Jump to content

One man's look at English

Add links
From Wikiversity

What follows are Dan Polansky's highly incomplete and relatively disorganized notes on English, especially English grammar and punctuation. English vocabulary is covered in dictionaries, but some idiosyncratically selected notes are here as well. There is a hope that someone will find the notes useful as well.

Definite and indefinite articles

[edit | edit source]

The first approximation: if one uses the definite article, the sender and the receiver both have to be able to look up the referent in their mental object collection/database rather than creating a new object record. Thus:

  • A: I see a cat over there. (You cannot know which particular cat that is, and I do not indicate I expect you to know that.)
  • B: Now that I look at the cat, it looks like the neighbor's one. (A and B both created a record for the cat over there, and as if placed a reference to the cat on an imaginary whiteboard for a shared context. Further references to "the cat" look at the context whiteboard to see whether there is a cat. If there are zero cats or more than one cat, the "the cat" reference fails, barring perhaps something like priority list of the multiple cats on the shared whiteboard and barring perhaps some disambiguation hints.)

But this is only a first idea.

Inventions are a special case. With them, one uses the definite article, e.g. "the computer".

Hyponymy/subclass-of and instance-of is indicated using the indefinite article. Thus, e.g. "a cat is an animal", or "The secret buyer turned out to be a large international corporation".

Properties are usually indicated using the definite article, e.g. "the color of the sofa", although, in general, one can think of multi-color sofa.

The construction "the X of Y" with the definite article is common also for non-properties, e.g. in "the president of the United States" or in the book title "The Lord of the Rings". It works as long as there is only one X associated with or belonging to Y.

For proper nouns, there is a dedicated article, Proper name. A first approximation: proper nouns are used without an article; the countless exceptions are hinted at Proper name.

The possessive eliminates the need of an article: it is "Peter's book" rather than "the Peter's book" or "a Peter's book". "The Peter's book" would be probably parsed as "(the Peter)'s book", and "the Peter" is non-standard English. The absence of an article is conventional despite e.g. "X is a Peter's book" arguably making rather good sense: X is an individual instance meeting the description "Peter's book", meaning "book belonging to Peter". On the other hand, one could complain about the grammatical ambiguity of "a Peter's book": is it "(a Peter)'s book" or "a (Peter's book)"; but then, one would respond that it is the latter since the former is non-standard ("a Peter" can be made sense of by treating "Peter" as a peculiar kind of common noun but is non-standard or rare). Be it as it may, we may consider the need of constructions like "the teacher's cat" and realize that the item before "'s" may need an article in general and that the "a (Peter's book)" interpretation would lead us to "X is a the teacher's cat" (with double article), namely "X is an instance meeting the descrition 'the teacher's cat', that is, 'cat belonging to the teacher' (not any teacher but the one). This could justify the convention. Further reading: Definite article before a possessive, ell.stackexchange.com.

The definite article sees use in constructions like "He directed the movie (movie-name)" or "She wrote the novel (novel-name)". This seems confusing since one would expect the part before the name to refer to something given the definite article. One can similarly ask whether there is a definite article before person descriptions/labels followed by the name. An example without an article is this: "In books, essays, lectures, and television documentaries, British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins presented science in terms that could be understood by the general public." from Britannica Kids. An example with an article (from Wikiquote) is this: "The same applies to the biologist Richard Dawkins, with his belief that strict Darwinism can explain everything, and that life is an accidental product of matter."

I must have seen an article indicating different statistical distribution of uses of definite and indefinite articles between men and women. If so, this suggests the "rules" are not as rigid as one might think.

Further reading:

The vs. this vs. that

[edit | edit source]

Sometimes, there seems to be a choice allowing any of "the", "this" and "that". An explanation for how the choice works to be the most idiomatic/native-sounding would be worthwhile.

