Charles Harrington Elster

“Style is, among other things, a product of what we avoid as well as of what we do.”
— Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage: A Guide (1966)

Charlie has finished writing his new book, How to Tell Fate from Destiny, and Other Skillful Word Distinctions, which Houghton Mifflin Harcourt will publish in October 2018. Charlie will also narrate the audio edition for Tantor Media/​Recorded Books.

His personal project, The Enthusiasms of Charles Harrington Elster, is also in the works. See "Elster Update" on the Comments page for more information.


Good Advice on How Not to Write Badly, with Blunderful Examples Drawn from Published Prose

"How great of a motivational speaker is Tony Robbins?" asks San Diego Union-Tribune columnist Karla Peterson (April 9, 2018, page B1). Can you discern the problem with that question?

Inserting an unnecessary and pleonastic "of" after adjectives such as "great" and "big" is a frequent mistake in speech that should never make its way into print. The most common form of this error is the locution "no big of a deal," in which both "of" and "a" are unnecessary." Make it "no big deal."

From The Associated Press, in my local fishwrap's sports section (April 11, 2018): "Manolas, a center back known more for his defensive skills then for his attacking abilities . . ." OY! "Then" instead of the proper "than"? Now that's bush league!

Consider this sentence: "UFC star Conor McGregor has turned himself into police in the wake of a backstage melee that he instigated . . ." (San Diego Union-Tribune news services, April 6, 2018, page D5).

In my new book, How to Tell Fate from Destiny, and Other Skillful Word Distinctions (coming in October), I explain that "with phrasal verbs employing in, in and to are always separate, as going in to work today, came in to see her, and turned himself in to the police (not into, which would indicate a ludicrous transformation)."

Kevin Acee, who covers the San Diego Padres for The San Diego Union-Tribune, writes, "The Padres might start the season with just seven relievers, one fewer than they think they'll need . . ." (March 27, 2018, page D5). Can you spot the boo-boo in that sentence?

Careful writers know that less applies to mass nouns like sugar and fewer applies to count nouns like beets. But what many don't know is there’s another, more subtle rule about fewer and less: We use fewer with plural nouns and less with singular nouns. Since a singular noun will always follow or refer to one, you should have one less of whatever it is, not one fewer, e.g.: “Angels closer Francisco Rodriguez had one fewer [one less] save than San Diego has victories” (San Diego Union-Tribune again).

Syndicated columnist Dan Walters writes, "The noise from the podium and in the hallways of San Diego's cavernous convention center was mostly directed at retelling the world that the state's Democrats loath President Trump" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, March 3, 2018, p. B7). What are the two problems with that sentence?

First we have the common misuse of podium for lectern. “A lectern is the stand on which a speaker places his or her notes,” says Bryson’s Dictionary of Troublesome Words. “A podium is the raised platform on which the speaker and lectern stand.” Second, we have an uncommon misuse of the adjective loath (meaning "disinclined, reluctant," and pronounced to rhyme with both) for the verb loathe (meaning "to hate, abhor," and rhyming with the verb clothe). The mistake is usually the other way around, with the verb improperly used for the adjective, as in "She was loathe [make that loath] to do it."

"Not only that, but there's a couple of little-known progressive candidates . . . running to his left," writes Michael Smolens in The San Diego Union-Tribune (February 23, 2018, p. B4). Did you discern the error of number (a singular-plural conflict between a verb and noun) in that sentence?

There's should be there are. As I have noted in my book The Accidents of Style, there's no excuse for using there's with a plural noun (in this case "candidates"). We hear this error of number with "there's" in speech all the time, but in writing (especially professional writing!) it's not just ungrammatical. It's lazy, lame, and unprofessional.

"Do you know Jeffrey W—?" LinkedIn asks me, adding that "You and Jeffrey have 4 mutual connections in common." This accident of style belongs to a category I like to call "When in Doubt, Wear a Belt and Suspenders and Still Watch Your Pants Fall Down."

As I note in my forthcoming book, How to Tell Fate from Destiny, and Other Skillful Word Distinctions," mutual refers to reciprocal relations between two entities and common refers to relations shared by two or more. Of course, this traditional distinction has been muddied ever since Charles Dickens published Our Mutual Friend in 1865, but that doesn't give LinkedIn license to drown it in pleonasm.

