.

And I will see the rest of you Monday.

Random Writings: Obsolete Words

Look, a new category — sometimes posts just aren’t about anything but the post.

Today’s, for example, was sparked entirely by my running across a reasonably graphic love scene that used the word “tumescence” in complete seriousness.  The rest of it wasn’t even a badly-written scene by the admittedly broad standards of steamy romance.  But I stopped dead, feeling very Inigo Montoya:  “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Or rather, the author clearly knows what it means, but haven’t said it out loud recently.  A “tumescence” is just a swelling, something that is tumescent; so by the dictionary — sure.  That’s a cock, fair enough, particularly in the state it needs to be in for us to believe the rest of the enthusiastic prose.  Some dictionaries even specify that one usage is specific to sex organs.

But can we talk obsolescence?  People were putting “tumescence” in dirty novels back when there were some doctors who maybe knew what tumors were, and paid good money for corpses with visible ones so they could cut ‘em up and see if they were demons, but “tumor” was not a household word.  No one heard “tumescence” and thought “something that killed grandpa.”  It was still an okay thing to stick in your orifices.

I would argue that it is no longer so.  This is not an obsolete word, so perhaps the title of the post is misleading, but it is surely one that has lost some of its versatility.  It’s not sexy any more, through no fault of its own.

So this is a post that invites comment — what other words are still out there, but can’t do what they used to for people?  Whyfor?  Let me know your thoughts!

Writing Life: When to Choose the Wrong Word

What’s the difference between a washcloth, a dishcloth, and a dishtowel?

That isn’t the start of a clever riddle; it’s something that I’m occasionally called upon to know in the course of my job.  Today was one of those occasions, and it got me to thinking — I can’t remember any specifics, but I know from time to time I’ll see an author using a noun that’s not quite what they were looking for.  Not entirely wrong, just not quite the best choice.  Like saying “dishcloth” when you meant “dishtowel.”

Like most things, there’s two ways you can play this.  The first is just to get your usage right — in the age of Wikipedia, there’s no excuse for using anything but the best noun, even when you’re talking about very esoteric subjects.  Know your targes from your bucklers, or whatever (an example I grabbed because I feel like fantasy authors are often prime offenders).

The other option is to choose your mistakes carefully, and this has more to do with narrative voice than anything else.  In the third person omniscient, there’s not a lot of excuse for getting things wrong.  You are the authorial authority, as it were, and unless you’re deliberately trying to skew your own reliability you want to be as factually correct as possible.  A limited narration, however — first person or third — could very well rely on the point of view of someone who doesn’t know the difference between a dishtowel and a dishcloth.  That could be a minor characterization note — or it could lead to the misfiling of evidence in a murder mystery.  It all depends on the context you use the misuse in.

I’ll put an example up here if I stumble across one — it’s one of those things that I know I’ve noticed while reading, and can’t think where.  Drop me a comment if you’ve used word choice like this yourself, or if you can think of a passage that exemplifies it!

Writing Life: How to Expose Yourself

I’m not going to lie, I’m hoping that title brings in some interesting traffic.  But I am, of course, talking about exposing yourself to different sources of English usage, as advertised in Wednesday’s Writing Life post (and canny readers of this Blogging Basics post have already figured out why I chose those two words to highlight for my link — always lots to learn here, kids!).

As discussed on Wednesday, your brain relies on what you put into it and what it can retain of that to create your basic understanding of the English language, which is never clearer than in your writing.  It’s certainly possible to write slowly and carefully in a deliberately-affected style, but the prose that comes out when you really get on a roll and start banging words out without thinking about them is the construction of your memory and your understanding of How Words Go Together.  We talked Wednesday about the memory side of things; today we’re taking a look at the sources of English usage you’re putting in there in the first place.