Which vs. what

[edit | edit source]

From what I recall, which as a question word is used for a selection from a closed-ended set whereas what is used for a selection from an open-ended set. The contrast between closed-ended and open-ended is perhaps not perfectly sharply defined, though. The set of all English first names is considered open-ended for this purpose, whereas the set of five options on a menu is considered to be closed-ended.

Examples:

  • What is your name? (Not: Which is your name?
  • What time is it? (Not: Which time is it?)
  • Which of the five options do you prefer?

I suspect that the above is naive/incorrect/merely approximate. Perhaps I now use which vs. what intuitively without fully realizing what I am doing.

Further reading:

Plurals

[edit | edit source]

Adjectives and verbs have no plurals. Some pronouns have plurals: we, us, our, their; it seems your used to be plural only but now is both singular and plural (also you?).

Many noun plurals are regular:

  • cat → cats, dog → dogs (add "s")
  • dish → dishes, and hero → heroes (add "es")
  • kiss → kisses

Some noun plurals are irregular:

  • mouse → mice (but house → houses, not *hice)
  • louse → lice or louses
  • die → dice
  • man → men
  • woman → women

Some noun plurals are irregular based on their Latin origin:

  • corpus → corpora
  • desideratum → desiderata
  • genus → genera

One has to learn these by heart, and in doubt, they can be found in dictionaries.

Further reading:

Possessive

[edit | edit source]

Examples:

  • cat → The cat's mat (the simple and regular case)
  • cats → cats' (possessive of a plural)
  • James → James's (despite ending in s, "s" is added after the apostrophe)
  • Dickens → Dickens' (no additional s)
  • Dickens → Dickens's (also possible: additional s)

Further reading:

Attributive use of nouns

[edit | edit source]

Unlike some other languages, English heavily uses nouns on attributive positions instead of adjectives. Corresponding adjectives often do exists but are often much less commonly used, and often stem from Latin. The situation seems to be chaotic enough that a non-native speaker is well advised to check Google frequencies of putative competing renderings.

For example, one would usually use "tree" attributively rather than using "arboreal".

Tenses

[edit | edit source]

Verb tenses, examples:

  • I swim.
  • I am swimming.
  • I am going to swim.
  • I will swim.
  • I will be swimming.
  • I swam. (Irregular past tense.)
  • I was swimming.
  • I have been swimming.
  • I had been swimming.
  • I would swim.
  • I would have never swam.
  • I will have never swam. (Inspired by Thulsa Doom.)
  • I am in the process of swimming.

Verb simple past tense

[edit | edit source]

For regular verbs, the simple past tense is made by adding "-d" or "-ed" suffix. For irregular verbs, one has to learn it by heart, although certain patterns can be discerned.

Regular: cook → cooked, look → looked, etc.

Irregular: do → did, have → had, go → went, run → ran, swim → swam, build → built; pay → paid (not payed, but there is swayed, stayed, played, prayed); lay → laid, say → said, meet → met; weep → wept; sleep → slept; etc.

Links:

Verb subjunctive mood

[edit | edit source]

There is the thing called subjunctive mood. It seems rather confusing.

Further reading:

Verb agreement

[edit | edit source]

Pullum gives the following two examples:

  • None of us are perfect (incorrect according to White)
  • None of us is perfect (correct according to White)

The relative prevalence and the instructions of various usage guides would be good to know. (The Czech version is Nikdo z nás není dokonalý and customarily uses singular není rather than the plural nejsou, corresponding to "is".)

By contrast, statistics clearly shows:

  • Everyone are ... (incorrect/highly uncustomary)
  • Everyone is ... (correct)

Further reading:

Phrasal verbs

[edit | edit source]

Examples: "look up", used as e.g. "look it up". The meaning of a phrasal verb is often non-compositional: it cannot be derived from the meaning of "look" and "up". If one likens phrasal verbs to German verbs with separable prefixes, and connects that to Slavic prefixed verbs, the surprise kind of disappears. In German, for zugeben, one says Geben sie es zu: the zu- prefix is separable. In Czech vydělat (earn), one does not know the meaning from vy- a dělat.

