Tag Archives: language

That, which or who? This is a set of words that I see used incorrectly all the time, especially using “that” instead of “who” (although there are a few debates, it’s normally quite clear). I’ve also been asked for help on that/which a number of times, and I have to admit that I wouldn’t have been able to reel off the rules without checking it. Of course, I do check all of these, even when I think I know the answer, just to make sure I’m giving you the correct information!

So, to start off, you can use that OR which if you are introducing clauses that define or identify something (the fancy name for these is “restrictive relative clauses”) and it doesn’t seem to matter which – it’s a question of style preferences or what feels better in the sentence (wouldn’t you know: another one without a proper rule!) So: “A book which aims to explain all human life”, “a book that aims to explain all human life”.

Which is officially used (instead of that) if the clause gives additional information. “The book, which costs £15, has sold 1000 copies”.

Although it’s not officially specified in my reference books, I would therefore use them like this:

– If you’re just saying what the book (or whatever) does in general, use that: “these are the books that will tell you about the stars”.

– If you’re explaining something in comparison with something else, use which: “This is the book which explains all human life, unlike this other one, which just explains about men”.  The way to remember this? “Which is which?”

Moving on to who, we use who when we’re talking about a person or something that’s personified such as a group of people or a named animal. “The man who said yes”, “The proofreaders, who were all a bit pernickity”, “Felix the cat, who was very naughty” (and possibly, “the cat, who was very naughty”, if it’s a specific cat, but “the cats that lived in the barn”, “the cat that I saw on my way to work, which was white with a grey tail … “).

Things do get a bit confusing when you get to a group of people, as a group is non-personified, but the people are – you can do it either way but someone will argue with you, whichever path you take (“The group of men who were going to the ball”, “The group of men that was going to the ball” – I prefer the former, personally. Remember to make the verb agree when you do this – it depends whether you’re referring to the singular group or the plural members of the group).

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

Another troublesome pair from my friend Gill’s enormous holiday list – if you have any more you’d like me to look at, do let me know …

Today we’re looking at till (or more properly, ’til, although the Oxford Dictionaries no longer include a listing for ’til) and until, which I do see being used interchangeably by both native and non-native English speakers (this is quite rare, actually: most of the pairs I’ve been talking about are usually only found in native English speakers, in my experience. Non-native English speakers have all sorts of other common issues, but  not these.) (That gives me an idea for a new series of posts!).

Anyway: till and until. I have consulted the dictionaries and reference books and … they are the same. They mean up to a particular point in time or an event that is being mentioned (“He wasn’t able to take any holiday days until Christmas”), but in a sense that’s more concentrated on that particular date or event, as opposed to a word such as by which is more about the period itself. (“He was told to take all of his holiday by Christmas but he didn’t manage to do it until the gap between Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve”; “You can’t play on the Playstation until you’ve finished your homework”).

Until is considered to be more formal, occurring more often in written English. Till is, wouldn’t you know it, more informal, and occurs more in spoken English. Till is also used as a noun (a cash register or a glacial deposit) or a somewhat archaic agricultural verb to do with preparing the soil before planting a crop.

However, there is one important distinction: you always use until when starting a sentence.

“She gave him the pills till he felt better” or “She gave him the pills until he felt better” but always: “Until he felt better, she continued to give him the pills”.

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

This is a perennial (ha, ha – see what I did there?!) mix-up and it’s worth just setting these words down for everyone – but I would maybe even advise that you don’t use them yourself, limiting yourself to using the explanation rather than the word. Then no one will be confused, and no one will turn up for a biennial party that they think is biannual!

Biennial means occurring every other year.  So a biennial event might happen in 2010, 2012 and 2014. It won’t happen more than once in a year, and it won’t happen in the years in between.

Biannual means occuring twice a year. Usually regularly – so you might have a biannual event taking place in February and August every year, for example, six months apart. So a biannual event will happen twice a year, every year, so in our above example, twice in 2010, twice in 2011 … twice in 2014, etc.