This is, incidentally, where the “writers should read lots” advice that makes it into every “How To Be A Writer” bullet-point list comes from, whether it’s properly articulated there or not.  You’re not just building vocabulary and literary references to sprinkle your works with; you’re training your brain to understand every possible way words can come together for specific effects.  But I generally find that writers tend to be good at reading already — it’s an odd career to embark on if you don’t have a preexisting fondness for the written word.  So my advice there is simply to mix your reading up — try genres and authors you’ve never considered before, even if it’s not the kind of work you personally plan on producing — and I’ll leave it at that, moving on to some less-considered sources of English you may want to be seeking out:

  • PoetrySince poetry is, fundamentally, the art of word choice, it’s an excellent example of English usage for your brain to chew on.  I wouldn’t call myself an expert on the subject, but I try to expose myself to some kind of poetry or other regularly — at the very least, I get two a week from The New Yorker. And I should probably be reading more.
  • TheaterSome of the best speeches in the English language were written for the stage.  More importantly, theater is almost entirely dialogue, making it one of the best examples out there of what does and doesn’t work in writing conversations that people want to read.
  • JournalismThe word limits and formatting restrictions of newspaper journalism make for some interesting prose sometimes, and the overall approach is very different from most prose fiction (although there have been some notable exceptions, most famously Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas).  Being aware of what’s going on in the world never hurts, either — if you don’t mind people thinking that you’re old and boring, I find that the Wall Street Journal has the best writing, but there’s something to be said for just reading the local paper as well.
  • Feature ArticlesTheoretically a subset of journalism, the kinds of feature articles you see on the front pages of special-interest magazines are really a different sort of writing from news reporting.  With a few exceptions, these articles tend to be broad glosses on a general subject, and it’s worth seeing how people cram big ideas down into small, easily-digested paragraphs for a casual audience.
  • BlogsAnd, of course, the internet has generated entirely new forms of writing, including these humble blogs.  Some are good, some are bad, and most are somewhere in between, but they’re all examples of how people in this day and age use their words.  If nothing else, it’s an opportunity to know your audience.

Got another source for written (or spoken) words that you think belongs here?  Drop me a comment, and tell me why it works for you!

Devil’s Details: Word Choice

Devil’s Details – Overlooked skills that every writer needs to have.

Last time I did one of these I talked about pacing — the skill of moving the actual prose at the speed you want, not just the plot and organization.  Today we’re looking at another under-appreciated skill, one that many writers seem to assume is handled at an unthinking or instinctive level:  using the right word for the right job.

Rhetoric Matters

If you’ve ever seen a politician or a celebrity castigated on the evening news for a careless slip of the tongue, you already know what a poorly-chosen word can do to you.  Well-chosen words, in the proper order, will be remembered for years — look to Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” the character King Henry’s “band of brothers” speech from Shakespeare’s Henry V, or Pericles’s “Funeral Oration” for a few examples of the art at its finest.  Speeches make for particularly good examples because they stand on the merits of their rhetoric alone; there are no narrative considerations to secure their reputation as there are for novels and short stories.

Because their finished products tend to involve less total words than prose writers’, advertisers and speech-writers are particularly sensitive to the effect of each word on the whole.  This does not mean that writers of longer fiction get a write-off, however; pounding out words to get the plot on the paper only works for the first draft.  Even then, I find myself better served by a slower words-per-day rate that takes the wording of the story into greater consideration; the result is almost always less large sections discarded entirely during the editing process.  Choosing the right words as you go along will not only make the ideas you want to express clearer, it will make your authority as the writer (and therefore the dissemination of those ideas) much more secure:  yours will be the prose of someone who knows what he’s talking about.

Where to Care

Not every word on the page is going to be placed there as carefully as a stone in a Zen arrangement, but it’d sure be nice if your reader felt like it was.  Unless you have the instinctive rhetorical skills of another William Jennings Bryant, get used to picking your battles — focusing on word choice where it matters most, both during the initial writing and in the course of your editing.  You will certainly want to exercise the most care in any sections that present particularly crucial themes, or that impact the book in any other major way; at those points (and as much as you can everywhere else), pay attention to the roles your selection of vocabulary will need to play:

Dialogue is a crucial place to care about word choice, precisely because no one except practiced orators thinks about it as they speak.  Unless all your characters talk like you (they shouldn’t), you are going to have to make a conscious effort to pick words that fit their unthinking patterns rather than yours.  Most people use a tiny fraction of their working vocabulary for the vast majority of their conversations, so unless you’re trying to write a Mr. Smartypants, be sure to lay on the heavy repetition in dialogue — a man who calls his shoes “stanky” one day isn’t likely to suddenly switch to “overripe” the next, unless there’s a compelling reason (presence of a lady, perhaps).