The one grammatically special thing is that the separable part (called a particle?) is not necessarily tied to the base verb part.

Further reading:

Singular they

[edit | edit source]

There must be some prescription against singular they; is it in Strunk & White? Singular they is becoming popular as a result of inreased acceptance of the theory and sociopolical program of transgenderism.

Further reading:

Grammatical gender

[edit | edit source]

Very few words in English have grammatical gender. In particular, nouns have no grammatical gender, the definite and indefinite articles have no grammatical gender, and adjectives and verbs are not inflected for grammatical gender. One could think that a word like e.g. "girl" does indicate a gender, but it does not really do so; it does not indicate grammatical gender. There are many words that indicate the female sex (or as many modern sources say, gender), but that is not grammatical but rather semantical; these include female, woman, girl, mother, grandma, daughter, baroness, actress, etc.

It is some pronouns that indicate gender: he, his, him, himself and then she, her, hers, herself.

When one refers to a generic person in writing using a pronoun, one has to figure out which gender to use. If one uses the masculine (which used to be a usual practice), one can be accused of sexism, male-defaultism or something similar. One can use feminine, but it is not clear how usual that is; one could be accused of female-defaultism, but it is not clear how often that happens. One can use "he or she", but it is not clear how usual that is. Finally, one can use the singular they/their/them, which appears to be increasingly widespread thanks in part the increasing acceptance of the transgenderism. This subject is covered in Wikipedia: Gender in English#Gender neutrality in English and Wikipedia: Gender neutrality in English.

Further reading:

Diminutives

[edit | edit source]

The English diminutives seem relatively scarce, compared to e.g. German and Czech. One diminutive producing suffix is -let, producing e.g. piglet. Another one is -ie, producing e.g. doggie; -y produces Bobby.

Further reading:

Colons

[edit | edit source]

The use of colons is well described here:

Examples from there:

  • I have three sisters: Catherine, Sarah and Mary.
  • My mom has three pets: two cats and a dog.
  • There was only one possible explanation: The train had never arrived.
  • In the words of Homer: "Doh!"
  • Patient: Doctor, I feel like a pair of curtains.

    Doctor: Pull yourself together!
  • And more.

Colon is sometimes used in book titles and article titles to separate the main title from the subtitle. The first word after the colon should be capitalized (even if it is "a" or "the"), believing editorsmanual.com.[1]

Capitalization after colon varies with style, depends on the kind of colon use, e.g. before a list vs. before a subtitle.[1]

Further reading:

Commas

[edit | edit source]

For a start, comma splice is considered to be an error, as in "The cat is on the mat, the cat is hungry". There, the customary character is the semicolon (";"), or one can split it altogether with the period (".").

Commas separate items in a list: "dog, cat, and mouse". The use of comma before "and" depends on the style.

There is no comma before "that", unlike in Czech and German: "I think that you are right". (One can also often omit the "that": "I think you are right", or "You are right, I think".)

Comma is used for an apposition: "Charles IV, the king of Bohemia, founded a university."

Comma is used after the initial "however" (except for the cases where it serves a different function): "However, there are detractors." Similarly, "Therefore, the cat is indeed on the mat, regardless the location of the dog".

Comma is used before "but" and "and" connecting sentences: "I tried to make it, but I failed."

For other cases, see the further reading at Wikibooks.

Further reading:

Semicolon

[edit | edit source]

The semicolon can be used to tie two sentences together more tightly than a period would, as in "The cat is on the mat; the cat is hungry".

Further reading:

Capitalization

[edit | edit source]

Sentences start with a capital letter.

Sentences after a semicolon start with a lowercase letter.

Proper nouns/proper names are capitalized; for details, see article Proper name. Examples: Peter, London, New York.

Some proper names have the class word capitalized, e.g. New York City and Hudson River, Liberal Party.

Title case vs. sentence case is covered in a dedicated section below.

