General cribs about English

We were having a chat in office about driving licences in the UK (I am having driving lessons right now) and at some point I mentioned something to the effect of “when you drive a bike…” and somebody said, in a very knowing tone, “you mean, ‘ride’ a bike”. I just let it go, even though I meant “drive a bike”.

It’s one of those things, which people often make a mistake about and can be irritating. So, I decided to list some of the things in the English language which people, irritatingly, get wrong.I am not referring to "malapropistic" errors (like "affect" and "effect") but other types of errors.

In some cases, usage has probably moved on, so that what I say is wrong, is perhaps now considered “disputed” or even “informal” usage. However, to my mind, these are still wrong and they still stand out for me – every time I hear any of them. So, here’s a baker’s dozen of such errors.

1. Drive vs ride

Let’s start with this, as this brought on the post. As far as meaning goes there are 2 differences between these words

i. When you drive something you must be controlling the movements of whatever it is you are driving; which is not necessary when riding something.

ii. When you ride something you must be in physical contact with whatever it is you are riding (the dictionary uses the words “in or on” to express that); which is not necessary when driving something.

There are of course, other meanings of the word (to be ridden with pain, ride the waves, driven to despair, etc) but we are focusing on things to do with locomotion.

Hence drive is defined by control whereas ride is defined by touch. Note a couple of things from this – you can drive something by remote control without physical touch and you can ride something by being in contact – so you can ride a bus merely by sitting in it. Also, consider the example of driving a herd of sheep where you may be physically be in touch with the odd sheep but since you control the movements of the entire herd, you drive the entire herd.

Usage however is slightly different and does depend on the mode of transport. A quick ready reckoner-

a. You always ride an animal, such as a horse, except in the sense above of driving a herd

b. “Ride” is generally the preferred term for a 2-wheeler. However, “drive” is by no means incorrect and is, on occasion, preferred, especially when one wants to indicate the control (“At the time of the accident, I was driving while she was riding pillion”)

c. If you are controlling the movements of a 4 wheeler, then “drive” is the only word used. If not, then “ride” is the only word which can be used.

d. Typically other modes of transport have specific words – such as fly a plane- and one does not use drive or ride for this.

2. ize vs ise

I have had people correcting me on words like “realize” saying that it is an Americanism and the British spelling is “realise”. While I am not going into the rule (which depends on Greek and Latin roots), suffice to say that “-ize” is an entirely honourable British form, much older than American English. It is the only form in American English but just about any verb ending in “-ize” can also be spelt with “-ise” in British English (an 18^th century French influence on English which did not affect American). However, in all such cases “-ize” is not just correct, it is the preferred form.

3. The plural of terminus is terminuses

Yes, and that of syllabus is syllabuses.

Words ending in “-us” can have plurals formed in 3 ways

a. “-uses” as the only correct form e.g, apparatus, prospectus, genius (meaning intelligent)

b. “-i” as the only correct form e.g., nucleus, genius (meaning spirit)

c. Both “-uses” and “-i” as correct forms e.g., syllabus, terminus, radius

Most such words fall in category c. And for this category, Fowler is very clear - the “-uses” is an English form and is hence to be preferred to the “-i” form which is a Latin form.

While we are at it, the plural of index is indexes, ditto for matrix and vertex. But radix has only radices and not radixes. The Latin versions of the plurals for all these words are not pronounced to rhyme with “spices”, instead they are pronounced to end as “e-seas”. It might just be easier to use the “-xes” form.

Finally, a plural of fish is fishes.

4. Disinterested does not mean a lack of interest

It means “devoid of any interest in the matter” – in other words, impartial or unbiased. A lack of interest is “uninterested” (slightly "malapropistic" but decided to put it in)

5. There is no time as 12 pm

Or as 12 am.

pm means post meridiem – post the midday; am means ante meridiem – before the midday. Midday itself has no such appendage. Hence it is 12 noon (or 12 midday) and 12 midnight.

Incidentally, recently I had to explain to someone the difference between 0.00 hours and 24.00 hours in a 24 hour clock – it basically refers to two different midnights, one day apart.