There are more of these words floating around too – for example, bimonthly.  The dictionaries and other reference materials do actually suggest avoiding these, in order to avoid mistakes, and to use “every two months” instead, and as I mentioned above, I think this is a good precept by which to go. So that biennial event can become an event that happens every two years – then we all know where we stand.

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

Welcome to another Troublesome Pair – I wonder if I can keep these going indefinitely. I’m almost sure I am – but I do appreciate when people take the time to suggest pairs for me to write about, so do drop me a line and let me know about any you need explaining, or any you see around you and think need explaining to people in general.

Apparently these two, lend and borrow, do get mixed up often. I can’t say I’ve seen it that much, but the person who suggested it isn’t the only one to have confirmed they’ve noticed it.

It should be quite simple. When you lend something, you are allowing someone to use it, on the understanding that it will be returned will be returned.  So Max lends Jim some money that Max has, and Jim needs. The library lends out books.

To borrow, on the other hand, is to be on the other side of the bargain and to be the recipient of the loaned item. Jim is borrowing Max’s money, and you borrow books from the library. You borrow money from a mortgage lender, for example.

The slight problem with lend is that it does tend to get used in the “wrong” way in colloquial speech and regional dialects, which means it’s floating around more, gets heard more, and the hearers can become inclined to think it’s the correct usage.  We’ve probably all heard “can I have a lend of your pen?” and, while the use might be regional and the sense can be perceived, it would be best if people whose regional dialect it is not part of, especially people learning and speaking English as a second or additional language, refrain from using it like this.

So – I have a book. You don’t have a book. I lend you my book. You borrow it. Now you have the book – but you will be giving it back (otherwise I’ve given it to you).

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

Remember Gill and her Libro Holiday?  Well, I’m still working through the word pair suggestions she sent me after that!

Today, we’re going to have a look at valuable and invaluable. You might be thinking that this might be another pair like flammable and inflammable, that mean exactly the same thing. Well, not quite, this time.

Valuable means either worth a great deal of money or extremely useful or important.  “Meryl’s contribution to the meeting was valuable; she provided tea and coffee and took the minutes”.

Invaluable means extremely useful; indispensable – very valuable, if you will. “Valerie made an invaluable contribution to our awayday when she single-handedly saved our MD from drowning.”

So in this case, the in- prefix does its usual job of multiplying the meaning to become, well, more so.

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

Today we have three very different words, spelled differently and with different meanings.  I think most people, if they stop and think, could define each one individually.  But where I see people constantly coming unstuck, even venerable institutions that should know better, like authors with several books published, newspapers and the like, is with the phrases in which these words are commonly used.

Some definitions first.

Rain is precipitation of non-frozen nature – water that falls out of clouds.

A rein is a leather strap attached to a bridle, with which you guide a horse’s direction, either from on its back (usually reins) or walking by its side (a lead rein) or standing in the middle of a paddock with the horse going in a circle around you (a lunge rein).

A reign is the period of time during which a monarch (or, by extension, any high-up leader) rules over their people (or, in the extended version, their social group, organisation, etc.)

So far so good. So, those tricky phrases. In fact, you can work out quite easily which one should be used where, by considering the literal meaning.

“Don’t rain on my parade” – don’t ruin my fun (I’m having a parade up the main street of town, if it rains it’ll get all soggy and ruined and everyone will go home – no one’s ruling anyone (reign) and there are no leather straps involved (rein)).

“We’ll have to rein him in” – he’s out of control and we need to limit what he’s able to do and bring him back under control (we need to have a little pull on the reins and stop the horse running too fast – we’re going to rule him but not in the sense that we’re a monarch and he’s one of our subjects (reign), and he’s not going to get wet (rain))

“A reign of terror” – something or someone is making things rather uncomfortable for everyone else (they are reigning over something that they are able to rule and control – no one is getting wet (rain) and we’re not frightening any horses (rein))

So that should be all clear now, right?

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

Yours or your’s?  Here’s a clue. It’s never one of them.