Limited-perspective narration requires the same basic attention to consistency in word choice that dialogue does:  you are describing the internal workings of one individual, and he or she presumably perceives the world in basically the same way from one day to the next.  If you use lots of simple, common words, do it constantly and with plenty of repetition.  If the character is a complicated thinker, bring in more abstract words and philosophical terms — there’s nothing wrong with showing off your vocabulary, but don’t do it unless it illustrates something besides how smart you are.

Omniscient narration is your voice, so you’re no longer worrying about consistency as an issue that might break someone’s suspension of disbelief or interest in your characters (though you still don’t want to jump around the place too much).  What you should be focusing on in passages where the narrator speaks abstractly is the exact theme of that particular section — what do you want the reader to take away from this moment in the text?  Is it demonstrative of a key theme in the work as a whole?  (If it’s not, consider shutting your narrative voice up and just letting the characters do their thing.)  Pick words that are powerfully associated with the idea or ideas you want to communicate.

How to Start Thinking about Words

Most of us are like casual conversationalists:  we’re not in the habit of using our full vocabulary.  When we want to communicate an idea, we usually reach for the same words that have served us well before.  If you’re trying to write about something with real meaning, that’s a stumbling block you need to get over — you have to turn on the part of your brain that deals with hidden meanings and multiple definitions.

Wordplay comes up a lot in this blog, and it’s going to once more here.  Puns and other cheap word gags are funny because they take advantage of similar sounds or multiple meanings, and that’s exactly what you need to make your key passages memorable.  Don’t settle for any old word when you can use one that communicates your literal meaning and means something associated in a different context.  Shakespeare was an inveterate punner, and he didn’t just use them for the dick jokes — the famous opening of Richard III, “Now is the winter of our discontent/made glorious summer by this son of York,” riffs on the son/sun homonym to conjure the image of welcome change, imbue the newly-crowned King Edward with  solar majesty, and showcase the speaker’s own wit.  And people who’ve never even seen the play still quote the line to this day.

Word games in the more conventional sense, crosswords and so forth, will also help get you in the habit of trying to find multiple words that can fit the same definition (and multiple definitions that fit the same word).  Written versions of Exquisite Corpse, the surrealist party game, will also put the same part of the brain to work trying to come up with a logical antecedent to the very few words visible below the fold.

Poetry is in many ways the art of putting well-chosen words in the proper order, and reading a few favorites just before sitting down to write can have your mind in the right mood.  Try for authors who demonstrate a broad vocabulary, whether or not the other mechanics of their poetry are to your liking — Alexander Pope and Edgar Allen Poe have served me well as inspireërs of creative word choice.  Nonsense poems like The Jabberwocky take a different approach to word-choice by making up the best sound for a particular use rather than seeking the best meaning, and you may find value in their influence as well.  Our brains do make associations based on sound, and an otherwise-unrelated word can easily be tied to another concept by the use of a word that looks very much like it on the page.

And, of course, reading other author’s work with a conscious eye to the vocabulary they choose will serve you well — consider experts of the well-placed word like William Faulkner, Virginia Woolfe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and of course William Shakespeare.  Got any authors that you think always pick the right word for the right idea?  Drop a comment and let us know!

Writing Life: Words People Use Wrong

A short, late post on a busy, confusing day.  We’ve all been there!  But it occurs to me that, despite the wealth of books and articles out there that will tell you when to use “effect” and when to use “affect” (just for example), I’m still constantly tripping over slightly-inappropriate word choices that have made it into print.  I don’t have a system for fixing the errors, or even remembering all of them, but off the top of my head, here are some of the more typical offenders:

plethora – This always seems to show up as a polysyllabic replacement for “lots,” which runs into two problems.  First, the word has negative connotations — it contains an inherent implication of too much of whatever it refers to.  It also refers to variety as well as number; someone can only sit at the bar and make himself sick by swilling down a plethora of beers unless he’s switching brands.

dilemma – Much stricter in meaning than many people take it to be, “dilemma” refers specifically to a choice between multiple and undesirable possibilities.  Where to go for lunch is not a dilemma unless all your options are terrible.

peruse – I don’t know how the misuse got started, but I see this in a lot of (usually paperback) fiction to imply a short glancing-over of anything.  Quite to the contrary, “peruse” means to study in depth, and applies specifically to writing.  You can peruse a book, but not quickly, and you can never peruse the scene of the crime (except in a Jasper Fforde novel).