6. In spite of

Is three words, not two. If you want to use lesser words, use despite, just one word.

7. Exception proves the rule

Perhaps one of the widest “incorrectly used” phrases. So, what is the correct usage?

When a generalized rule is in place to which an exception exists, then the quoting of an exception to the rule is enough to show that the generalized rule exists.The existence of the exception proves the existence of the rule. If there were no rule, there would no need for stating the exception. So, a road sign saying “no parking on Saturdays” implies that parking is allowed on the other six days. One does not need to specify it.

Another example from Fowler’s - "Leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m."; "The exception proves the rule" means that this leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier.

However, inevitably this phrase is used in a nonsensical manner. Examples from Fowler include

• "I am always punctual." "Were you on time for breakfast this morning?" "Well no, but the exception proves the rule, ha ha."

• "It will rain on my birthday, it always does." "It didn't rain last year." "But the exception proves the rule."

• It is sometimes also used to draw notice to a rarity- e.g., A rural village is "always" quiet. A local farmer rents his fields to a rock festival, which disturbs the quiet. In this example, saying "the exception proves the rule" is literally incorrect, but it is used to draw attention to the rarity of the exception.

What, to my mind is important, is that the rule is a generalized rule and not an absolute one – otherwise exceptions cannot exist. Hence a conversation going “All birds fly” “Ostriches don’t fly” “Well, the exception proves the rule” makes no sense because “all birds fly” is not a generalized rule and hence ostriches not flying disproves it. But if one flips it around and says “The Ostrich is a bird which does not fly”- that is an exception which proves the generalized rule that birds, in general, do fly. Otherwise, there would be no need to mention the fact that the Ostrich (specifically) is a bird which does not fly

Incidentally, just remember Sherlock Holmes’ famous statement – “I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule” (the Sign of Four). This clearly relates to absolute rules.

8. Literally

Those of you who have read the Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister will already have come across this a number of times. When something is literal, it means that is actually true. Hence, if something has literally happened, it has actually happened. Hence, there can’t literally be smoke coming out of someone’s ears; someone’s looks cannot literally kill you and so on.

9. “This house is more larger than I expected”

Comparatives and superlatives are formed either by adding “–er” and “–est” or by using “more” and “most”. Some words do not allow the use of “–er” and “–est” (perhaps the most famous example being ‘curious’) but using “more” and “most” is always correct. However, you can’t use two comparatives together. It doesn’t form a superlative!

10. There is no such word as "supercede"

"Supersede" is the correct word.

11. “Up to” is 2 words

So, don’t write “upto” – there is no such word.

12. Dilemma

Strictly speaking, a dilemma occurs only when you have to choose between 2 options, both of which are unacceptable. Hence having to choose between “gajar ka halwa” and “rasmalai” for dessert is not a dilemma. Though, one could argue that having to decide whether you will pass on either “gajar ka halwa” or “rasmalai” is a dilemma.

This is also referred to as being “between a rock and a hard place”. Being “between Scylla and Charybdis” is a special case of a dilemma where you are stuck between two dangers, whereby reducing the risk of danger from one, increases the risk of danger from the other.

13. Second of all

There are three ways of enumeration of a list

i. First, Secondly, Thirdly

ii. First, Second, Third

iii. Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly

And which one is correct is still a highly contentious issue.

Apparently, from a purely grammatical perspective (i) is the right one. However, Fowler says that it is the pedant who starts his list with First - and instead prefers (iii). Modern usage generally stresses consistency – so go for either (ii) or (iii). I believe (ii) is more American whereas (iii) is more British, but I am not sure.

In either case, it is quite acceptable to replace either “first” or “firstly” by “first of all” to show some sort of emphasis on the primacy of the first item in a series. Using “second of all” however, makes no sense at all and is not considered correct by just about any source. I have, on occasion, even heard “third of all” – I have no comment on that at all.

So, that’s my baker’s dozen. In the future, please do try to be more correct :)