James Cadle's Earth Flag

How time flies! Would you believe it’s been almost two years since I posted the original Non-Native English Writers entry on Scrawlbug?

For those of you who weren’t around then (or have simply dropped in from a search engine query), that post looked at some of the more common mistakes made by non-native English speakers in documents I was editing.

Today, I decided to look at a few more of these common mistakes, in a continuing attempt to help my writing brethren with a different langue maternelle.

“In UK”

An extremely common error made by writers – particularly those in India, for some reason – is treating this country name in the same way as France, Germany and many others. “In France…” is fine; “In UK” is not.

The difference is that “UK” is a shortening of “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, so it needs “the” in front of it or it sounds odd – in the same way as the Dominican Republic or the Kingdom of Brunei sound strange without “the”.

Correct version: “In the UK”

“In all time”

Another very common mistake, “in all time” doesn’t mean anything in English. It is frequently caused by confusion between two expressions: “at any time” and “all the time”. The former is an adverb, another way of saying “whenever”; the latter is an expression of something that happens continuously, throughout a specific period or frequently.

“I can deliver the package at any time” means I can deliver it whenever a person chooses to have it arrive.

“I deliver packages all the time” means I deliver packages continuously or that it is something I do regularly.

“His friends and all”

Adding “and all” on the end of a sentence might seem to make the phrase more conversational and natural (especially to an American audience). In reality, it can confuse your readers and lacks precision.

Take this example: “The problem is due to unplanned spending and all.” What does “and all” mean? It may be clear to you as the writer but there’s no way for your reader to know what you were thinking. If you’re using the expression to cover up the fact that you only have one example of the problem’s cause, you should do more research.

If there is only one item in your list, drop “and all”: “The problem is due to unplanned spending.”

If there are more items and they are all very obvious for your readers, list at least two and end with “and so on” or even “etc.”: “The problem is due to unplanned spending, reduced income and so on.”

“In (a) short time”

This one’s not strictly wrong – it just sounds weird to an English reader. There are shorter ways to say the same thing, such as “soon” or “quickly”.

“I’ll be there soon” or “He did it quickly” are better.

“During that time, a few years ago, I’ve already been (doing something)”

This is a great example of the difficulty many writer experience with “during” and “since”. I know for a fact that time phrases like this drive my lady nuts trying to get them right!

So which is correct here? It depends on what the writer’s saying.

“During that time” means “while that period of time was passing (or will pass)”. The verb used afterwards is always past or future – I was doing something or I will do something. The future tense version often sounds unwieldy in English, though it is still correct.

“Since that time” means “Between that time and now” or “After that time, up to and including the present moment”.

Example: “During that time, I was unhappy. Since that time, I have been happy. You will be shopping tomorrow: during that time, I will get a haircut. “

Without the rest of the original text, it’s hard to tell which form the author wants. Unfortunately, the first part is in the form of a “during” phrase and the last is a “since” structure.

During: “During that time, a few years ago, I was (doing something)”

Since: “Since that time, a few years ago, I’ve been (doing something)”

You’ll notice that I took the word “already” out in both cases. It’s a redundant word in both expressions.

I expect some of you have corrections of my corrections, comments to make or other thoughts… leave a message!

Someone needs to go on a diet.

Something that I have difficulty understanding is the incessant use of buzzwords in business and the way their usage seems – in much the same way as Warcraft‘s Scourge Blight – to putrefy and spread everywhere.

Actually, that’s a very good comparison. Not because most managers are zombies, but because most can only build something on top of the festering mass of their own ego. And because – despite their conviction that they’re very cool and modern for using those words – everyone else knows that the habit is actually a sign that nearby humans are  in danger of brain-rot.

About now, all the managers out there are itching to jump down to the comments and berate me for my distorted, demotivational view of their job. Well, consider this:

Take, for argument’s sake, a phrase like “Encourage resources who resonate with the idea of building your brand.”

To most of you (and me), this would translate roughly into normal English as “Encourage employees who understand the importance of gaining brand recognition.”

The thing is that, in a global environment like the Internet, it could be read by a non-native speaker.

Putting that phrase through an online translator, you may be saying “Promote assets who vibrate with the notion of constructing your mark.”

Which, although it sounds funky, is probably not the message you want to convey.

Now, as best I can tell, the term was coined by the Freelance Switch site, as the title for their very popular eBook. For me, however, it serves as a reminder of just how careful writers must be in choosing their words. (Incidentally, “rock star” is two words, not one, but that’s just me being picky.)

Every generation has its own vocabulary, mostly in an attempt to distinguish itself from the previous one. Sometimes, the words slip into common parlance – like a lot of the 1960s surfer slang – but there is still a danger of being misunderstood by people unfamiliar with a term or folks from another country.

In other cases, words become colloquialisms. These are even riskier for an author, because readers may have no idea at all what the word means. This can even be true for readers from the same country, where a local term is used for something: a great example I ran across in France was a colleague who used the word chocolatine for a pain au chocolat. He was from Toulouse, and Parisians didn’t understand what he meant.

The accepted usage for “Rockstar Freelancer” is for someone who is talented, creative and – of course – very cool, hip and modern. The reference to the idolisation of music stars is obvious, as well as the appeal of said stars to a young audience with similar aspirations of cool. The idea is to conjure an image of a sexy, smart entrepreneur who looks something like this:

Unfortunately, not everyone uses the words “rock music” in the same way. For example, I grew up as part of a generation for which “rock” is generally a bland or even derogatory term. If someone were to refer to an individual as a “Rockstar Freelancer”, my mental image would look much more like this:

Of course, fans of the Rolling Stones will argue that they’re just as sexy and fabulous as Ms. Simpson – and that’s precisely my point: by all means, use the terms – but don’t be surprised if the reaction isn’t quite what you expected!

Who do you think of when someone uses the term “Rockstar”?

Some of the documents I’m editing are obviously written by people with English as a second language. This made me think that I should keep track of some of the more common grammar errors that are made by non-native writers. I’m extra-familiar with this, since my partner is French and makes the same mistakes!

So here are a few that appear very frequently, as they appeared in documents about horses (in case you wondered).

I will try to explain each problem, but avoid technical grammar-speak, in the hope that this will be useful to the non-English blogging and writing community!

“This particular type of animal could still be commonly seen at certain parts of England.”

This phrase was used as part of a present-tense paragraph. The “continuing activity” is a frequent stumbling block for many non-native speakers: the idea of having to figure out whether an action was happening and is still going on.

In this case, the phrase above can mean that the animal “can possibly be seen”, but most native English readers will consider the word “could” to be in the past tense. The phrase therefore changes meaning and becomes “could possibly be seen in the past”. That doesn’t make sense in a present-tense paragraph.

The important thing here is that the animal is common – not that people see it. By rephrasing a little, it becomes much clearer. Also, “at certain parts” should be “in certain parts” – this is another common mistranslation. Most languages do, indeed, use “at” – English is just odd in this particular case.

Suggested change: “This particular type of animal is still common in certain parts of England.”

“Most are used for pulling royal carriages for centuries.”

A historical comment, that a particular breed of horse was used for a certain job. Obviously, the verb is in the wrong tense – “are” needs to be changed to “were”.

There’s another problem, though: the placement of “for centuries” makes it sound like the poor creatures had to constantly pull carriages for several hundred years, without stopping!

Suggested change: “For centuries, they were mostly used to pull royal carriages.”

“Its eyes are brilliant and very alluring.”

This is a thesaurus mistake: the author has translated a word like “attractive” or “appealing” (something that is physically pretty), but has unfortunately chosen a word with sexual undertones. The word “alluring” implies sexual attraction, which would – one hopes – not be the case where a horse is concerned.

Suggested change: “Its eyes are brilliant and attractive.”

“A chest that is quite deeper than most.”

Again, an unfortunate choice of translated word. “Quite” just doesn’t work like this. “Quite” is a synonym for words like “fairly” or “very”. Thus, it could be combined with “deep” (“very deep”) but not with “deeper”: a word like “rather” or “somewhat” may be more appropriate. If it’s a significant different, how about “notably”?

Suggested change: “A chest that is somewhat deeper than most.”

“…up to a certain height. On the other hand, these breeds come in colors…”

Another common problem when writing in an unfamiliar language is all those little start-of-sentence phrases, like “Additionally…” or “In general…”. In this case, the author chose “On the other hand”, but it makes no sense in the paragraph, as it was really only there to begin a sentence with another piece of unrelated information.

“On the other hand” presents an opposing argument or fact to the one given in the previous sentence. So, for example, one could say “He is not very tall. On the other hand, he’s not very short!” or “On the one hand, I like the colour. On the other hand, I don’t like the shape.”

Suggested change: Remove “On the other hand” entirely. It’s not needed.

“Because these animals are traditionally bred in areas all around France, they are sought after by many animal lovers”

Here, we have a problem of an inconsistent conclusion. The first part of the phrase simply doesn’t explain the second. They are sought after because they’re bred all over France? Why does that mean they’re so valuable? There’s no logic to the conclusion at all.

Suggested change: Simply replace “they” with “and”. That way there’s two separate statements that don’t depend on each other.

They have been common in the farmlands of France and Belgium.

I struggled with this one for a little while. What was wrong with it? I knew it sounded weird but couldn’t place exactly why – then it hit me: it’s either in the wrong tense or needs more precision.

If it’s the tense, then “They have been common” should probably be “They are common”. An editor would have to go and check that fact before changing it, by the way.

Alternatively, it needs more information. “They have been common” tells the reader absolutely nothing. They were common, but aren’t any more? They have been and continue to be? They’ve recently become common, though they weren’t before? It’s just too vague.

Suggested change: In this case, it was the tense. “They are common…”

“Vivid”

This is one of those words that, unless you’ve run across an incorrect translation before, you won’t think strange. The thing is that most Latin-based languages use the word in a different way to English.

To an English person, “vivid” relates to colour. It can be usedto convey flamboyance or a “colourful” personality as well, but it always comes back to the basis of colour.

To speakers of most other languages, “vivid” relates to being “full of life” or – in English terms – “vivacious“.

It’s what the French call a “false friend”: a word that is close in spelling, but means something else (look up “sensible” and “support” in a French dictionary for a couple of other examples). It’s an irregularity that’s worth remembering!

“In perfect shape” and “Perfectly-shaped”

A result of English sometimes being rather compact, these two phrases have different meanings. Although the first is the literal translation of the second from a lot of other languages, it means something else.

“In perfect shape” is used as an expression of physical or mental condition: “I was in perfect shape for the competition” would mean that the person was  at the peak of their physical and/or mental preparations.

“Perfectly-shaped” is a comment on the physical appearance of something. A perfectly-shaped Greek urn looks exactly like the mental picture one has of the object.

Any more?

Those are just a few of the more common errors I’ve encountered recently. I hope the explanations will help some of my blogging and writing compatriots out there!

I’d love to hear from any non-native English writers, of course. What is the toughest thing for you to get right? Is there a mistake you make every time? Is there something you’ve never understood that I might be able to clarify?

Go on, leave me a comment and let me know!

Yes, I’ve been doing too much editing. I come across so many web pages with common spelling mistakes and misused phrases. Most of them – given the sites I frequent – are on writers’ articles, often about writing.

Here, for your personal edification, are some more of those that really set my teeth on edge.

1. Buisness – yes, it’s obviously just a transposition of two letters, but that’s what the wiggly red spell-checker lines are for! FireFox has one built in, IE’s is here.

2. Catergories – how can you spell this wrong? It’s on every single blog post entry screen. Look! Over there! See the box with “Categories” at the top?

3. for awhile now- “awhile” is an adverb and is only really used in poems. “Come, rest awhile” and all that. You have to wear flowery dresses or live in a dingy garret to write like that. Normal people don’t use it.  “A while” is the noun. That’s the one you want.

4. easygoing – ever heard of a hyphen? You know, those little lines that have been around for about five hundred years and join words together? “Easy” and “going” are separate words.

5. my curiosity is peaked – so your curiosity is a physical object that has a pointed top? Eh? You mean “piqued”, I think.

6. everyday and anymore – “uuunnnnnnnnngggggghhhh!” That’s the sound of my love of language haemorrhaging violently. Both of these are adjectives – “an everyday event” – not adverbs. The adverb versions are two words: “I do this every day. I can’t take it any more.”

