(See below update/footnote. It made me gag to write that.)
I know I might be sent below — to one of those circles of linguistic hell (see McSweeney’s post a few days ago) — for pointing this out, but I feel it’s time that this lovely word, below, needs to be explained and understood. In a nutshell, it’s not an adjective, even though it seems to be increasingly misused as such, especially in formal/corporate/written communications (but strangely not in speech). “See below information” is simply incorrect. I apologize to readers of Glossophilia who know me to be generally non-prescriptive; I don’t usually brand any particular usage as wrong, especially if it’s pervasive and evolving. But in this case I’m willing to state my case and stand my ground, because I think it sounds so ugly. Continue reading
A tweet from our President, Donald J. Trump.
You’re right about that, Mr. President. You’re not at all presidential.
Cate Blanchett in “Carol” / Tumblr
Continuing Glosso’s September series, “X v Y”, we take a look at lit vs. lighted. Continue reading
During September, Glossophilia is looking at word pairs that often get muddled up with each other, or that essentially mean the same thing. Today’s is underestimate vs. overestimate. Continue reading
In Glosso’s series “X v Y” we’re looking at words that are commonly muddled up, or used interchangeably by design or by mistake. Here we look at shrunk vs. shrank. Continue reading
Can you think of a word that means one thing and its exact opposite, depending on the context in which it is used? Continue reading
Continuing Glosso’s series of “X v Y”, here’s a look at the difference between that and which. Continue reading
The third post in Glosso’s X v Y series looks at assume v presume. Continue reading
The second of Glossophilia’s series “X v Y” examines intention v intent. Continue reading