Articles

Misused Words and Phrases

Ubiquity, Volume 2024 Issue April, April 2024 | BY Philip Yaffe

Full citation in the ACM Digital Library  | PDF

Ubiquity

Volume 2024, Number April (2024), Pages 1-8

Communication Corner: Misused Words and Phrases
Philip Yaffe
DOI: 10.1145/3657649

Each "Communication Corner" essay is self-contained; however, they build on each other. For best results, before reading this essay and doing the exercise, go to the first essay "How an Ugly Duckling Became a Swan," then read each succeeding essay.

Using commonly recognized colorful words, phrases, and quotations can enhance the interest and impact of an expository (non-fiction) text. However, pay close attention when doing so, because those words, phrases, and quotations don't always mean what you might think they mean.

Let me start by saying I am not a pedant about language, English or otherwise. English (or American to be more precise) is my native language. But I also speak fluent French and have a nodding acquaintance with German, Italian, and Spanish. I also used to speak fluent Swahili.

Different languages have peculiar and apparently incongruous ways of saying things. And that's alright because this is what makes languages interesting. However, whatever the language, I am sometimes stunned by how highly intelligent, highly educated people can completely turn a word or a phrase on its head without realizing it.

My number one bête noire (literally black beast) in English is the frequent misuse of the words "overstate" and "understate." Overstate means to exaggerate; understate means to minimize. The problem is not that people confuse the two, but how they use them in a comparison.

• "I cannot overstate the importance of this event."

Often, the speaker means to say that the event has no importance, i.e. it can be easily dismissed. However, if overstate means to exaggerate, then logically "I cannot overstate the importance" must mean that the importance of the event is beyond exaggeration. Therefore no matter how important you say it is, it's even more important than that. However, this is exactly the opposite of what is meant.

• "I cannot understate the importance of this event."

This is the same error in reverse. Often the speaker means to say that the event is of such overwhelming importance that no matter how important you say it is, it is even more important than that. However, if understate means to minimize, then logically "I cannot understate the importance" must mean that the importance of the event is minuscule, i.e. no matter how unimportant you say the event is, it's even less important than that. Again, this is exactly the opposite of what is meant.

I recognize, in context, virtually no one will misunderstand what the speaker is trying to say, even though they mean exactly the opposite of what they are saying. However, shouldn't it be said correctly? Or said in a less ambiguous manner?

A quick example of such ambiguity from another language may help drive the point home.

The French phrase sans doute literally means "without doubt." However, it is commonly used to mean "probably," i.e. with some doubt. If you want to eliminate ambiguity, you need to say sans aucun doute, i.e. without any doubt.

Here's another telling oddity in French. "I am hungry" is J'ai fam or "I have hunger," with the implication that hunger is a bad thing and something you would like to get rid of. Likewise, I am thirsty is J'ai soif, literally "I have thirst," also with the implication that thirst is a bad thing and something you would like to get rid of. I am sleepy is J'ai sommeil, or "I have sleep." However, sleep (sommeil) is what you don't have and are seeking to acquire.

I have asked many native French speakers about this nonsensical phraseology, but they had no explanation. Their only response was C'est comme ça et pas autrement ("That's just how it is and not otherwise").

Whatever your native tongue (English, French, German, Portugues, Swahili, Tagalog, etc.), check it for such logical inconsistencies. You might be shocked (or at least amused) by what you find.

ORAL VS. WRITTEN INCONSISTENCIES

As in many other languages, mistakes in English are more apparent in writing than in speaking. There are two reasons for this.

First, listeners of spoken English are less likely to notice a mistake. It's there, then it's gone. There is no time to ponder it and fret about it.

Second, like many other languages, English is rife with "homophones." Homophones are words that are pronounced the same but spelled differently. For example, cite/sight/site, hear/here, there/their, flour/flower, hole/whole, meat/meet, beat/beet, right/write, sea/see, tail/tale, read/reed. And the list goes on. And on. And on.

Consider the following two sentences:

• As I was writing this sentence, after having read it, I realized that the reader would have a perfect right to criticize its spelling.
• As eye was righting this sentence, after having red it, eye realized the reader would have a perfect write to criticize it's spelling.

The first sentence is of course correct, while the second sentence is full of homophonic errors. But now read the two sentences aloud. You won't be able to tell them apart because they will sound exactly the same.

So why do we need (knead) these homophones?

Because we normally don't read aloud, we have to spell words differently to distinguish them, like: "eye" and "I," "right" and "write," "hear" and "here," "there" and "their," "sea" and "see," etc.

Right? Wrong.

If that were the case, then we would write "read" (pronounced "reed") differently from "read" (pronounced "red"), "lead" (pronounced "leed") differently from "lead" (pronounced "led"), "project" (pronounced "praw-ject") differently from "project" (pronounced "pro-ject"), etc.

It can be argued that such anomalies are among very few exceptions and simply must be learned. However, the argument doesn't stand up because of the widespread use of "homographs." Homographs are words spelled and pronounced the same but have very different meanings.

Look in any dictionary and you will find dozens of homographs on virtually every page. As only one example, take the common word "bed." My dictionary lists the following definitions.

