Month: January 2008

“Loath” vs. “Loathe”

Adjectives, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Verbs, Versus

I sometimes see these two words mixed up in writing, and I sometimes hear them mixed up in speech.

Problem:
“Loath” and “loathe” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
“Loath” is an adjective that means reluctant or unwilling. “Loath” is usually followed by “to”, as in “Mary was loath to call her sister about their brother’s death.”

“Loathe” is a verb that means abhor, or dislike greatly, as in “Mary loathes making cold sales calls.”

I sometimes hear the verb “loathe” where the adjective “loath” is required. Misuse of “loathe” as a substitute for “loath” — especially in speech — seems to support my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. The verb “loathe” is simpler to pronounce (with the “th” sound like in “smooth”) than is the adjective “loath” (with the “th” sound like in “thin”).

Solution:
Use “loath” as an adjective (usually followed by “to”); use “loathe” as a verb. Remember that “loath” and “thin” have the same “th” sound, whereas “loathe” and “smooth” have the same “th” sound.

“Conversate”

Verbs

I occasionally hear this.

Problem:
“Conversate” is a slang verb that makes the speaker sound dumb.

Explanation:
“Conversate” is a back-formation of the noun “conversation”.

Maybe some people who use “conversate” know that the noun “obligation” and the verb “obligate” go together and therefore believe that “conversation” and “conversate” go together.

I have heard “conversate” or one of its ‘conjugations’ in sentences such as these:

  • “Let’s conversate about the ladder that I borrowed from you.”
  • “I was conversating with her yesterday about the weather.”
  • “I conversated with him about the outrageous telephone bill.”

At least in my experience, it seems as if some of those who say “conversate” are trying to sound more intelligent than those who are listening to them. After all, “conversate” is longer than “converse”, so the former must be a “fancier” word than the latter (or at least that’s their reasoning).

Whatever the reason, “conversate” makes the speaker sound dumb.

Solution:
“Converse” (or — keeping it simple — “Chat”)

“Oh, for Heaven sakes!”

Apostrophes, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Nouns, Possessives

I often hear people say this.

Problems:
1. A possessive apostrophe-S (‘s) is missing.
2. The noun makes much more sense in singular form.

Explanation:
Even in speech, one can hear when a possessive apostrophe-S is missing.

The English noun “sake” (not the Japanese noun) means interest, benefit, advantage, motive, purpose or cause. For example, “for the sake of Jim” means for the benefit of Jim.

We can rewrite “for the sake of Jim” (“for the benefit of Jim”) as “for Jim’s sake” (“for Jim’s benefit”). It doesn’t make a lot of sense to say “for Jim’s sakes” (plural). That would be analogous to saying “for Jim’s benefits”, which most people would not say because one vague, all-encompassing benefit is enough!

Apparently, the original expression was “Oh, for God’s sake!” This expression got softened to “Oh, for Heaven’s sake!”, which got converted into the problematic expression.

I believe that “Oh, for Heaven sakes” supports my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “Oh, for Heaven sakes” than to say “Oh, for Heaven’s sake”; saying the latter requires one to pause between “Heaven’s” and “sake” so that the listener hears the two S sounds.

Letting the expression devolve further, we get the original, problematic expression: “Oh, for Heaven sakes!” It’s as if the speaker is indicating that he knows that an S sound belongs somewhere, so he puts it at the end of the expression, where it sounds as if it might belong.

Solution:
“Oh, for Heaven’s sake!”