Infinitivo separado - TO+PALAVRA+VERBO
Para os mais criticos, "to boldly go where no man has gone before"( que significa ir bravamente onde nenhum onde foi antes) deveria ser "to go boldly...."é importante notar que colocar uma ou mais palavras entre "to"e um verbo não é um erro, ? muito expressivo e gracioso; mas muitas pessoas se ofendem em separar o infinitivo e dizem que somente se separa quando duas palavras soam estranhamente.
Terminar uma frase com preposição
Um bom exemplo de uma "regra"artificial que ignora o uso geral. O famoso critico atribuiu a Winston Churcill um ponto que esclarece bem isto: "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."onde o modo mais usado ? This is the sort of English with which I will not put up." (Este é um tipo de Inglês com o qual eu não irei me acostumar)
O uso de "between"para somente 2, e "among" para mais de 2
O "-tween" na palavra "between" está claramente ligado ao número dois(two); mas, como os Dicionários Oxford mostram, "Em todos os sentidos, BETWEEN tem, desde de seu uso mais antigo sido usado para mais de dois. "Nós estamos falando do uso antigo, anglo-saxonico. Os mais exigentes tem se esforado para usar AMONG quando existem 3 ou mais objetos em discurso, mas isto é uma afirmação muito ví£. Mesmo pessoas chatas para falar não dizem naturalmente, "A treaty has been negotiated among England, France, and Germany."
Algumas pessoas afirmam que "over" n?o pode ser usado com o siggnificado de "mais que", como na frase "Over a thousand baton-twirlers marched in the parade". Eles insistem que OVER sempre se refere a algo fisicamente acima: say, the blimp hovering over the parade route. OVER tem sido usado no sentido de "more than" por milhares de anos.
"Forward" versus "forwards"
Muitos livros preferem usar "forward" e "toward" a "forwards" e "towards." nenhuma destas formas são realmente incorretas, entretando a forma sem o s final seja talvez um pouco mais formal.
"Gender" versus "sex"
Feministas tem se esforçado muito para tirar referências quanto a sexualidade de discussíµes sobre macho e femea não involvendo relacionamento ou reproduão, revivendo um antigo significado da palavra "gender." que tem vindo para referir-se em tempos modernos principalmente na linguagem, como sinonimo de "sex"em frases como "Our goal is to achieve gender equality."] Americanos, sempre nervosos sobre sexo, fortemente abraçaram este uso, que é agora padrão. Em alguns campos literários "sex"? agora é usado para catalogar biologicamente determinados aspectos do caracter masculino ou feminino (reprodução, etc.) enquando "gender"se refere aos seus aspectos sociais (comportamento, atitudes, etc.); mas no falar simples esta distinção não é mantida, é pouco original fingir que as pesoas que usam "gender" em seu novo sentido estão cometendo um erro, assim como é pouco original dizer que "Ms." significa "manuscrito"(que é MS). Para terminar, Tenho que admitir que eu estava prestes a descobrir que a etiqueta em minhas calas descreve não somente seu tamanho e cor mas seu gênero
Usando "who" para pessoas, "that" para animais e objetos inanimados
In fact there are many instances in which the most conservative usage is to refer to a person using "that": "All the politicians that were at the party later denied even knowing the hostsomewhat more traditional than the more popular "politicians who." " is actually An aversion to to human beings as somehow diminishing their humanity "that" referring may be praiseworthily sensitivecannot claim the authority of tradition. In some , but it sentences"She is the only person I know of that , "that" is clearly preferable to "who": prefers whipped cream on her granola." In the following example, to exchange "that" for absurd: "Who was it that said, 'A woman without a man is like a "who" would be fish without a bicycle'?"*
*Commonly attributed to Gloria Steinem, but at least one source says she was quoting Irina Dunn.
"Since" need not always refer to time. Since the 14th century, when it was often spelled "syn," it has also meant "seeing that" or "because."
This word has meant "it is to be hoped" for a very long time, and those who insist it can only mean "in a hopeful fashion" display more hopefulness than realism.
"The plane will be landing momentarily" says the flight attendant, and the grumpy grammarian in seat 36B thinks to himself, "So we're going to touch down for just a moment?" Everyone else thinks, "Just a moment now before we land." Back in the 1920s when this use of "momentarily" was first spreading on both sides of the Atlantic, one might have been accused of misusing the word; but by now it's listed without comment as one of the standard definitions in most dictionaries.
Lend vs. loan
"Loan me your hat" was just as correct everywhere as "lend me your ears" until the British made "lend" the preferred verb, relegating "loan" to the thing being lent. However, as in so many cases, Americans kept the older pattern, which in its turn has influenced modern British usage so that those insisting that "loan" can only be a noun are in the minority.
Some people insist that "regime" should be used only in reference to governments, and that people who say they are following a dietary regime should instead use "regimen"; but "regime" has been a synonym of "regimen" for over a century, and is widely accepted in that sense.
It is futile to protest that "near miss" should be "near collision." This expression is a condensed version of something like "a miss that came very near to being a collision" and is similar to "narrow escape." Everyone knows what is meant by it and almost everyone uses it. It should be noted that the expression can also be used in the sense of almost succeeding in striking a desired target: "His Cointreau souffl? was a near miss."
"None" singular vs. plural
Some people insist that since "none" is derived from "no one" it should always be singular: "none of us is having dessert." However, the word was not in fact originally based on "one." The earliest form in English is "nan"; and "none" is most often treated as a plural. "None of us are having dessert" will do just fine.
