Ninja's English Usage Advice Column

No. They are completely different words, but are sometimes confused because they sound the same. Discreet is an adjective which is used in the sense of tact, judiciousness, prudence and unobtrusiveness. There is also the sense of being discerning. He excercised discretion in all his dealings with his clients. She discreetly placed the gift where he would not find it right away. The furnishings were discreet and elegant.

Discrete is an adjective which indicates separateness and disctinctiveness. He had to remove the discrete parts of the mechanism that were causing the problem. Each discrete formula has its own properties. The discrete colouring of the animal was very striking.

You've got my sympathy if you are not entirely sure about this word. It just so happens that slough has several meanings depending on its pronounciation. When prounouned as slow or (to complicate matters), slew, it means: a place of deep mud or mire or a state of moral degradation or spiritual dejection according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. When prounouced as sluff it means something that may be shed or cast off or to shed or cast off according to Merriam-Webster. It means to shed something, for example, the skin of snake or as an abstract concept to disregard or overcome something as in: He sloughed off his colleague's comment.

I have completely avoided the word in its slow or slew form, and while I may say it from time to time, hardly ever write it in its sluff form. Hopefully, you will be more courageous than I.

To answer this question, think about when the first millennium started. Was it the year 0 or the year 1? As it turns out we don't count year 0. It never existed. From the year 1B.C. we went straightaway into 1A.D. So the first millennium began in 1A.D. The second millennium started in the year 1001. The third millennium, the one we are in now, began on January 1, 2001 not January 1, 2000. December 31, 2000 ended the second millennium.

It is the same with centuries. The twentieth century did not end on December 31, 1999. It ended on December 31, 2000. The twenty-first century began in 2001. It might sound better but Prince had no business partying like it was 1999. There was no point.

If you wish you can refer to the year 2000 as the dawn of the new millennium. This is a perhaps romantic way of referring to the actual millennium without actually having to commit to when it actually started.

While we're on the subject, don't spell this word wrong. There are two ls and two ns.

(See http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/calendar.html#gcal for an interesting explanation of the history of how our years are currently reckoned.)

No. They are not. But they are often used as though they are. The abbreviation e.g. is Latin for exempli gratia. It means for example and should be used to illustrate or provide examples of something previously referred to. I love all kinds of candy, e.g. taffy, mints, gumdrops, ju-jubes, and Atomic Fireballs. The abbreviation i.e. is Latin for id est and means that is. It should be used to qualify, clarify or otherwise further explain a previously mentioned point. The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy, i.e. three separate books.

Formally both e.g. and i.e. are spelled using the full stops. It is becoming more acceptable to render them as eg and ie. The best rule of thumb is to be consistent. If you omit the stops in one place omit them everywhere in your written practice, otherwise always put them in.

I am not sure, to be honest. I personally have a lot of trouble with these two words. I sometimes wish one of them would be thrown away or otherwise not used. But that is not going to happen. So, I'll try to explain what I think I know about these words.

From what I can tell an epidemic is an outbreak of disease (or sometimes other event) that affects many people over a large geographic area. A pandemic seems to be an outbreak of disease that affects many people over an even wider geographic area. The Greek root pan connotes the notion of all or universality. I have seen the word pandemic qualified as a global epidemic. But a pandemic does not have to be global to be used in the context of bigger than an epidemic. In other places, I see them used quite interchangeably.

Dictionaries I've consulted are quite noncommital on the differences.

In 1959 the Italian filmmaker Fredrico Fellini made a movie called La Dolce Vita (meaning the sweet or good life). It's about a gossip magazine journalist who spends his time in vaccuous shallow partying among the rich and famous. One of his colleagues and companions is a young photographer named Paparazzo who is the quintessential tabloid photographer harrassing and jostling his way to flash a picture. It is generally believed and accepted that the word paparazzi, (Paparazzo made plural), to refer to photographers who hound and dog celebrities to get a picture, comes from that character's name.

Fellini is reported to have decided on that character's name after reading a book that contained a character by the name of Coriolano Paparazzo who owned a hotel. The book was called By the Ionian Sea by George Gissing.

The movie itself is considered a classic and should by all means be seen.

Yes. A year ago I noticed a sign put up at my local dry cleaner. It read:


I can take this advice two very different ways. In one interpretation it reads that if I like the service and fail to inform the dry cleaner, then tell a friend instead that you like the service. The second interpretation and the one I assumed the dry cleaner meant was that if I like the service then please tell a friend, otherwise if I do not like the service inform the dry cleaner so presumedly the owner can remedy the situation and get the business back on track. The fact that I can read the sign in two ways makes the message ambiguous and therefore reflects poor communication. It makes an otherwise pithy attempt to reach out to consumers confusing.

Because I am a self appointed member of the grammar police and because there was no punctuation in places that reflected the true intent of the message, I could not help but read it the first way. I went back to the office and was distracted as only an officer of the force could be under the circumstances. I had a dilemma. How do I go back to the dry cleaner and explain my concern in a way that would make a difference? Would I be ignored? Laughed at? Be given a vacant stare? Have something thrown at me? The next day I tried my hand at explaining the situation to the on-duty clerk. At first she couldn't see it but then when I explained that perhaps what was really meant was : "If you like our service tell a friend, period. If you don't, comma, tell us." The comma, in particular,I suggested, really helps the reader understand that the auxilliary verb don't refers back to liking or not liking the service. Her face brightened. "Yes," she agreed, "I see the problem now." A few days later the sign had been changed to use the well placed comma and a period. Just another victory for the word warrior.

