Tag Archives: language

Today we have an entertainment-themed trio; perhaps in celebration of the launch of Strictly Come Dancing 2011 (Libro doesn’t watch much telly these days: Libro always watches Strictly!). This one was suggested by Friend Of Libro, Gill – one of her holiday list. I thought I had this down but as usual, I looked it up and was a little surprised. Anyway, I’m going to give the official definitions but say which ones I’d use when – I think that’s fair enough!

An interval is defined firstly as an intervening time or space, a pause or a break.  Then, more specifically, it’s a period of time separating parts of a theatrical or musical performance. You know, the bit where you queue for the loo or a drink and then rush back to your seat.

An intermission – well that’s the same – a pause or break, or in our entertainment context, an interval between parts of a play or film.

An interlude is again defined as an intervening period of time and, in regards to entertainment, a pause between the acts of a play.  But it’s also a piece of music played between other pieces (or, indeed, between the verses of a hymn) and this is how I’d use this one – after all, we’ve already got two words for the gap in a play or musical performance.  So let’s keep interlude for that nice bit of music or short ballet piece acting as a little amusement to clear the musical or balletic tastebuds; a kind of sorbet on legs.  The other definition of an interlude is a temporary amusement or diversion, and while interludes of this kind are often romantic, I think my little flight of fancy above probably conforms to this definition too!

You can find more troublesome pairs here.

This one was inspired by a client whose daughter was having a bit of trouble with the explanations she was being given at school. As he wasn’t sure how best to explain it, he came to the person he’s used to outsourcing writing stuff to: me. I was rather touched, actually – and I’m always happy to help where I can!

People do mix up bought and brought, and I presume it’s because they sound similar (see would have and would of) as they mean quite different things and come from quite different origins. These origins are the best way to tell them apart, actually

Bought and brought are both past tense words – so they’re used to write about things you’ve done in the past, before now.

Brought is the past tense of BRING. You might bring your Dad to the disco (and wish you hadn’t!) or bring an apple to school. If you did that yesterday, you brought your Dad to the disco, left him there, and then you ran away. You brought an apple to school this morning, and you might bring another one to school tomorrow.

Bought goes with BUY. You might buy a pair of shoes with sequins on today. Yesterday, you bought a pair with glitter on. Maybe your Dad bought your apple at the supermarket.

So if you spent money on something, you bought it. If you took it somewhere, you brought it along with you.

“Last week, I bought a bag of apples. I brought one of the apples with me to school every day that week.” – and it works just the same with other ways of writing about the past: “Last week, I bought a bag of apples. I have brought one of the apples with me to school every day this week” ; “I have bought a bag of apples every week for years”.

You can find more troublesome pairs here.

This is one that I see being confused all the time; it’s not too difficult to distinguish the two, although I’d love to know if anyone has a special little rule they use to do so. In both, stuff keeps on happening, but the time the stuff spends happening is either broken or unbroken. So …

Continual – constantly or frequently occurring.  “There are continual alarms throughout the day – it drives us mad” – but the alarms stop and start

Continuous – without interruption, unbroken. “A continuous alarm indicates a bomb threat and all areas must be evacuated.”

The most frequent confusion is when things are being discussed that do go on and on, stretching back into the past and forward into the future, like safety procedure updates or quality improvement.  I’d be inclined to use continual for this, as by their very nature, they’re likely to stop and start, and are indeed stopped and started by human endeavour, rather than rolling on automatically and seamlessly forever.

You can find more troublesome pairs here.

Oh dear – I’m afraid this one makes me a bit sad! The pair was suggested by Gill (she of the Libro holiday) and I realised I wasn’t quite sure of the difference, so I turned to my reference books.

Gentle readers: there is no difference.

Whilst is a variant of while which is pretty well only used in the UK (it’s considered archaic, at best, in other regions).  Some style guides, such as the Guardian newspaper one, say whilst shouldn’t be used at all. I like it, and I’ll continue to use it – but there are no rules about when you should and shouldn’t do so.