If they had said Jeffrey and I have four mutual connections, that would have been wrong but venial, and if they had said Jeffrey and I have four connections in common, that would have been unimpeachable. But they chose to "completely surround everything on all sides," sealing their ridiculously redundant fate.

All right, folks, it's time to play havoc with conjugating irregular verbs. First, what word is both the past tense and past participle of kneel? Some news reports on the "political football" dustup between the NFL and an always Twitter-happy Donald Trump said that last Sunday (September 24, 2017) certain players and owners kneeled during the national anthem.

Sound the Blunder Buzzer, please! The past tense and past participle of kneel is properly knelt. Although you will see kneeled listed as a variant form in dictionaries, usage experts frown on it and knelt is six times more common in print.

Now, tell me what's wrong with this sentence from a syndicated New York Times article by Dan Bilefsky (September 27, 2017): "During World War I, the 93 U-boats stationed at Belgian ports sunk more than 2,550 Allied ships." If you've been following the drift here, you will have guessed it's that funky sunk, which should properly be sank. This verb is conjugated just like drink, drank, drunk. You sink a U-boat today, you sank one yesterday, and you have sunk them in the past.

Here's my nomination for Weirdest Typo of the Year (from an article by Dennis Lin in the sports section of The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 26, 2017): "According to Bill James' Pythaogrean expectation, which is based on runs scored and runs allowed, they should have been 58-98." Pythaogrean for Pythagorean can only be described as a monument of metathesis ("the transposition of letters, syllables, or sounds in a word" — Random House Dictionary).

I have a double-whammy to report from the front page (A1) of my regrettably uncopyedited local paper, The San Diego Union-Tribune (September 18, 2017). In an article about the mysterious sinking of a U.S. naval vessel in 1918, Jeanette Steele asks, "What sunk the armored cruiser San Diego, just 10 miles off the New York coastline during World War I?" Possibly your grammar, Ms. Steele (and that unnecessary and intrusive comma before "just"). The past tense of "sink" is "sank"; "sunk" is the past participle (requiring a helping verb such as "had," "have," or "has" before it). So it should have been "What sank the San Diego . . ."

The other front-page SDU-T accident of style has to win top honors for the most unbelievable (and perhaps creative) blunder of the year. In a teaser for the 2017 Emmy Awards, where "The Handmaid's Tale" won top honors, someone wrote that the show "also wind best drama writing and directing . . ." Yes, wind. I'm not kidding. So much for the traditional past tense "won," and they can't even spell the nonstandard "winned" correctly.

I don't get to beat up on The Atlantic in this space very often, which is a good thing because it's one of the best-edited publications around. But, unfortunately, two accidents leaped out at me recently.

One was in an emissive (my coinage for an email message) about "Radio Atlantic," the magazine's new podcast platform. It said, "We're living in historic times. Who better than a 160-year-old magazine to help you make sense of them."

They got "historic" right, as I would expect, avoiding the common confusion with "historical." "Historic" means "making history" or "important in history," while "historical" means "pertaining to or part of history." But, in the second sentence, does that "who" jump out at you as eccentric in any way?

Using the pronoun "who" for anything other than people is a weird new trend that I discuss in my essay "The Curious Corporate Who," which you will find a link to in the sidebar to the right. My argument, in short, is that things such as corporations and institutions may be composed of people, but (despite the Citizens United decision) they are not people and should properly be referred to with the pronouns "that" or "which." And a magazine, no matter how venerable, is definitely not a "who." Using "who" for a magazine is as foreign to my ear as saying "my essay 'The Curious Corporate Who,' who you will find a link to in the sidebar to the right."

The other Atlantic lapsus appeared in the July/​August 2017 issue, in James Parker's article "What Inspired the Summer of Love?" (page 34). "But what it is, the label on the glass case tells me," Parker writes, "is the top half of a set of hospital scrubs . . ."

Take out "the label on the glass case tells me" and you have, in bold relief, one of the ugliest accidents of style to rear its head in contemporary prose: "But what it is, is . . ." I discuss this verbal virus, which has migrated from speech to print, in Accident 281 of The Accidents of Style.

