A Phenomena Phenomenon?

In the last week, I have heard two people who should know better misuse the word phenomena. I didn't think this was word that needed much explaining, but twice in a week? (At any rate, maybe these flubs will be the impetus that gets me blogging here more regularly again.)

Here's how it works:

• Phenomenon is the singular form: The blinking purple light hovering over the White House remains an unexplained phenomenon.
• Phenomena is the plural:  Three or four strange phenomena were occurring there every week, so the city banned food trucks in the clown cemetery.

Any time you find yourself saying or writing "a phenomena," pause and think. Unless you're using the word in some modifying phrase, like "a phenomena-explaining discovery," you want to use the word phenomenon instead.

I have generally been shying away from writing about words from a strictly prescriptivist point of view. I don't want to be the guy who tries to tell you how you must use your language. Rather, I'd like to be the guy who shows you how to do more with your language, and to use it to better effect.

But singular phenomena just won't float. Sure, a couple decades hence we might be having the same arguments we used to have about data being singular or plural, but we're not there yet. And besides, misuse of these two words might be more dangerous than data ever could be.

Legend has it that if you stare into a mirror and say "phenomena" three times in a row, a pair of eerie pink monsters will appear behind you.

Scarier still, if you say "phenomenon" three times, John Travolta will show up and try to recruit you to Scientology.

Although these phenomena are unproven, I advise you to use these words with care.

Health, Heart, Brexiting, and Begging the Question in a Post-Truth America

Business continues to translate into busy-ness (did I mention that I was promoted to managing editor at The Saturday Evening Post?), and, for better or worse, blogging here lands pretty low on my to-do list. But that doesn't mean I'm not writing! Here are some things for you to look at over at Copyediting.com:

Guiltless Filler

I would feel guiltier about not posting here for almost three months if I hadn't been so busy with writing and editing projects that, you know, pay. Here, why don't you read some of them:

5 Pairs of Uncommon Confusable Words
The internet houses a plethora of “Commonly Confused Words” lists — Google returns 1.15 million hits for that phrase. Such common confusions are child’s play for experienced editors. No, we get tripped up by the less commonly used but easily confused words.

Neither and Nor, Together and Apart
Breaking up the correlative conjunction pair neither…nor is somehow a bit trickier than separating the parts of other correlative pairs. Using neither and nor without their correlative mates, though, can throw some people for a loop.

Sand, Sun, and Summertime Vocabulary
Ah, summertime: bright sun, warm beaches, cool surf, and daydreams of actually seeing any of these things while we huddle over our computers working our wordy craft.
To mark the start of this estival period and our dreams of sandy shores, here is a small collection of beach-related vocabulary.

But Can I Start a Book Review with "But"?
My review of the new book by the Chicago University Press editors, But Can I Start a Sentence with "But"?

The Funnest Column
Should you use more fun and most fun or funner and funnest? (Answer: Yes.)

The Ultimate E: One Final Letter Can Make All the Difference
Pairs of words that differ in spelling only by the presence or absence of a final letter e, but that single letter can make all the difference. Copy editors and proofreaders alike should take care around these words.

A Historic Column
Without a doubt, this year’s presidential election will be historic. It’ll also be historical, eventually. And that can’t be said about most things. Whether you’re writing about current politics or past outrages, understanding the difference between historic and historical can mean the  difference between “this happened” and “THIS HAPPENED!!!

A Plural Problem in the Animal World
Do you know the plural of octopus, platypus, and rhinoceros? Do you really?

I have some short fiction I've been saving up, too. I'll post some of that here, too. And hopefully it won't take me three more months.

Homing In on Honing In

One of my readers suggested I tackle the unconscionable phrase honing in.

Unconscionable might be a little strong, but it's certainly one of those usages that drive editors bonkers.

I was all prepared to lambaste this obvious misuse, which is at best an eggcorn and at worst a sign of the collapse of English literacy, but then I started researching. And something strange happened: I got a more historical perspective on the two alternatives.

Don't get me wrong; I will stand by homing in to my dying day, but my vehemence will not be so, well, vehement as it once was.

You can draw your own conclusions after you read what I wrote about the subject at Copyediting.com in the post "Honing and Homing In: a History, a Choice, and a Future."

New Word When Again? A Change in Programming

New Word Wednesday will now move to (New Word) Thursday so that, on Wednesdays, I can direct you all to my new weekly vocabulary and usage column at Copyediting.com.

My first post is about the word decimate and its siblings annihilate, obliterate, and devastate.

Are Adverbs Really Evil?

Many a writer, editor, and wordsmithing guru has warned of the damage adverbs can cause to one's writing. Theodore Roethke once said¹, "In order to write good stuff, you have to hate adverbs." Graham Greene noted² how well Evelyn Waugh avoided "beastly adverbs — far more damaging to a writer than an adjective." And, of course, Stephen King famously stated³, "I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs."

With such widespread anti-adverb sentiment, one might wonder why we have adverbs at all if we are not supposed to use them. Are adverbs really so evil that using one will, like a bad apple, spoil an entire sentence?