Yours, theirs and its don’t take an apostrophe when they’re describing something that belongs to someone. Just like hers and his don’t.  So, it’s George’s book; the book is his. It’s your book; the book is yours. It’s their book; the book is theirs. It’s the book belonging to the club; it’s its book. No apostrophes.  The only apostrophe that comes along with yours, theirs, his, hers or its, is when it’s stands for “it is”.

So it’s never your’s – it’s always yours. If it belongs to you, it’s yours. Not your’s.  Not their’s.  Not it’s.

You’re means “you are”, like they’re means “they are” – your means “belonging to you”.

If the widget belongs to you, it’s your widget. No apostrophe.

“You’re improving your health, running regularly. Is that your sweatband? Are those trainers yours?”

Short but sweet. Now you won’t forget, will you?

More on apostrophes here.

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

I think I’ve seen “just bare with us” while we fix this site, reprint our menus, etc., etc., one too many times – but of course it is a troublesome pair, and not really one you’d want to mix up!  If the company or person asking you to bare with them knew that they were asking you to get naked alongside them, would they be so keen to say it?

As well as being a large, dangerous mammal in its noun form, to bear means to carry, to convey, to support (a weight) and, in the form in which we are encountering it here, to bear means to manage to tolerate (with the negative: “I can’t bear that colour!”) and to bear with someone or something means to be patient or tolerant with. “Please bear with us while we fix this website; in the meantime, here’s a picture of a puppy to look at.”

To bare means, in the language of the dictionary, to uncover a part of the body and expose it to view. We’re bare when we’re unclothed, we might bare our legs in the summer, and we can bare our teeth, which means to show one’s teeth, typically when one is angry. Like when one reads “please bare with us”.

Well, actually, we all know by now that I try to bear with people who make these mistakes, understanding that not everyone’s good at English, or can write well, or spell, or has English as their first language. I don’t ever mean to mock. And I certainly won’t start taking my clothes off next time I read “please bare with us”. Not unless the person behind the sign does it first, of course!

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

Another suggestion from Sorcha this morning – I really appreciate when people come up with ideas for these, so please keep them coming … (and watch out for Ron Usage and his Wrong Usage, coming soon with those troublesome single words!).

So today, we’re going to look at lose vs. loose. I do see this one a fair bit, although the two words are not really that similar or connected.

To lose something means to mislay it, to forget where you put it down, or to end up without it. “He tends to lose his gloves when they fall out of his pocket”; “I always lose the keys somewhere in the house and I can’t come out until I’ve found them”; “she would go on to lose her fiance in the First World War”.  The past tense of lose is lost. Something can’t be lose, it can only be lost.

To loose something (as a verb) means to set it free, but it isn’t often used. “She loosed the horses into the paddock”. More often, it’s used as an adjective: wobbly, not secure, not firm, not tight. A loose tooth; “This printer cable is working loose and that’s why you can’t print”; “She wore a loose and flowing dress”. The past tense of the verb loose is loosed, but again, this isn’t used much. The more common verb is to loosen – “He loosened his tie as the evening got hotter” and this means to make less tight, rather than to set free, although you can also loosen the horses into the paddock.

“His loose tooth fell out, and he managed to lose it somewhere around the house.”

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.

Another troublesome pair suggested by Gill – the list she and her husband generated on their trip away is still going strong but I’ll get to the end one day!

So: regretfully or regrettably?  These two look quite similar, but as usual have quite different meanings.

Regretfully means in a regretful manner. Regretful? Full of regret. So you are full of regret: “She walked away regretfully, upset that she had left him sinking into the mud, but with no other choice” (sometimes I do wonder where I get my examples from. All are made up out of my head).

Regrettably means unfortunately. “The mud was regrettably sticky”.

Now … apparently regretfully gets used where regrettably should be used “Regretfully, this branch is now closed” and the dictionary says that “despite objections from traditionalists, this use is now well established” but I think we now know which one to use when, don’t we!

You can find more troublesome pairs here and the index to them all so far is here.