The problem stems from beginning a sentence with a noun clause ("What it is") that requires a verb to follow, creating the ungainly repetition. The solution is simply to drop the opening noun clause and begin with a real subject. Parker's clumsy sentence could have been fixed easily by starting with "the label" instead of the bumbling noun clause: "But the label on the glass case tells me that it's the top half of a set of hospital scrubs." One further example should suffice (from The New York Times, no less): "But what it is is trash." Huh? How about the far more emphatic "But it's trash"?

Remember learning about ordinal numbers in grade school? You know, first, second, third, fourth and so on? Brian Hiro of The San Diego Union-Tribune apparently missed that lesson, and in that paper's "Off the Wall" column (July 3, 2017, D2), compiled "from U-T news services" and "online reports" (watch out for that one!), he wrote, or reprinted, this gaffe: "The baseball that Pete Rose swatted to left-center field for his record-setting 4,192th hit [make that 4,192nd hit] has sold at auction for more than $403,000." The report failed to note that after notching that milestone hit, Rose stole both secondth and thirdth base.

Find the two errors in this sentence, which appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 26, 2017, page B1: "Gloria said that electing politicians when turnout is highest mean more people will pick their representative."

Answer: Mean should be means, and representative should be representatives.

Glance to your right and take a look at the cover of my book The Accidents of Style in the center column. Then ask yourself if confusing "their," "there," and "they're" is an accident of style confined only to amateur texts and tweets and not a DEFCON 1 threat to published prose.

In her column "Making a Difference" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 6, 2017, page B4), Pam Kragen — bereft of copyediting assistance because the U-T has fired them all, relying instead on a makeshift editorial safety net that results in horrifying oversights — quotes a source as saying, "When they're around her, they feel like their talking to someone like themselves and they relax." To paraphrase Gertrude Stein's famous remark about Oakland, California, "There's no they're there." And then there's that apothegm, "But for the grace of God, their go I."

This just in via email (May 17, 2017) from Consumers Union: "A handful of major internet service providers — including Comcast and Charter, mega-corporations who [sic] control three out of every four broadband consumers in the country — want to take even more control of your internet."

I'm really getting wigged out that corporations and other nonhuman entities are rapidly becoming people. As I explain in depth in my article "The Curious Corporate Who" (link in the sidebar on the right), the relative pronoun "who" properly applies only to human beings, not to companies, schools, governments, or other institutions. The proper relative pronoun for such entities is "that" or "which."

An article on page A1 of The San Diego Union-Tribune (May 5, 2017), by Greg Moran and Lyndsay Winkley, contained this regrettably common accident of style: "[T]he buyer could simply claim to be an employee of one of the many groups that now has permission from the state to buy them. . . ." Did you catch the mistake?

If you guessed that has should have been have because a plural verb has to modify the plural noun groups, pat yourself on the back.

No one would write These are the groups that has permission. But as soon as the words one of get mixed up in a sentence, many people wrongly persuade themselves that one now governs the verb so the verb must be singular. The grammatical truth is that when one of is followed by a plural noun and who or that, the verb that follows must modify the plural noun: This is one of those blunders that are [not "is"] easy to make.

You can see the logic of this immediately if you invert any sentence where one of is followed by a plural noun: “Of the accidents of style that occur on the highway of words, this is one of the most frequent.”

Another way of thinking about the problem is that in this type of sentence you’re talking about many things, not one thing. It’s not the one blunder that is easy to make; it’s one of the many that are easy to make.

Without sportswriters, this column would have far less grist for the mill. So I suppose I should be grimly grateful, in a schadenfreude sort of way, for the blunders that Jeff Sanders of The San Diego Union-Tribune committed in back-to-back sentences in his "Padres Report" of March 13, 2017 (page D3).

Here's the first sentence: "Blash's 13 RBIs leads all major leaguers this spring and are three more than he had last camp."

Did you notice the so-called error of number (a singular-plural disagreement between a noun and a verb)? "RBIs" is a plural noun, so the verb that modifies it must be plural too: "lead," not "leads." Sanders himself confirms this when later in the sentence he uses the plural verb "are," which also refers to "RBIs." What Sanders probably meant to say was that "Blash leads all major leaguers this spring with 13 RBIs, three more than he had last camp." (I'm not entirely comfortable with that odd "last camp" either, but we'll let it slide.)

