Loading AI tools
Beliefs about the use of the English language considered by others as wrong From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This list comprises widespread modern beliefs about English language usage that are documented by a reliable source to be misconceptions.
With no authoritative language academy, guidance on English language usage can come from many sources. This can create problems, as described by Reginald Close:
Teachers and textbook writers often invent rules which their students and readers repeat and perpetuate. These rules are usually statements about English usage which the authors imagine to be, as a rule, true. But statements of this kind are extremely difficult to formulate both simply and accurately. They are rarely altogether true; often only partially true; sometimes contradicted by usage itself. Sometimes the contrary to them is also true.[1]
Many usage forms are commonly perceived as nonstandard or errors despite being widely accepted or endorsed by authoritative descriptions.[2][a]
Perceived violations of correct English usage elicit visceral reactions in many people. For example, respondents to a 1986 BBC poll were asked to submit "the three points of grammatical usage they most disliked". Participants stated that their noted points "'made their blood boil', 'gave a pain to their ear', 'made them shudder', and 'appalled' them".[3]
Mignon Fogarty writes that "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases."[7] Fowler's Modern English Usage says, "One of the most persistent myths about prepositions in English is that they properly belong before the word or words they govern and should not be placed at the end of a clause or sentence."[8] Preposition stranding was in use long before any English speakers considered it incorrect. This idea probably began in the 17th century, owing to an essay by the poet John Dryden, and it is still taught in schools at the beginning of the 21st century.[4] But "every major grammarian for more than a century has tried to debunk" this idea; "it's perfectly natural to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, and it has been since Anglo-Saxon times."[9] Many examples of terminal prepositions occur in classic works of literature, including the plays of Shakespeare.[5] The saying "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put"[10][5][b] satirizes the awkwardness that can result from prohibiting sentence-ending prepositions.
"There is no such rule" against splitting an infinitive, according to The Oxford Guide to Plain English,[11] and it has "never been wrong to 'split' an infinitive".[12] In some cases it may be preferable to split an infinitive.[11][13] In his grammar book A Plea for the Queen's English (1864), Henry Alford claimed that because "to" was part of the infinitive, the parts were inseparable.[14] This was in line with a 19th-century movement among grammarians to transfer Latin rules to the English language. In Latin, infinitives are single words (e.g., "amare, cantare, audire"), making split infinitives impossible.[11]
Those who impose this rule on themselves are following a modern English "rule" that was not used historically. Jeremy Butterfield described this perceived prohibition as one of "the folk commandments of English usage".[15] The Chicago Manual of Style says:
There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as "and", "but", or "so". In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice.[16][c]
Regarding the word "and", Fowler's Modern English Usage states, "There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards."[17] Garner's Modern American Usage adds, "It is rank superstition that this coordinating conjunction cannot properly begin a sentence."[18] The word "but" suffers from similar misconceptions. Garner says, "It is a gross canard that beginning a sentence with but is stylistically slipshod. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, as many style books have said (many correctly pointing out that but is more effective than however at the beginning of a sentence)".[19] Fowler's echoes this sentiment: "The widespread public belief that But should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. Yet it has no foundation."[20]
It is a misconception that the passive voice is always incorrect in English.[21] Some "writing tutors" believe that the passive voice is to be avoided in all cases,[22] but "there are legitimate uses for the passive voice", says Paul Brians.[23] Mignon Fogarty also points out that "passive sentences aren't incorrect"[24] and "If you don't know who is responsible for an action, passive voice can be the best choice".[25][d] When the active or passive voice can be used without much awkwardness, there are differing opinions about which is preferable. Bryan A. Garner notes, "Many writers talk about passive voice without knowing exactly what it is. In fact, many think that any BE-VERB signals passive voice."[26]
Some style guides use the term double negative to refer exclusively to the nonstandard use of reinforcing negations (negative concord), e.g., using "I don't know nothing" to mean "I know nothing". But the term "double negative" can sometimes refer to the standard English constructions called litotes or nested negatives, e.g., using "He is not unhealthy" to mean "He is healthy". In some cases, nested negation is used to convey nuance, uncertainty, or the possibility of a third option other than a statement or its negation. For example, an author may write "I'm not unconvinced by his argument" to imply they find an argument persuasive, but not definitive.[27]
Some writers suggest avoiding nested negatives as a rule of thumb for clear and concise writing.[28] Overuse of nested negatives can result in sentences that are difficult to parse, as in the sentence "I am not sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become[...]"
Richard Nordquist writes, "no rule exists regarding the number of sentences that make up a paragraph", noting that professional writers use "paragraphs as short as a single word".[29] According to the Oxford Guide to Plain English:
If you can say what you want to say in a single sentence that lacks a direct connection with any other sentence, just stop there and go on to a new paragraph. There's no rule against it. A paragraph can be a single sentence, whether long, short, or middling.[30]
According to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Writing Center's website, "Many students define paragraphs in terms of length: a paragraph is a group of at least five sentences, a paragraph is half a page long, etc." The website explains, "Length and appearance do not determine whether a section in a paper is a paragraph. For instance, in some styles of writing, particularly journalistic styles, a paragraph can be just one sentence long."[31]
Writers such as Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson, and others since Anglo-Saxon days have been "shrinking English". Some opinion makers in the 17th and 18th century eschewed contractions, but beginning in the 1920s, usage guides have mostly allowed them.[32] Most writing handbooks now recommend using contractions to create more readable writing,[33] but many schools continue to teach that contractions are prohibited in academic and formal writing,[34][35][36] contributing to this misconception.
Common examples of words described as "not real" include "funnest", "impactful", and "mentee",[37][38] all of which are in common use, appear in numerous dictionaries as English words,[39][40][41][42] and follow standard rules for constructing English words from morphemes.
The word "inflammable" can be derived by two different constructions, both following standard rules of English grammar: appending the suffix -able to the word inflame creates a word meaning "able to be inflamed", while adding the prefix in- to the word flammable creates a word meaning "not flammable". Thus "inflammable" is an auto-antonym, a word that can be its own antonym, depending on context. Because of the risk of confusion, style guides sometimes recommend using the unambiguous terms "flammable" and "not flammable".[43]
It is sometimes claimed that "nauseous" means "causing nausea" (nauseating), not suffering from it (nauseated). This prescription is contradicted by vast evidence from English usage, and Merriam-Webster finds no source for the rule before a published letter by a physician, Deborah Leary, in 1949.[44]
It is true that the adjective "healthful" has been pushed out in favor of "healthy" in recent times.[45] But the distinction between the words dates only to the 19th century. Before that, the words were used interchangeably; some examples date to the 16th century.[46] The use of "healthful" in place of "healthy" is now regarded as unusual enough that it may be considered hypercorrected.[47]
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