Bed

• A piece of furniture for sleeping or resting on
• A plot of soil where plants are grown
• The bottom of a lake, river, or ocean
• Any flat surface used as a foundation
• A geologic layer or stratum
• The flat surface of a truck used for hauling cargo

Again, some people might argue that this is just how languages are; get used to it. However, this is decidedly incorrect.

Many years ago, I studied and became fluent in Swahili. Swahili originated in East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) and has since spread to numerous other countries around the globe. A distinguishing characteristic of Swahili is that it is perfectly phonetic. Or as I like to put it, "If you can see it, you can say it; if you can say it, you can spell it."

I challenge anyone to argue against that.

TRUNCATED QUOTATIONS

I am particularly cautious about incomplete quotations. Many commonly used English phrases are, in fact, truncated versions of more complex quotations. This doesn't mean they are necessarily misleading, but rather that they tell only part of the original thought. And that can be misleading. Here are some examples.

"Money is the root of all evil."
This is probably one of the most oft-repeated and cherished examples of a truncated quotation because it is taken from the Bible (1 Timothy 6:10). However, this is not what the verse actually says—or means.

The full verse is: "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil . . . ." In other words, money is not inherently corrupting, but the love of money is. Hardly the same thing.

"Curiosity killed the cat."
Full version: "Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back." The first part of the phrase warns against diving too deeply into a needless investigation. The second part, playing on the trope of cats having nine lives, praises the pleasure of searching for and finding out something you really want to know.

"Great minds think alike."
Full version: "Great minds think alike, though fools seldom differ." The full version turns the meaning of the phrase on its head. Great minds (intelligent, well-informed people) often disagree because they know enough about a subject to examine it in depth. By contrast, fools are more likely to agree with each other because their lack of knowledge about a subject tends to make even the most outlandish proposition seem reasonable.

"Blood is thicker than water."
Full version: "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." This truncated quotation is commonly used to assert that familial relationships take priority over friendships or other non-blood-related bonds. However certain scholars contend the full version originally meant exactly the opposite, i.e. a freely entered covenant provides a stronger bond between the participants than any relationship automatically entered into by blood (familial relationship).

"Jack of all trades, master of none."
Full version: "Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one." People who track these things say that the quotation has grown and expanded in meaning over time. It began simply as "a jack of all trades," meaning a generalist praiseworthy for his or her competence in many disciplines. The next part, "master of none," was added later as a slightly derogatory reminder that the jack of all trades knows a little bit about a lot of things, but probably not enough about anything. The final part of the quote "though ofttimes better than master of one" was subsequently added to make the point that being extremely good at one thing is by no means as useful as being adequate at many things.

"My country, right or wrong."
Full version: "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong to be set right." The shorter version of the saying is often used to pledge unwavering support for one's country, irrespective of anything it does or doesn't do. The full quotation denounces such blind, unthinking loyalty. In the pithy words of Mark Twain: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time. And your government when it deserves it."

ILLOGICAL PHRASES

Some commonly used phrases simply don't make sense.

For example, if you know anything about geometry, you know that making a 360-degree change means going around a full circle, which would get you right back to where you started, i.e. effectuating no change at all. What you should say is making a 180-degree change, which means going halfway around a circle, i.e. completely reversing your direction.

As already noted with many other expressions, even though it is technically incorrect, most people will understand its meaning. So, no harm done.

Far more sinister are commonly used expressions that have become so embedded in our psyche that even when their fatal error is exposed, people refuse to credit it.

I am particularly fond of (and frightened by) the expression "the exception that proves the rule." It trips so lightly off the tongue that it almost seems to be a law of nature. But what kind of natural law (or any other kind of law) establishes its bona fides by how often it fails? I have even heard people say, "You must have an exception. Otherwise, how can you know that you have a rule?"

The origin of this linguistic nonsense is the meaning of the verb "to prove."

Meanings evolve. In the Middle Ages (when the expression was coined), to prove meant to test. So, the original meaning of the expression was "It is the exception that tests the rule." Today, prove means to establish or confirm.

The blowback you can get when you try to explain this evolution of meaning to a true believer can be astounding.

I recall spending nearly a half-hour trying to explain the meaning of the expression to a friend. He kept countering with different variants of the notion that the only way to establish that a rule is true is by finding at least one verifiable exception to it. Finally, I said:

"What happens when you chop off someone's head?"
"He dies."
"And we know this is true because at least once when someone's head was separated from their body, they didn't die."

He appeared stunned. As I recall, he shook his head in disbelief (which remained firmly on his shoulders) and silently walked away without comment. I don't think we ever discussed the matter again.

Author

Philip Yaffe was born in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1942 and grew up in Los Angeles, where he graduated from the University of California with a degree in mathematics and physics. In his senior year, he was also editor-in-chief of the Daily Bruin, UCLA's daily student newspaper. He has more than 40 years of experience in journalism and international marketing communication. At various points in his career, he has been a teacher of journalism, a reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal, an account executive with a major international press relations agency, European marketing communication director with two major international companies, and a founding partner of a specialized marketing communication agency in Brussels, Belgium, where he has lived since 1974. He is the author of more than 30 books, which can be found easily in Amazon Kindle.

2024 Copyright held by the Owner/Author.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2024 ACM, Inc.