Here's Sanders's next sentence: "The toe-tap he added clearly jiving with his approach, Blash also has a .364/​.483/​1.085 through his first 11 games." Let's leave aside the tenuous and awkward connection between the two parts of this sentence and focus on the word "jiving." When you mean "to agree, be in harmony" (which is clearly Sanders's intention), it's "jibe with," not "jive with" or "gibe with." (For more, see Accident 230 in my book The Accidents of Style.)

And here's another whopper from Jeff Sanders in the U-T, March 20, 2017, page D4: "There was a handful of playoff games, all of them losses." The verb "was" doesn't govern "handful"; it governs "games." So it should be "there were a handful of games," not "was."

See if you can find the subtle copyediting error in this sentence from The New Yorker (December 5, 2016, page 83): "Even today, they often run to one extreme or the other: hard-sell (Riverdance) or no-sell (Savion Glover.)" If your answer was, "The period should be outside the close parenthesis after "Savion Glover," you're right. Periods go outside parenthetical elements when they signal an end to the sentence as a whole. They go inside only when what is contained within the parentheses is a complete sentence that is not part of another, larger sentence.

From the "Are You Serious?" department: An article by David Pierson published in The San Diego Union-Tribune (January 31, 2017, page C1) quotes a corporate public relations executive named Michael Gordon as saying, "We're in unchartered territory." Did Gordon actually say "unchartered" instead of the proper "uncharted," and did Pierson, being a journalist faithful to accuracy, then render it as spoken? Somehow I doubt it. I'm betting it was Pierson's booboo and his editor's oversight. But if I'm wrong, then it's high time for journalists to start using sic after such ludicrous gaffes.

From the "C'mon, Really?" department: A photo caption in The San Diego Union-Tribune for a story headlined "Lab Experiments on Dogs Are Cruel and Unnecessary" (Friday, December 16, 2016, page B7) risibly confused "labradors" and "laboratories": "Nevada Sen. Mark Manendo introduced a bill that would require labratories [sic] that conduct research on dogs and cats to put the animals up for adoption after the study work." Just say "abracalabra" and you magically have a new spelling!

Pleonasm Watch: A reporter on CBS This Morning (November 15, 2016) said that Europeans are worried that Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin will give the Russian leader "free rein to do as he likes." That's what "free rein" is: From the notion of guiding a horse, it means "complete freedom" or "full indulgence." No need for the superfluous "to do as he likes."

Yet Another Pleonasm: I was in the doctor's office the other day killing time in the waiting room with the February 2014 issue of Cosmopolitan magazine (why do waiting rooms always have such ancient periodicals?) when I came across this ad: "PLAN B One-Step helps prevent pregnancy before it even happens." What did that copywriter think the word "prevent" means? I wish we had a Plan B to prevent pleonasm "before it even happens."

"It is a mortal sin to vote Democrat," proclaimed a flier surreptitiously distributed a few days before the presidential election inside a bulletin from a Catholic church in San Diego. Although the local diocese decried the message, it failed to declare that the use of "Democrat" as an adjective instead of a noun is indeed a mortal sin.

Two accidents from Associated Press writers that annoyed the crap out of me recently: "bachelor degree" and "wreck havoc." It's not a "bachelor degree" (properly "bachelor's") just as it's not a "master degree" or a "doctor degree" (properly "master's" and "doctoral" — never "doctorial.") And you "wreak havoc" because wreak means "to cause or bring about." The idiotic "wreck havoc" would mean "to ruin or destroy ruin or destruction." (For more on this, see page 80 in my Accidents of Style.)

In a front-page review of Francine Prose's new novel, Mister Monkey (New York Times Book Review, October 23, 2016), novelist Cathleen Shine mentions Prose's "very funny satirical take on haute Brooklyn parents" — and then she quotes Prose — "'who have forbidden themselves to think or speak about anything beside how to trick their children into eating quinoa.'"

Prose should have written "besides," not "beside." "Beside" means "next to": "She stood beside me." It may also mean "apart or disjoined from," as in "beside the point" or "beside oneself." In Prose's sentence, "besides" would have delivered her intended meaning: "other than" or "except for."

"Don't ever complain about athletes not using their platform to affect [sic] change," writes Keven Acee of The San Diego Union-Tribune in a front-page article (September 2, 2016) about football player Colin Kaepernick's refusal to stand during the national anthem before games.