Capitalization after a colon that separates a book title from its subtitle remains to be covered.

Words derived from proper names are usually capitalized even when they are not proper names, unlike in Czech and German. Examples: Darwinian (adjective, noun), Californian (adjective, noun), British, New Yorker, Germanize, Americanize, Polonize (but anglicize seems to be often spelled in lowercase in addition to Anglicize). Some of these items are sometimes called proper adjectives, but what is proper about them seems rather unclear. It seems that the term proper adjective was based on the term proper noun, using some kind of twisted reasoning, e.g. that if something is capitalizes, it must be somehow proper. I speculate that the reason why proper names are called proper is that the original narrow meaning of name was proper name, and that common in common noun (noun is from the same Latin origin as name) was originally an alienans.

One can use Google Ngram Viewer to get a first idea about the common practice, although some people have reservations about the tool.

Further reading:

Title case vs. sentence case

[edit | edit source]

Work titles and work headings use, as a first approximation, two styles of capitalization: title case and sentence case.

Title case example: "The Lord of the Rings" (minor words are not capitalized but the first word is capitalized even if minor).

Sentence case: The first word is capitalized and the other words not unless indicated for a non-title reason, e.g. as a proper noun. Putative example not in use: "The lord of the rings".

Wikipedia uses sentence case in article titles and section titles.

Further reading:

Defining clause vs. extra-information clause

[edit | edit source]

Defining clause is not separated by commas, unlike extra-information clause.

Prescriptively, "that" is used for defining clauses to the exclusion of "which", but educated speakers often use "which" nonetheless.

For extra-information clauses, "which" seems to be dominant.

A terminological mapping relating to G. K. Pullum: integrated relative → defining clause; supplementary relative → extra-information clause.

A terminological mapping relating to Merriam-Webster: restrictive clause → defining clause; nonrestrictive clause → extra-information clause.

The contrast between defining clause and extra-information clause: the defining clause is as if part of an SQL statement, part of a selecting sequence of words returning one or multiple items. By contrast, extra-information clause assumes some other sequence of words did the selection work already, and acts as a predicate on the selected item or items. Thus: "The person who won the competition was a male" means: "give me all people, among those select those who won the competition under discussion or context, make sure there is only one item in the result or throw an analogue of an exception, and assert that this item is a male". By contrast, "The person, who won the competition, was a male" means "Given the context or current discussion, select the one person that is most salient or of the highest referential priority in the context for the class of person, assert that the person won the competition and assert that they were a male". Admittedly, the second example is a bit contrived in that the phrase "the person" is a bit too short to be the complete selector.

General further reading:

Further reading from Language Log and related:

Relative pronouns

[edit | edit source]

Relative pronouns in English are which, that, who, whom and whose.

A subtopic is Defining clause vs. extra-information clause.

For persons--whether human or non-human, e.g. the hobbit Bilbo--pronouns who, whom and whose are meant.

Further reading:

Quotation marks

[edit | edit source]

It seems customary to default to double quotes ("), but some books default to single quotes ('). Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies defaults to single quotes, and so does Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

For nesting, one can use this: "This sentence refers to the word 'cat'", or this: 'This sentence refers to the word "cat"'. The choice depends on the house style. This topic is covered in Wikipedia: Quotation marks in English#Primary quotations versus secondary quotations.

When quoting whole paragraphs, one usually places the opening quotation mark at the beginning of each paragraph in the quoted paragraph sequence, while the end quotation mark is only placed at the end of the final paragraph in that sequence.

Curly quotation marks used in English: “...”. (For my reference, those in German: „...“; and Czech: „...“.)

Further reading:

Apostrophes

[edit | edit source]

Examples:

  • Belonging to
    • Peter's (belonging to Peter)
    • Your (belonging to you)
    • His (belonging to him)
    • Its (belonging to it)
    • Their (belonging to them)
  • Contractions
    • You're (you are)
    • He's (he is)
    • It's (it is; compare to its above)
    • They're (they are, they were)
    • I'm (I am)
    • We're (we are)

Further reading:

Italicization of quoted words

[edit | edit source]

It seems that especially in linguistics, quoted or discussed words (mentioned rather than used) are usually typeset in italics rather than using quotation marks. Verification pending.

