Some English words are often used in ways that are contentious among writers on usage and prescriptive commentators. The contentious usages are especially common in spoken English, and academic linguists point out that they are accepted by many listeners. While in some circles the usages below may make the speaker sound uneducated or illiterate, in other circles the more standard or more traditional usage may make the speaker sound stilted or pretentious.
For a list of disputes more complicated than the usage of a single word or phrase, see English usage controversies.
+ Abbreviations of dictionaries citedAbbrev. Dictionary Further details AHD4 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th Edition AHD5 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 5th Edition, 2013, online CHAMBERS Chambers 21st Century Dictionary 2006 COD11 Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th Edition COED Compact Oxford English Dictionary Lexico ENCARTA Encarta World English Dictionary online FOWLER The New Fowler's Modern English Usage Revised 3rd Edition (1998) MAU Garner's Modern American Usage 3rd Edition (2009) M-W Merriam-Webster online OED Oxford English Dictionary online RH Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006; on Dictionary.com
A
aggravate – Some have argued that this word should not be used in the sense of "to annoy" or "to oppress", but to mean only "to make worse". According to AHDI, the use of "aggravate" as "annoy" occurs in English as far back as the 17th century. In Latin, from which the word was borrowed, both meanings were used. Sixty-eight percent of AHD4's usage panel approves of its use in "It's the endless wait for luggage that aggravates me the most about air travel." M-W mentions that while aggravate in the sense of "to rouse to displeasure or anger by usually persistent and often petty goading" has been around since the 17th century, disapproval of that usage only appeared around 1870. RH states in its usage note under aggravate that "The two most common senses of aggravate are 'to make worse' and 'to annoy or exasperate.' Both senses first appeared in the early 17th century at almost the same time; the corresponding two senses of the noun aggravation also appeared then. Both senses of aggravate and aggravation have been standard since then." Chambers cites this usage as "colloquial" and that it "is well established, especially in spoken English, although it is sometimes regarded as incorrect." ain't – originally a contraction of "am not", this word is widely used as a replacement for "aren't", "isn't", "haven't" and "hasn't" as well. While ain't has existed in the English language for a very long time and is a common word in many dialects in both North America and the British Isles, its use in formal writing is not recommended by most usage commentators. The above notwithstanding, ain't is used by educated speakers and writers for deliberate effect or as part of a cliche, what Oxford American Dictionary describes as "tongue-in-cheek" or "reverse snobbery", and what Merriam-Webster Collegiate calls "emphatic effect" or "a consistently informal style". alibi – Some argue this cannot be used in the non-legal sense of "an explanation or excuse to avoid blame or justify action." AHD4 notes that this usage was acceptable to "almost half" of the usage panel, while most opposed the word's use as a verb. M-W mentions no usage problems, listing the disputed meaning second to its legal sense without comment. OED cites the non-legal noun and verb usages as colloquial and "orig[inally] U.S.".http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50005635 Chambers deems this use "colloquial". alright – An alternative to "all right" that some consider illiterate but others allow. RH says that it probably arose in analogy with other similar words, such as altogether and already; it does concede the use in writing as "informal", and that all right "is used in more formal, edited writing". AHD4 flags alright as "nonstandard", and comments that this unacceptance (compared to altogether etc.) is "peculiar", and may be due to its relative recentness (altogether and already date back to the Middle Ages, alright only a little over a century). Chambers refers to varying levels of formality of all right, deeming alright to be more casual; it recommends the use of all right "in writing for readers who are precise about the use of language". also – Some contend this word should not be used to begin a sentence. AHD4 says "63 percent of the Usage Panel found acceptable the example 'The warranty covers all power-train components. Also, participating dealers back their work with a free lifetime service guarantee. See also and and but (below). alternative – Some argue that alternative should be used only when the number of choices involved is exactly two. While AHD4 allows "the word's longstanding use to mean 'one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen' and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics", it goes on to state that only 49% of its usage panel approves of its use as in "Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful." Neither M-W nor RH mentions any such restriction to a choice of two. Chambers qualifies its definition as referring to "strictly speaking, two, but often used of more than two, possibilities". a.m./p.m. – These are abbreviations for the Latin adverbial phrases ante meridiem ("before noon") and post meridiem ("after noon"). Some argue that they therefore should not be used in English as nouns meaning "morning" and "afternoon"; however, such use is consistent with ordinary nominalization features of English. AHD4 lists adjectival usage with "an A.M. appointment" and "a P.M. appointment". RH gives "Shall we meet Saturday a.m.?" without comment. Also, the National Institute of Standards and Technology contends it is incorrect to use 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. to mean either noon or midnight. amidst – Some speakers feel it is an obsolete form of amid. Amidst is more common in British English than American English, though it is used to some degree in both. amongst – Some speakers feel it is an obsolete form of among. "Amongst" is more common in British English than American English, though it is used to some degree in both. among/amongst and between – The traditionalist view is that between should be used only when there are only two objects (or people) for comparison; and among or amongst should be used for more than two objects (or people). Most style guides and dictionaries do not support this advice, saying that between can be used to refer to something that is in the time, space or interval that separates more than two items. M-W says that the idea that between can be used only of two items is "persistent but unfounded" and AHD4 calls it a "widely repeated but unjustified tradition". The OED says "In all senses, between has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two".dictionary.oed.com Chambers says "It is acceptable to use between with reference to more than two people or things", although does state that among may be more appropriate in some circumstances. Undisputed usage: I parked my car between the two telegraph poles. Undisputed usage: You'll find my brain between my ears. Disputed usage: The duck swam between the reeds. (Undisputed if there are exactly two reeds) Disputed usage: They searched the area between the river, the farmhouse, and the woods. Undisputed usage: We shared the money evenly amongst the three of us. Disputed usage: We shared the money between Tom, Dick, and me. Undisputed usage: My house was built among the gum trees. amount – Some argue amount should not be substituted for number. They recommend the use of number if the noun is countable and amount only if it is uncountable. While RH acknowledges the "traditional distinction between amount and number, it mentions that "[a]lthough objected to, the use of amount instead of number with countable nouns occurs in both speech and writing, especially when the noun can be considered as a unit or group (the amount of people present; the amount of weapons) or when it refers to money (the amount of dollars paid; the amount of pennies in the till). (see also less) Disputed usage: I was amazed by the amount of people who visited my website. Undisputed usage: The number of people in the lift must not exceed 10. Undisputed usage: I was unimpressed by the amount of water consumed by the elephant. and – Some argue that sentences should not begin with the word and on the argument that as a conjunction it should only join clauses within a sentence. AHD4 states that this stricture "has been ridiculed by grammarians for decades, and ... ignored by writers from Shakespeare to Joyce Carol Oates." RH states "Both and and but, and to a lesser extent or and so, are common as transitional words at the beginnings of sentences in all types of speech and writing"; it goes on to suggest that opposition to this usage "... probably stems from the overuse of such sentences by inexperienced writers." ENCARTA opines that said opposition comes from "too literal an understanding of the 'joining' function of conjunctions", and states that any overuse is a matter of poor style, not grammatical correctness. COED calls the usage "quite acceptable". Many verses of the King James Bible begin with and (though this could be regarded as a Hebraism), as does William Blake's poem And did those feet in ancient time (a.k.a. Jerusalem). Fowler's Modern English Usage defends this use of and. Chambers states that "Although it is sometimes regarded as poor style, it is not ungrammatical to begin a sentence with and." See also also (above) and but (below). anticipate – Although the expect sense is accepted by 87% of the Usage Panel, some prescriptivists insist that deal with in advance is the only correct use. Acceptance of the forestall sense has dropped to 57%. Undisputed usage: We anticipated the coming winter by stocking up on firewood. Disputed usage: We anticipated a pleasant sabbatical year.Pinker, Steven (2014-09-30). The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century (Kindle Location 4485). Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition. anxious – Some argue that this word should be used only in the sense of "worried" or "worrisome" (compare "anxiety"), but it has been used in the sense of "eager" for "over 250 years"; 52% of AHD4's Usage Panel accepts its use in the sentence "We are anxious to see the new show of contemporary sculpture at the museum." Also, it suggests that the use of anxious to mean "eager" may be mild hyperbole, as the use of dying in the sentence "I'm dying to see your new baby." RH states bluntly that "its use in the sense of 'eager' ... is fully standard." M-W defines anxious as "3 : ardently or earnestly wishing <anxious to learn more> / synonym see EAGER" Chambers gives "3 very eager • anxious to do well."
B
barbaric and barbarous – Barbaric applies to the culture of barbarians and may be positive ("barbaric splendor"); barbarous applies to the stereotypical behavior of barbarians and is negative ("barbarous cruelty"). This is standard English usage. However, M-W equates the third meaning of "barbaric" with the third of "barbarous", that is, "mercilessly harsh or cruel"; COD11 and Chambers list "savagely cruel" and "cruel and brutal; excessively harsh or vicious", respectively, as the first meanings for "barbaric". Only AHD4 disallows this usage, and without comment. Undisputed. The environment of the venue was barbaric. Undisputed. Terrorism is barbarous. Disputed. Capital punishment is a disgusting, barbaric measure. begging the question – In logic, begging the question is another term for petitio principii or arguing in a circle, in other words making assumptions in advance about the very issue in dispute. It could also be understood as "beggaring the question", i.e. making a beggar of the question.