pristine – Why do all the ones that come to my mind start with “P”?  Whatever the reason, “pristine” doesn’t mean clean — it means untouched or unaltered.  The misuse is common enough that it might be excusable in a character’s dialogue, but it should never show up in the narrative voice unless the scene or object described is truly untouched.  A fresh snowfall can be pristine, but a well-scrubbed bathroom never can be.

hone – On its own, usually fine.  Just remember that you home in on things, not hone.  “Honing in” doesn’t mean much of anything, outside of some very odd usages:  “He honed the knife into a brittle sliver,” perhaps.

literally – This is a freebie, and I imagine most people already know to be careful of it, but still.  It means exactly what we were taught…the literal interpretation, the exact meaning.  Use “almost” or “figuratively” with your hyperbole, because you can’t have literally worn your fingers away working.  Or you could, but at that point you can probably get OSHA on the case.

eponymous – I misused this one for some time until it was pointed out to me.  The adjective literally means “named after itself,” meaning that it has to apply immediately and directly to the source of the name, not the object taking the name.  You can talk about Oasis’s eponymous first album, but you can’t say “Eddy strode to the front of his eponymous tavern.”

I’m reasonably sure there were more of these that I was going to take a swing at, but damn if I can remember them just now…oh well, I’m sure there’s other lists running around out there.  It’s the internet; there’s lists of everything.

Writing Life: Words I Apparently Made Up

Did you know that the spellcheck on Microsoft Word highlights “spellcheck” as not-a-word?  Tip of the iceberg.  I keep double-checking my spelling on all kinds of red-underlined words as I type, and half the time it turns out that not only is the word processor’s limited dictionary unfamiliar with what I’ve used, it’s not in the Oxford online dictionary either (though I do occasionally get told “that word is only available in our larger, paid-subscription version” or words to that effect, which I guess is something).  Below are just a few samples of things that I felt perfectly comfortable with, but apparently aren’t words…

“thuswise” — An admittedly affected word, I’m including this on the list anyway, since I used it in narration and not just in some character or other’s colorful dialogue.

“bandshell” — You know, like a stage, but with a thingie around it?  People play gigs in them at fairs and festivals and stuff?  I dunno, I really thought this one was kosher.

“masterless” — Webster’s Online at least is willing to say that this one exists in the larger, subscription-only dictionary.  But I find it odd that the more limited dictionaries don’t have it; it seems pretty basic.

“mothertongue” — I tried putting a space in there, but it’s a single concept.  One word suits it better; I don’t care what the dictionaries think.

“freakshow” — Another one that spell checks and dictionaries just seem to need a space in.  And, like “mothertongue,” another one that I’m uncomfortable separating when it’s the concept I want to get across.

“multitool” — There’s one on my belt, for crying out loud.

“edenic” — Webster’s has it as a sub-item under “Eden,” but Word has no clue.

“spasming” — I actually can’t believe this isn’t a word already.  I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory.  But not only does Microsoft Word not like it, it’s not even in Webster’s Online, as a variation under “spasm” or on its own…

“refastenable” — It’s amazing what a difference sticking a prefix or suffix on will make.  Webster’s doesn’t know it either, so it’s not just Word lacking all the possible permutations.

“looseleaf” — If I hyphenate it, the dictionary knows it as a sort of paper, but really, what else do you call tea that’s, you know…loose leaves?

“limnic” — As in “of or related to lakes.”  Someone who studies lakes is a limnologist.  I think this one’s totally a word.

“precognizance” — I think I might have actually made this one up, mostly.  “Precognition” is a real word, but I feel like it refers too specifically to the overall ability, rather than a single instance of knowing the future — a “precognizance.”  I’m sure Gilbert and Sullivan would have cheerfully used it if they’d needed a rhyme for “recognizance,” and that’s good enough for me.

“efforting” — Another one that’s probably genuinely not a word.  But I think it’s a useful very one — I know I’ve efforted in the past.

…and I’m sure there’s more; this was just what I turned up with fifteen minutes or so of scrolling aimlessly through my stories, looking for anything highlighted in red.  Seriously, though, you’d think they’d at least program “spellcheck” in as a word…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 783 other followers