Hyphens and dashes

[edit | edit source]

Hyphenation is described in the linked Wiktionary appendix together with links to external sources.

Dashes and hyphens:

  • — (em dash)
  • – (en dash)
  • - (hyphen-minus?)

Examples (two of them from Wikibooks):

  • Three unlikely companions—a canary, an eagle, and a parrot—flew by my window in an odd flock. (unspaced em dash; is this for the U.S.?)
  • Three unlikely companions — a canary, an eagle, and a parrot — flew by my window in an odd flock. (spaced em dash; sometimes seen in the U.S.?)
  • Three unlikely companions – a canary, an eagle, and a parrot – flew by my window in an odd flock. (spaced en dash; is this for the U.K.?)

Questions:

  • Which style guides recommend which dash convention?
  • Which classic authors substantiate a dash convention?

Further reading:

Book titles

[edit | edit source]

One convention for formatting book titles in the middle of text (as opposed to in the list of references or bibliography) is putting them in italics.

Gödel, Escher, Bach's bibliography section seems to put book titles in italics but journal article titles in quotation marks.

Further reading:

English as a hybrid language

[edit | edit source]

Arguably, English is a hybrid language, a Romance-Germanic one, not based on grammar but rather based on vocabulary. There is a dedicated article on this: English as a hybrid Romance-Germanic language.

There are consequences for the learner, especially as pertains to the mixture of Romance and Germanic morphology/etymology. An etymological dictionary comes to the rescue, helping the learner recast etymology as quasi-morphology and gain the kind of look at vocabulary that one has in a less hybrid language. Thus, one can analyze e.g. "inscription" as "in-" + "scrib-" + "-tion", as if inwriting (we turned "p" back to "b", from which it came).

Pronunciation

[edit | edit source]

English pronunciation is fairly irregular in that it has no simple correspondence to spelling. Nonetheless, partly applicable regularities or correspondences do exist. Google Translate is able to pronounce even non-existent spellings, and therefore, its pronunciation is not based on a mere hard-coded mapping of individual word forms to their pronunciations.

Date format

[edit | edit source]

In the U.S., a format often seen is on the model of January 1, 2020. The English Wikipedia sometimes uses e.g. 1 January 2020, which matches the British format indicated by dictionary.cambridge.org.

Example dates on newpaper articles:

  • US
    • The Wall Street Journal: Dec. 2, 2023
    • Los Angeles Times: Dec. 3, 2023
    • New York Times: Dec. 16, 2011
  • UK
    • The Independent: 13 October 2023
    • The Telegraph: 12 November 2023
    • Daily Mail: 29 September 2023
  • Australia
    • The Sydney Morning Herald: February 24, 2025
    • The West Australian: 24 February 2025
    • The Newcastle Herald: February 24 2025

The ISO 8601 date format is e.g. 2020-01-31.

I like the formats that use words for the month since they eliminate a possible confusion of the day in the month with the month; whether the month is abbreviated or not does not matter all that much.

Further reading:

Citation style

[edit | edit source]

Citations styles vary with domain of publishing and the stylebook.

Examples of two styles found in Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Citing sources:

  • Ritter, R. M. (2003). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-860564-5.
  • Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1.

An example from Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach:

  • Allen, John. The Anatomy of Lisp. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1978.

An example from Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene:

  • Allee, W. C. (1938) The Social Life of Animals. London: Pitman.

An example of MLA style:

  • Wordsworth, William. Lyrical Ballads. Oxford UP, 1967.

An example of CMOS style:

  • Grazer, Brian, and Charles Fishman. A Curious Mind: The Secret to a Bigger Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015.

An example of APA style:

  • Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., & Munro, M. J. (2002). Teaching native speakers to listen to foreign-accented speech. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(4), 245-259.

Further reading:

Spelling varieties and variability

[edit | edit source]

From spelling perspective, English is not a single standard but rather a multitude of standards. Thus, there is U.K. spelling (actually, multiple varieties as for e.g. -ise vs. -ize), U.S. spelling, Canadian spelling, etc. One can approximate the division as British/Commonwealth vs. American, but this breaks down in some cases. (English much differs from e.g. Czech in this regard: Czech is subject to strenuous government-backed effort at spelling standardization, and Czechs generally make a great effort at using the "correct" spelling.)

Some example dualities:

  • -o- vs. -ou-: color vs. colour, behavior vs. behaviour
  • -ize vs. -ise: theorize vs. theorise, analyze vs. analyse
  • -er vs. -re: theater vs. theatre, meter vs. metre
  • -se vs. -ce: license vs. licence
  • -ogue vs. -og: dialogue vs. dialog, analogue vs. analog
  • -ic vs. -ical: theoretic vs. theoretical (guess: this one does not have much to do with British vs. American)

I tend to standardize on American English in my writing, which includes color, theorize, center, etc.

As for -ize vs. -ise, -ize in additionally part of the Oxford variant of British spelling.

When one works with a copyeditor and a publisher, one probably submits to their house style.

Further reading:

Multiple vs. several

[edit | edit source]

The way I have learned it: several: more than one but not many; multiple: more than one (two or more). Requires verification. Multiple as more than one matches M-W 1[2], but M-W 2 has "many, manifold". How is one to know which sense of "multiple" is meant? None of the two leading senses in M-W have any context label; one cannot even claim that M-W 2 is informal.

(This is here even though it is a vocabulary question and not a grammar question.)

Further reading:

Number words

[edit | edit source]

Some English number words can be a bit surprising, from a Czech point of view. For instance, there is one-third and two-thirds spelled with a hyphen. Moreover, e.g. twenty-one and fifty-six are spelled with a hyphen.

Further reading:

I vs. we in academic writing

[edit | edit source]

Articles in academic writing often use "we" as a result of there being multiple authors. Some single-author articles also use "we".

In his writing, the philosopher Popper uses "I".

The convention can vary with the field.

A sjsu.edu guide recommends avoiding personal pronouns altogether.[3]

(This section would perhaps better fit an article on writing than on English, but in so far as only the English-speaking practice is examined, the location here is perhaps tolerable.)

Further reading:

Percent vs. per cent

[edit | edit source]

Both forms percent and per cent are in common use, where the relative frequency depends on the variety of English. Per cent was the dominant spelling in the 19th century per Google Ngram Viewer[4]. M-W states that per cent is chiefly British[5]. Indeed, per cent leads in the British corpus of Google Ngram Viewer[6].

Style guides and manuals:

  • U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual uses percent[7].
  • U.K. government style guide prescribes per cent[8].
  • Guardian and Observer style guide prescribes per cent[9]
  • Australian Government Style Manual prescribes per cent[10].

As an aside, in English, the symbol "%" is usually written without a space before it.

Further reading:

Style guides and manuals

[edit | edit source]

I listed style guides in Wiktionary: Appendix:English style guides. One of the most comprehrensive and professional seems to be U.S. GPO style manual, freely available online.

Further reading:

Single-syllable words

[edit | edit source]

Compared to Czech, a Slavic language, English seems to have many more single-syllable words. It may have to do with its being Germanic, but then, one owuld have to compare this to German. This is just an impression and not a serious analysis. Some examples: moon, sun, earth, food, drink, eat, sly, sky, shy, dip, skit, limb, blend, send, spend, kilt, groom, doom, loom, tomb, womb, here, there, may, must, should, shall, tell, cat, bar, car, star, war, fight, might, slight, word, sword, list, mist, gist, tall, mall, etc. The Czech counterparts are usually not of single syllable. Nor do the German counterparts. Perhaps the quasi-creolization/great simplification of English is in part responsible.

