Common English Blunders

“Anytime” vs. “Any Time”

Adjectives, Adverbs, Common English Blunders, Versus

I saw “anytime” used where “any time” was required in a technical document.

Problem:
“Anytime” and “any time” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
“Anytime” is an adjective. “Any time” is an adverbial phrase.

It’s an anytime event to have Bill Clinton visit our donut shop. is an example of the proper use of “anytime”. The adjective “anytime” tells the reader/listener the what type of event it is to have Bill Clinton visit the writer/speaker’s donut shop.

Getting stuck in the longest line happens any time that I try to pick the shortest line at the grocery store. is an example of the proper use of “any time”. The adverbial phrase “any time” tells the reader/listener when the writer/speaker gets stuck in the longest line.

Solution:
Use “anytime” when you are modifying a noun; use “any time” when you are modifying a verb.

“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.

“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!”