One can legitimately argue that now, the apparent sentence: If you don't, tell us, is actually not a sentence at all. It is a sentence fragment that looks like it is part of the previous sentence instead. A comma would be completely unnecessary if the fragment were to be changed to a real sentence like this: If you don't like the service tell us. But then the advice, which is really a piece of found poetry, would not have that snappy ring to it. Poetry and poetic licence in this case really require a snappy ring.

Absolutely not. It is not a word. It does not mean anything. Do not use it anywhere. If you utter this word aloud in any group of people, there will be derisive eye rolling behind your back among knowing users. Use the word regardless instead. Regardless of the facts, he claimed he was never at the scene of the crime. You can use irrespective too if you want to. Irrespective of the facts, he maintained he never used that word in his entire life. Maybe that's where you took the wrong turn. Mutating and blending regardless and irrespective. Trust me. If you find it in any dictionary you will be advised that "[the word] is...a long way from general acceptance."

The root e comes from the Latin (and Greek) ex which means "out of" or "from". The root i comes from the Latin in which means "into" or "towards". Strictly speaking, shouldn't inquire mean "to be asked of" and enquire "to ask of or about"? We seem to enquire after someone's health, and others inquire of me why I was late for dinner. But, in fact it is widely accepted that enquire is a variant of inquire and that they can be used quite interchangably. Entrust and intrust have the same flexibility in usage. Personally, I would never intrust my violin to you. I am more apt to entrust it to you instead. I am giving it up, giving it out, handing it away and over to you after all. You are well within your rights to differ on this.

To emigrate, however, always means a very different thing from immigrate. If I leave the country to take up citizenship elsewhere, then I have emigrated. And I could be an emigre, but this word often refers to a political exile. It is more likely that I am a plain vanilla emigrant. In the country I have moved to I will be considered to have immigrated into it. And I will likely be treated in many matters as an immigrant in my new land.

Consider explode and implode. An explosion is an outward event. According to the Pocket Oxford, it means to "expand suddenly with a loud noise owing to the release of internal energy." An implosion is an inward event. A "burst[ing] inward", according to the Oxford, instead. An explosion that is directed inwards rather than outwards. I must admit, I find that quite hard to visualize.

In any case, you need no longer wonder if the National Enquirer could have been named the National Inquirer since either name would serve the same purpose in providing the same kind of information.

The common meaning of curfew is a designated hour at which adolescents are required to be home in the evening by order of their parents or when all citizens or military personnel are required to retreat indoors by order of the state. But it is derived from the French covrefeu spoken in the middle ages, which was the signal to bank a fire for the evening and further means "cover the fire". The root feu itself is derived from the Latin focus which means "hearth".

The next time that you are at a party discussing the West Nile virus and the mosquitos that carry it, you could be engaging in entomology, that is: the study of insects. Among those that are fleetingly familiar with both words, this one is often confused with etymology which is the study of word origins. Etymology often offers a fascinating foray into the progression of meaning of some words. The word mosquito comes from the Spanish diminutive mosca or fly. The Latin word for fly is musca. A variation is midge which is a "small dipteran fly". (If you are a fan of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, you may recall one or two scenes when the hobbits were besieged by armies of annoying midges.) A mosquito is of the family of dipteran flies.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary a skeptic is someone who has "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object". The Oxford Dictionary says that it is someone who is "inclined to doubt accepted opinions; critical; incredulous."

Americans spell it skeptic, while the rest of the English speaking world prefers sceptic. This use of k rather than c extends to the adjectival form: skeptical, the adverbal form: skeptically, and the abstract noun skepticism. Both forms of spelling are perfectly acceptable and do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

However, please don't hesitate to exercise sceptism as you enjoy my column. On the other hand, you had better be ready to back up your outrageous claims about the correct usage of language before you tangle with me.

(Of course, if you spot an error in my writing - I will be the first to eat a most generous portion of humble pie).

Language is ever evolving and changing. Its changes reflect the dynamic and creative progress of culture and society. I am all for experimenting with language as we should in any artform. Consider this essential factor as you proceed: In order to break the rules know what those rules are in the first place. So it is in a true spirit of fun, exploration and experimentation that I offer this advice column to help you understand the difference between the right use of words, spelling, and phrases so that you can knowingly break the rules if you need to.

That's what poetic licence really means.

*Incidently: In British English usage, (what the rest of the world uses), the noun is legitimately spelled licence . As in : Did you remember to pick up the marriage licence? It is the verb that is spelled license. As in: We cannot license this vehicle for use. American usage accepts the spelling license for both the noun and the verb.

Criteria is already plural as in : According to what criteria will you choose a new car to buy? By way of this example, you would use more than one factor to decide on the purchase of new car. You would undoubtedly consider the cost, colour, fuel efficiency, and safety features among other factors to make your decision.

Example 2:
The set of criteria you have presented will help us determine the right course of action.

If only one factor is being considered in a matter, then the singular form criterion should be used. His crime was the criterion by which his character was judged.

We can't help but notice however that in the spoken language and increasingly in the written form, criteria is now often used both as a singular and plural form of the noun. Grammar and usage experts discourage this practice. And I will not contradict them.

The word between should only be used when referring to the relationship of two things. Among refers to the relationship of three or more things.

Example 1:
John told Mary she had to choose between the sweet and sour.

Example 2:
John told Mary she had to choose her poison from among the ingredients.