A serious analysis could proceed as follows. Pick a decent frequency list. Report the percentage of single-syllable words in top 1000 words, top 2000 words, etc. Consider reporting on a token basis and on a type basis; this would yield two different frequency lists based on the same corpus.

Further reading:

Debate vs. discussion

[edit | edit source]

Debate and discussion seem to be near-synonyms. I want to figure out which distinctions can be drawn and who draws them.

Oxford Union[11] uses the word debate.

Merriam-Webster's leading sense for debate is a contention[12], suggesting that a conversation without disagreement between parties is not a debate.

The phrase debating club sees more uses than discussion club; in 19th century, it completely blasted the latter[13]. The phrase debating society beats discussion society even more[14].

Further reading:

Anglo-Saxon

[edit | edit source]

Anglo-Saxon does not usually seem to mean English-speaking. A similar sounding word in some languages (Russian?) does mean English-speaking. Needs a closer look, also whether this first impression is accurate.

Further reading:

Prefixes of negation

[edit | edit source]

In English, there is a range of prefixes of negation, owing in part to the partial Romance origin of the English vocabulary. As a Czech native speaker, I struggle to remember which prefix is used with which word (in Czech, we very often have the native ne-, although words of Latin origin show some patterns similar to those in English, e.g. iracionální). We get the following:

  • un-: e.g. unhealthy, un-English (Germanic?)
  • non-: e.g. non-entity, non-English
  • in-: e.g. incompatible, innate
  • ir-: e.g. irresponsible, irrelevant, irrational
  • im-: e.g. immature, immaculate
  • il-: e.g. illogical

Sometimes, the prefix changes between the adjective and the corresponding noun: e.g. uncivil vs. incivility.

The choice of the prefix can have semantic consequences, as in non-English vs. un-English. From what I recall, non-English means rather plainly not English, e.g. a non-English language, whereas un-English is rather evaluative/derogatory, perhaps not matching the English customs and culture, e.g. un-English behavior (double check).

A pattern to see in the prefixes of Romance origin is how they adapt to the word being modified, e.g. ir- has the r at the end to match r at the begining of responsible.

Further reading:

Words ending in -ics vs. -ic

[edit | edit source]

The choice between -ics vs. -ic seems somewhat confusing, perhaps to be learned it by heart. (If English were too regular, it would have too poor security features for detection of non-native intruders/spies/operatives/etc.? Let's not blame English in particular; most language have security features in the form of chaos (irregularity; something to be learned by heart), e.g. grammatical gender.) In Czech, there is just -ika and that's it; in German, there is -ik.

Examples ending with -ics: mathematics, physics, economics, linguistics, politics, statistics.

Examples ending with -ic: rhetoric, dialectic, music, logic.

Similarly spelled words that get confused

[edit | edit source]

Examples:

  • complementary vs. complimentary
  • principle vs. principal
  • affect vs. effect
  • loose vs. lose

Further reading:

Email vs. e-mail

[edit | edit source]

The English Wikipedia has the form "email" as primary while "e-mail" as alternative. A long form is "electronic mail".

One can check authority sources/identifiers in Wikidata to see their preferred form. Many English sources have "email", but Britannica has "e-mail".

U.S. Government Printing Office has "email"[15].

Further reading:

The internet vs. the Internet

[edit | edit source]

The practice of writing "internet" vs. "Internet" is greatly disunified, as per Wikipedia's Capitalization of Internet, from which I quote (14 Oct 2025):

"In 2016, the Oxford English Dictionary found that, based on a study of around 2.5 billion printed and online sources, "Internet" was capitalized in 54% of cases, with Internet being preferred in the United States and internet being preferred in the United Kingdom.
"[...]
"Organizations and style guides that capitalize Internet include the Modern Language Association, Garner's Modern English Usage, the Internet Engineering Task Force, Ars Technica, the Internet Society, and Cloudflare. Organizations and style guides that use lowercase internet include Apple, Microsoft, Google, Wired News (since 2004), the United States Government Publishing Office, the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Associated Press (since 2016), The New York Times (since 2016), The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2017), APA style (since 2019), The Guardian, The Observer, BuzzFeed, and Vox Media."