7. you looser – the oft-voiced retort to Grammar Nazis like myself pointing out spelling mistakes, this one really stands out. Who’s the “loser” now?

8. tollerance – repeatedly wrong in an article on – yes, you guessed it – tolerance for spelling mistakes in job applications! Come on, even the browser spell-checkers spot that one!

And finally, a couple of bonus items to make you laugh.

Firstly, we have a repost of a well-known email poem that points out just how useless a spell-checker is if you don’t apply a bit of common sense.Secondly, we have possibly the best public spelling mistake ever. Yes, it’s real.

So tell me, what are the mistakes that drive you crazy? Which ones do you always make yourself? (Mine is “independent” – for some reason, I want to put an “a” in the place of the last “e”.)

The Questions

1. What do the words banana, dresser, grammar, potato, revive, uneven and assess have in common?

2. What do the words incommunicado, disrupt, ungainly, misnomer and gormless have in common?

3. What’s so special about the words cleave, dust, left and rent?

4. What’s the most commonly-used word in the English language?

5. “Orange”. Is there another word in English that has no rhyme?

6. What’s so special about the word “uncopyrightable”?

7. Why is the word “Therein” so special?

8. What letter doesn’t appear in any of the names of the states of the United States?

9. What’s a “tmesis”?

10. What English word has the most definitions?

The Answers

1. If you take the first letter of each word and put it on the end, you spell the same word backwards.

2. They’re all negatives that have no positive form.

3. They’re all contronyms – they have two different, opposite meanings. Cleave: separate from or stick to; dust – sprinkle with fine powder or remove fine powder from; left – departed from somewhere or the bit that remains; rent – to buy the use of or to sell the use of.

4. “The”. It’s followed by “of”, then “and”.

5. Yes – “silver” also has no rhyme, though both have half-rhymes (“lozenge” and “salver”, respectively)

6. It’s one of the two longest English words containing no letter more than once. The other is “dermatoglyphics”.

7. It contains thirteen other words, all spelt by consecutive letters of the original: the, he, her, er, here, I, there, ere, rein, re, in, therein, and herein!

8. “Q”. James Bond would be most disappointed.

9. It’s when a word is inserted in the middle of two others of a common phrase, like “abso-frickin-lutely” or “Fan-smegging-tastic” (for the Red Dwarf fans out there).

10. “Set” – apparently, it has 464 of them in the OED!

So tell me – how many did you get? Pass it on to your friends and see how they compare!

So I thought I’d put together a quick list of the ten spelling mistakes I’ve seen most frequently, along with pictures (wherever possible) – just hit the links. These are the errors that make bloggers, writers or even companies look incredibly stupid. Or is that “stoopid”?

1. Differance. The word is ‘difference’. Unfortunately, not even schools can manage to get this one right.

2. Mabye. I guess it might be right, phonetically. Depends where you’re from. Around here, we spell it “maybe”. As in, “it may be”.

3. Sucess. Always two c’s, please! Especially if you’re in a “people” industry.

4. Loose. Only losers spell lose incorrectly. Loose is more appropriate when talking about morals, or clothes.

5. Then. Oh, it makes me want to scream when people use “then” instead of “than”. More then anything else!

6. Gullable. It’s spelled “gullible”, not “gullable”. Sigh.*

7. Non-existant. It doesn’t exist! It’s “non-existent”, with an e. By the way, put the correct spelling into the dictionary.com web site and ask it to search… it can’t find any matching results!

8. Priviledge. It’s “privilege”. It’s not a shortened version of “private ledge” or something. LOLcats the world over would disagree, though.

9. Can not be beat. How are we supposed to read this? It can not-be-beat? Or it cannot be beat. Beetroot? “Beat” Takeshi? Yes, it’s common parlance, but it’s written “cannot be beaten”.

10. Strait. It might be straightforward for you or me to get this straight, but a lot of people are in dire straits when spelling straight. A strait is a relatively narrow passageway connecting two bodies of water.

* Hah, gotcha! It’s spelled either way. I was just kidding!

[Originally published on www.wordophilia.com]