The Grammar Logs
#605

I was reading an online (available through "The New York Times") excerpt from Ron Chernow's "Alexander Hamilton," and wound up questioning the use of "an harangue" in the following sentence.

"Whereupon Hamilton instantly resolved to take his stand on the stairs [the outer stoop] in front of the Doctor's apartment and there to detain the mob as long as he could by an harangue in order to gain the Doctor the more time for his escape," Troup recorded.

It seems that "a harangue" flows easier than "an harangue." (I know the rules to follow in using the articles "a" and "an.") In checking my hardcover Webster's unabridged dictionary, "a harangue" is included in the word's definition. In checking online sources, I find that both The American Heritage dictionary and Dictionary.com use "a harangue." However, Webster's revised unabridged dictionary uses "an harangue." The conflicting information available through Webster's and the other sources is disconcerting.

What do you suggest in the case of conflicting information? Which article would you use with harangue?

I would say "a harangue" for the same reason I say "a horse" — because I hear that consonantal "h" sound in both words. If you do a search for "a harange" versus "an harange" on Google.com (use the quote marks), you'll see that "a harange" outnumbers "an harangue" by more than six to one. Not even close. But if some people lose that initial "h" sound (which Merriam-Webster's would not approve), they might come up with "an," I suppose.

I am confused about how people use the term "wait on" these days. Let me give you an example.

I am waiting on the report from the principal. I am waiting on my order.

I was always taught to use the term "wait for" in the above examples.

I am waiting for the report from the principal. I am waiting for my order.

I hear so many people using the term "wait on" these days that my skin crawls. What is grammatically correct?

In a restaurant servers "wait" tables. Please clarify this issue for me.

Some of the writing authorities on my shelf say that "wait on" is of southern origin; others say it comes from New York City, where people have longed complained about "waiting on line." Perhaps it's spreading up the Connecticut coast from NYC? My (2003) Merriam-Webster's says that there's nothing really wrong with using "waiting on" something, that the expression seems to convey the tedium of waiting better than "waiting for." Whether or not that's true, "wait on" will bother some people whereas "wait for" will bother no one. The New York Times Manual of Style abhors the idiom of servers who say they "wait tables." However, it seems to be part of the specialized argot of servers and denying their right to it will only get you cold minestrone and a thumb in your antipasto.

The use of "as of". When used in the context of "The money will be available as of your 18th birthday," does this mean on that day, or from that day onwards?

Is there likely to be any difference between US and UK interpretation? My gut feeling says it should mean 'from', but I am looking for arguements to show it would mean 'on'. The example is made up by the way, I'm not receiving any money...unfortunately. Thanks,

"As of" a certain date usually refers to a date on which a certain document becomes effective or is signed. According to Bryan Garner (who has written dictionaries on legal usage), the construction "as of" can be confusing when it's not used with that particular intent, and the writer would probably be better off with a simple "on" [a given date]. Garner doesn't mention a difference between U.S. and UK understandings of the phrase, and I doubt if such a difference exists.

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

Recently I have heard the phrase "speaking to ... " an issue rather than "speaking about... " a subject. I am familiar with the usage "speaking to a person" but not an issue.

Is this a recent evolution, is it an Americanism, is it correct?

I have always disliked this phrasal verb, speak to, so I am surprised to discover that none of my usage manuals even list it, much less find it objectionable. "Speak" is wed to many prepositions in phrasal verb formations, "speak out" and "speak up" being just two of them. The traditional objection to a new phrasal verb invention is that a perfectly good word exists and the phrasal verb usurps that word. In this case, "address" has worked nicely forever, and I don't know why anyone would "speak to" an issue when they could address it. My Shorter OED lists "speak to," but doesn't say anything about (or speak to) its origin — usually that means the origins are as much British as they are American. Perhaps the next time you're in a library rich enough to own the "real" OED, you can check out its origins for us, to find out how American or British the word might be.

Authority for this note: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Fifth Edition. Oxford University Press, New York. 2002.

Which form of the word YOU is correct: "Thank Yous to be sent out" or "Thank You's to be sent out"

No matter which way you write that, your reader is going to think that you're trying to reproduce the subliterate, Brooklynese, "youz guys." I would highly recommend, instead, "Thank you notes/letters to be sent out."

I have a friend who told me that instead of saying "Me, too" (As in Me, also), one should say "I, too." Could that possibly be right?

"I, too" would be extremely formal — no, not formal, stuffy. There are places and times, especially in converstion or casual writing, where "me" works better than "I." When we're not doing well, we sometimes lament, "Why me?" Would anyone actually say "Why I?" And if someone unjustly accuses us of leaving a mess on the carpet, we say "Who? Me?" No one I know would say "Who? I?" And in our photo album of our trip to Scotland, we label one picture, "The Loch Ness Monster and Me," not "I." When the brain is thinking of "me," it's apt to provide me to the tongue and pen, and sometimes that requires no further editing. Let's give me a break.

"He had awoken." "He had been awoken."

I've just seen several examples of this usage in a very popular book, "The DaVinvci Code", by Dan Brown. I believe this is incorrect. Shouldn't he have written "awakened" in both cases?

While we're at it, Mr Brown also stated that M. Sauniere trusted M. Vernet "explicitly". The context indicates that the trust was extended without reservation or hesitation. Therefore, shouldn't he have written "implicitly"?

There's nothing wrong with "He had awoken." See the conjugation of "wake" and "awake." But "He had been awakened" would definitely be an improvement over "He had been awoken." According to authorities on my shelf of usage manuals, "awoken" is regarded as obsolete in the U.S., but you will still find people using it in the UK. If Brown really meant that he trusted someone without reservation or hesitation, then "implicitly" would have been a better word choice. We usually keep "explicit" around to describe expressions that are unambiguous, open, and fully developed. That could, I suppose, describe a friendship, but talking about that kind of trust, "implicit" (without reserve or hesitation, unquestioning) is surely the word he should have had in mind.

What is the difference between "if" and "in case" and please examplify. Thank you

I don't think this has ever come to my attention before. Most writing authorities object, to one extent or another, to the use of "in case" when "if" will suffice. In fact, some authorities become quite excited about it, Quiller-Couch condemning "case" as "jargon's dearest child." The simplest example would be something like "In case it rains, the picnic will be postponed" — where "If" would work quite nicely.

I was taught writing "enclosed please find" is an insult to intelligent people. The proper way is just to say "enclosed is" — any rules of thought on this?

I doubt if it's an insult, but it is one of those phrases (along with "enclosed herewith/herein") that make you think that the person writing is very tired. It would be truly appropriate only if you have gone to some pains to hide the enclosed material. A more direct "I am enclosing" or "here are" would suffice nicely. Back in 1880, Richard Grant White wrote about please find enclosed: "A more ridiculous use of words, it seems to me, there could not be."

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

What's correct in various uses?

"I don't see him going anyplace/any place"?

If you used "anyplace" (one word) fifty years ago, a schoolmarm would've twisted your ear right off your head. Today, if your use of it could be replaced by "any location," you sill want to use the two-word construction, "any place," ("I would rather work in any place other than Antarctica"), and if you can substitute "anywhere" for "anyplace," do so. Still, "anyplace" has gained ascendance over the last few decades, and is now quite commonplace and accepted as an adverb: "She's stuck in her job; she's not going anyplace."

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

By permission, From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. (www.Merriam-Webster.com).

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing