Nouns

“Albumen” vs. “Albumin”

Nouns, Versus

I sometimes see one word where the other word is required.

Problem:
These two nouns are not synonyms.

Explanation:
The noun “albumen” refers to the white of an egg.

The noun “albumin” refers to the water-soluble protein found in the whites of eggs, in milk, in boold,

Solution:
Use “albumen” to refer to the white of an egg. A way to remember this is the common “e” in “albumen” and “egg”. Use “albumin” to refer to the protein that occurs in egg whites, blood, milk, etc. A way to remember this is the common “i” in “albumin” and “protein”.

“Gender” vs. “Sex”

Common English Blunders, Nouns, Versus

I often hear or read “gender” where “sex” is the appropriate noun.

Problem:
“Gender” and “sex” are not synonyms.

Explanation:
The noun “gender” is a grammatical term that traditionally has been used to refer to categories of pronouns and nouns (masculine, feminine, and neuter).

The noun “sex” refers to the division of living things into the male and female state. Given that “sex” has become overloaded to refer to the act, it seems that a prudishness has developed about using a perfectly good noun — “sex” — to refer to the division of living things.

Sorry, but a person doesn’t have a gender; a person has a sex. Ditto for cats and dogs and other living things.

Solution:
Use “sex” when referring to people and other living things. Reserve the use of “gender” to refer to the kind of a pronoun or noun.

“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!”