Scan vs. skim
Those who insist that "scan" can never be a synonym of "skim" have lost the battle. It is true that the word originally meant "to scrutinize," but it has now evolved into one of those unfortunate words with two opposite meanings: to examine closely (now rare) and to glance at quickly (much more common). It would be difficult to say which of these two meanings is more prominent in the computer-related usage, to "scan a document."
For most Americans, the natural thing to say is "Climb down off of [pronounced 'offa'] that horse, Tex, with your hands in the air"; but many U.K. authorities urge that the "of" should be omitted as redundant. Where British English reigns you may want to omit the "of" as superfluous, but common usage in the U.S. has rendered "off of" so standard as to generally pass unnoticed, though some American authorities also discourage it in formal writing. However, "off of" meaning "from" in phrases like "borrow five dollars off of Clarice" is definitely nonstandard.
In England, the old past participle "gotten" dropped out of use except in such stock phrases as "ill-gotten" and "gotten up," but in the U.S. it is still considered interchangeable with "got" as the past participle of "get."
Till vs. 'til.
Since it looks like an abbreviation for "until," some people argue that this word should always be spelled "'til" (though not all insist on the apostrophe). However, "till" has regularly occurred as a spelling of this word for over 800 years and it's actually older than "until." It is perfectly good English.
Teenage vs. teenaged.
Some people object that the word should be "teenaged," but unlike the still nonstandard "ice tea" and "stain glass," "teenage" is almost universally accepted now.
Nouns are often turned into verbs in English, and "reference" in the sense "to provide references or citations" has become so widespread that it's generally acceptable, though some teachers and editors still object.
"I feel bad" is standard English, as in "This t-shirt smells bad" (not "badly"). "I feel badly" is an incorrect hyper-correction by people who think they know better than the masses. People who are happy can correctly say they feel good, but if they say they feel well, we know they mean to say they're healthy.
Some people get upset at the common pattern by which speakers frame a quotation by saying "quote . . . unquote," insisting that the latter word should logically be "endquote"; but illogical as it may be, "unquote" has been used in this way for about a century, and "endquote" is nonstandard.
Persuade vs. convince
Some people like to distinguish between these two words by insisting that you persuade people until you have convinced them; but "persuade" as a synonym for "convince" goes back at least to the 16th century. It can mean both to attempt to convince and to succeed. It is no longer common to say things like "I am persuaded that you are an illiterate fool," but even this usage is not in itself wrong.
I must say I like the sound of this distinction, but in fact the two are interchangeable as both nouns and adjective, though many prefer "preventive" as being shorter and simpler. "Preventative" used as an adjective dates back to the 17th century, as does "preventive" as a noun.
No less a writer than Chaucer is cited by the Oxford English Dictionary as having used "entitled" in this sense, the very first meaning of the word listed by the OED. It may be a touch pretentious, but it's not wrong.
Logic and tradition are on the side of those who make this distinction, but I'm afraid phrases like "part of a healthy breakfast" have become so widespread that they are rarely perceived as erroneous except by the hyper-correct. On a related though slightly different subject, it is interesting to note that in English adjectives connected to sensations in the perceiver of an object or event are often transferred to the object or event itself. In the 19th century it was not uncommon to refer, for instance, to a "grateful shower of rain," and we still say "a gloomy landscape," "a cheerful sight" and "a happy coincidence."
I pronounce this an antiquated distinction rarely observed in modern speech. Nobody really supposes the speaker is saying he or she has been roasted to a turn. In older usage people said, "I have done" to indicate they had completed an action. "I am done" is not really so very different.
Old-fashioned writers insist that you raise crops and rear children; but in modern American English children are usually "raised."
"You've got mail" should be "you have mail."
The "have" contracted in phrases like this is merely an auxiliary verb indicating the present perfect tense, not an expression of possession. It is not a redundancy. Compare: "You've sent the mail."
This etymology seems plausible at first. Its proponents often trace it to the American Civil War. We do have the analogous expression "to pass muster," which probably first suggested this alternative; but although the origins of "cut the mustard" are somewhat obscure, the latter is definitely the form used in all sorts of writing throughout the twentieth century. Common sense would suggest that a person cutting a muster is not someone being selected as fit, but someone eliminating the unfit. See the alt.usage.english faq explanation of this term.
Authoritative dictionaries agree, the original expression refers to offering to reward a stubborn mule or donkey with a carrot or threatening to beat it with a stick and not to a carrot being dangled from a stick. Further discussion. This and other popular etymologies fit under the heading aptly called by the English "too clever by half."
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earlier form was "spitten image," which may indeed have evolved from "spit and image." It's a crude figure of speech: someone else is enough like you to have been spat out by you, made of the very stuff of your body. In the early 20th century the spelling and pronunciation gradually shifted to the less logical "spitting image," which is now standard. It's too late to go back. There is no historical basis for the claim sometimes made that the original expression was "spirit and image."
"Connoisseur" should be spelled "connaisseur."
When we borrowed this word from the French in the 18th century, it was spelled "connoisseur." Is it our fault the French later decided to shift the spelling of many OI words to the more phonetically accurate AI? Of those Francophone purists who insist we should follow their example I say, let 'em eat bifteck.
See also Commonly Made Suggestions
|< Anterior||Próximo >|