I tend to standardize on U.S. spelling. I see conflicting signals: the 2016 OED study would suggest "Internet", but the many U.S. organizations standardizing on "internet", including U.S. GPO, would suggest "internet".

Further reading:

Naivety, naïveté and its variants

[edit | edit source]

The choice of the spelling (and maybe also word) variant is supported e.g. by Wikt: naivety, and especially by usage notes at Wikt: naïveté. Let me replicate the usage notes here, which were entered into Wiktionary by myself, from what I recall:

  • According to Google Ngram Viewer corpus data, as of 2019, naïveté and naivety were the most common spellings; naivety was the most common spelling in British English while naïveté was the most common spelling in American English. naivete used to be the most common variant but dropped sharply after 2000. Whether the Viewer accurately tracks accents is unclear.
  • Comparing the -ete forms and the -ety forms as two groups yields that in British English -ety forms are slightly more common while in American English the -ete forms are much more common.
  • Spellings in dictionaries:
    • naïveté is covered by Merriam-Webster (as a variant), AHD, Collins (as a variant), OED and Century 1911.
    • naivete is covered by Merriam-Webster.[16]
    • naiveté is covered by Merriam-Webster (as less commonly), AHD, Collins, Cambridge (as a variant), and Macmillan American.
    • naivety is covered by Macmillan British, Cambridge and OED.
  • US Government Publishing Office manual states that "Diacritical marks are not used with anglicized words" and mentions naive and naivete.
  • Guardian and Observer style guide indicates naive, naively, and naivety with no accent.
  • The diaeresis in naïveté is there to indicate the vowel is pronounced in a separate syllable.[17]

Above, I removed most of the inline references since the English Wikiversity does not have the reference templates.

For my choice, the signals are mixed. I like to follow American usage and USGPO in particular, but I dislike the diaresis and any diacritics as foreign to the English system of spelling. I could go with naivete as being American and USGPO-mandated despite naïveté being the most common American variant per Google Ngram Viewer[18]. As a cultural aside, the just referenced GNV chart shows that naïveté outdid naivete around 2009, something that one would not see for Czech spelling in Czechia since Czechs care very much about aligning with codified spelling. This seems to be something like the empiricism vs. rationalism in practice. On the other hand, it is not that English spelling lacks codification (indeed, USGPO codifies the preferred spelling here); it has multiple codifications one has to choose from, typically following the styleguide of the organization one is writing for.

As for pronunciation, Wikt: naivety and Wikt: naïveté give rather different ones; I hear as if Czech ty vs. tej at the end.

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Is a Word after a Colon Capitalized?, editorsmanual.com
  2. ↑ multiple, M-W
  3. ↑ First-Person Usage in Academic Writing by Julian Park, sjsu.edu
  4. ↑ Google Ngram Viewer
  5. ↑ per cent, M-W
  6. ↑ GNV 2
  7. ↑ GPO Style Manual, govinfo.gov
  8. ↑ Style guide - A to Z - Guidance, gov.uk
  9. ↑ Guardian and Observer style guide: P, theguardian.com
  10. ↑ Percentages | Style Manual, stylemanual.gov.au
  11. ↑ https://oxford-union.org/
  12. ↑ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate
  13. ↑ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=debating+club%2Cdiscussion+club&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
  14. ↑ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=debating+society%2Cdiscussion+society&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
  15. ↑ U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, 2016 pdf, govinfo.gov
  16. ↑ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naivete
  17. ↑ What's a Diaeresis? | Merriam-Webster
  18. ↑ naïveté,naivete

Further reading

[edit | edit source]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=One_man%27s_look_at_English&oldid=2767657"