And it’s the same for among/amongst too. Sorry!

You can find more troublesome pairs here.

This request comes from Libro’s very own technical support department, otherwise known as Matthew. I don’t think it’s something he confuses himself, but he’s seen the confusion in action. Please feel free to submit your own suggested pairs to me as we go along, although it’s worth checking the list of all the posts here before you do that.

Anyway, on to assume and presume. Which have quite a subtle distinction.

To assume is to accept something as true without proof.

To presume is to suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability, or to take for granted.

So if you assume something is going to happen, you don’t have any proof and there may well not even be a probability that it is going to happen, whereas if you presume it’s going to, there is at least a probability that it will, or it has done in the past and you’re working from that.

Subtle? Yes. Clear? You tell me!

You can find more troublesome pairs here.

There are some words which look like the same word but mean different things. Cleave can mean “stick together” or “separate into two or more parts”, for example. And there are other words which look different but mean the same. We’ve already come across “relative” and “relation” on this blog, which have one meaning which is the same, and “spelled” or “spelt”.

This pair is another that lots of people have asked me to write about. I think that most people do know that there’s something funny about them …

Because they mean exactly the same thing. As the Oxford dictionaries define them:

Flammable – easily set on fire

Inflammable – easily set on fire!  This one originates from the Latin “in-” prefix meaning into, thereby intensifying the word.  Not just easily set on fire; VERY easily set on fire. But I wouldn’t use this one as an intensified version of flammable. They just mean the same.

The word containing the negative or opposite idea, i.e. NOT easily set on fire, is non-flammable.

Oxford prefers the use of flammable, for clarity.

“The label on this nightie says it’s flammable – I’d pick the non-flammable one if I were you, so we can sit together safely in front of the fire.”

You can find more troublesome pairs here.

I can’t honestly say that I’ve come across e.g. and i.e. being confused very much in my experience, but I’ve been asked by a couple of people to cover this one and I can but serve …

Both of these come from the Latin, and both are useful ways to say something in a short space (and one word, if you’re worried about word-counts!) although they tend to make the text look messy if they’re used too often, in my opinion.

First of all, e.g. – this abbreviation stands for “for example”, is used to introduce an example of whatever you’ve just been discussing, and comes from the Latin “exempli gratia”.  Bonus fact: don’t put it in italics and put a comma before but not after. “There are many power tools that can be used, e.g. drills, sanders and grinders.”

And i.e. means “that is” and again comes from the Latin; “id est”.  You use it if you want to explain what you’ve just said (rather than exemplify it). Another bonus fact – just like e.g., don’t put it in italics and put a comma before, but not after. “This project requires the use of power tools, i.e. those that require electricity to operate them.”

I would construct a sentence here containing both, but I don’t think it would look pretty and it certainly wouldn’t be recommended practice …

You can find more troublesome pairs here.

There are a few -c- vs. -s- word pairs kicking around, and I’m sure we’ll cover them all in the fullness of time.  We’ve already looked at “practice” vs. “practise”, and in fact this one both follows the same basic rules and bears the caveat that things are oh, so different in American English – so this post applies to British English only.

The difference again comes down to whether you’re using the word as a noun or a verb.

Licence is the noun (like our football practice).  So you have a driving licence, or licence to kill.  The second definition, which is actually packed into “licence to kill” with the first meaning, is freedom to behave as one wishes, without restraint.  “They took the wild music as licence to dance until dawn” – you can see that the meanings are very close.

License is the verb – to grant a licence to or authorise something.  “He is now licensed to drive a car – the DVLA licensed him and he has a driving licence.” By extension, we have a licensed premises (the licence to sell liquor has been granted to it) run by a licensee.

Just a little spelling quirk – if you’re licentious (disregarding rules; in the Oxford definition, rather sweetly, especially rules around sexual promiscuity OR grammar!) then it’s spelled like that, with the t.  Like a practitioner who practises something (in a doctor’s practice, for example).

You can find more troublesome pairs here.