“It’s the question … posed of Senator Obama …”

Common English Blunders, Prepositions

I heard this yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt talk-radio show.

Problem:
The wrong preposition was used.

Explanation:
The talk-show host was describing a question that Senator Barack Obama received during a recent presidential debate.

The origin of the verb “pose” when it means to baffle, as by a difficult question is the obsolete verb “appose”, which is a variation of the verb “oppose”, used in the sense of the Latin word for to put to.

So, when one poses a question, one poses the question to a person, not of a person.

Unfortunately, “posing of” has become a common English blunder.

Solution:
“It’s the question … posed to Senator Obama …”

“Anticlimatic”

Adjectives, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Nouns

I too frequently hear people say “anticlimatic” when they mean something else.

Problem:
“Anticlimatic” is a nonsense word.

Explanation:
Except for that use by those who have turned “anticlimatic” into a word applicable to climate — although it’s difficult to imagine what it means to be “anticlimatic” — this is a nonsense word.

Nearly everyone who says “anticlimatic” actually is trying to say an adjective whose meaning is expressing or pertaining to anticlimax.

“Anticlimactic” (notice the ‘c’ before the ‘tic’) — not “anticlimatic” — is the adjectival form of the noun “anticlimax” (just as “climactic” is the adjectival form of the noun “climax”).

I believe that the use of “anticlimatic” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It’s simpler to say “anticlimatic” than to say “anticlimactic” (which requires the speaker to emphasize the middle ‘c’).

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following words and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

  • anticlimatic — 283,000 matches
  • anticlimactic — 401,000 matches

Assuming that the co-opting of the nonsense word “anticlimatic” by climate writers is an insignificant portion of the “anticlimatic” count, this tells me that Web authors have written the word correctly vs. incorrectly by a ratio of 1.4:1, which is a bit pathetic.

Solution:
“Anticlimactic”

“… it could have a material adverse effect …”

Adjectives, Adverbs, Commas, Devolution toward Simpler

I saw this in AT&T’s 2007 annual report.

Problem:
Either an adjective was used where an adverb was required, or a comma is missing.

Explanation:
The noun “material” can be used as an adjective to modify another noun, and adding “ly” converts it to an adverb.

The adjective “adverse” is modifying the noun “effect” in this example from the 2007 annual report from AT&T Inc., so the word “material” does not correctly modify the adjective “adverse” in this example.

Instead, we need one of two possible solutions (depending on the desired emphasis):

  1. If modifying “adverse” is the desired emphasis, then we need the adverb “materially” as the modifier.
  2. If modifying “effect” is the desired emphasis, then we need the adjective “material” as the modifier, but we also need a comma immediately following “material” because a second adjective (“adverse”) modifies “effect” (the noun).

I believe that the use of “material adverse” instead of “materially adverse” or “material, adverse” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It’s simpler to omit the “ly” and the comma than to use one or the other.

Using “material adverse” lets one avoid thinking about whether to use the “ly” or the comma.

Solutions:
“… it could have a materially adverse effect …”
or
“… it could have a material, adverse effect …”