When I see someone who gets paid to compose sentences for public consumption commit an accident of style this rudimentary and egregious, I don't know whether to scream, cry, or barf. It's like discovering that your doctor didn't go to medical school or that your contractor doesn't know the business end of a hammer. If you commit a traffic violation you get a ticket, and if you're negligent in your job you can be fired, but journalists and broadcasters seem to be immune to such sanctions. Why aren't people who use words professionally held to the same standard as other professionals?

For the record, the verb to affect means "to influence." The verb to effect means "to bring about."

I recently saw, yet again, the prolix phrase "on a daily basis," this time used in a Pew Research Council report on social media. I can't fathom why we are addicted to this pompous pleonasm. What's wrong with "daily"? Or even "every day"? Are they just too elegantly concise to convey the weighty, chin-stroking seriousness of "on a daily basis"? The same goes for other phrases with "basis" (e.g., "on a monthly basis" = "monthly"; "on a yearly basis" = "yearly" or "annually").

In an article (July 1, 2016) about Donald Trump's use of the slogan "America First," which the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil-rights organization, has criticized for its evocation of the isolationist, anti-Semitic America First Committee, Michael Biesecker of The Associated Press writes, "For students of U.S. history, that slogan harkens back to the tumultuous presidential election of 1940, when hundreds of thousands of Americans joined the anti-war America First Committee."

Did you discern the accident of style in that sentence? It's not "harken back," nor is it "hearken back." Properly, it's "hark back." The archaic word "hearken" (variant spelling "harken") means "to listen, give one's attention to." By contrast, to "hark back" means "to refer to or recall an earlier topic, time, or circumstance."

If you wish to avoid this subtle but serious accident of style, you will hearken to my advice and hew to the idiomatic and preferred hark back.

Linkedin, like all social media, decided without so much as a by-your-leave that I needed to read something they had selected for me. In this case it was an article they'd titled "The Novel New Approach to Student Loans."

As a longtime crusader against redundancy, and as the co-creator of "A Novel Approach to the SAT and ACT," I was appalled. The adjective "novel" means "of a new kind," so a "novel new approach" is a "new approach of a new kind." Why do people try to seem novel by using words they don't know? And why do they revel in saying everything twice?

A pullquote — which wasn't an actual quote, just a teaser boldfaced into the body of the article — in a piece on page 11 of The New York Times Review section, June 19, 2016, read: "A wandering mind has less innovative thoughts."

It is inconceivably sad to learn that even at "the newspaper of record" the editors can't distinguish between "less" and "fewer." C'mon, guys, it's not that hard! I'd like to have fewer thoughts about what mistakes like this I may find in such an august publication. That would give my wandering mind less to worry about.

A report from a task force of the International Association of Athletics Federation (June 18, 2016) recently upheld the ban on Russian track athletes from the upcoming Olympics in Brazil, citing a "deep-seeded culture" of doping. That phrase from the report was reprinted without a "sic" in the Washington Post article that was syndicated in my local paper — which, to add insult to injury, added the headline "Report cites 'deep-seeded culture' of sports doping."

What's wrong with this? It should be "deep-seated," not "deep-seeded." I suppose we could blame, for this sound-alike confusion, Americans' tendency to pronounce /​t(t)/​ like /​d/​ when it occurs in the middle of a word, but that would be too lenient. This mistake is just dumb and embarrassing, whether it appears in a newspaper or in an international sports organization's report. Garner's Modern English Usage calls "deep-seeded" "a misbegotten metaphor, a malapropism . . . The true metaphor derives from horseback riding (deep in the seat), not from planting seeds deeply."

Words Into Typo Department: Of the late baseball player Ken Caminiti, who admitted to taking steroids and abusing drugs and alcohol, Mark Zeigler of The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote, "They remember him as a tragic hero who was plagued by addition and ultimately succumbed to it" (March 6, 2016, page D7).

I guess, like me, Caminiti wasn't very good at math. In high school I succumbed to algebra — twice.

According to another sportswriter, Eddie Brown, "There's an enormous amount of sports content to choose from and a shocking amount of hours viewed" (The San Diego Union-Tribune, March 7, 2016, page D7). Brown's column is titled "Eddie Brown's cure for your Monday morning hangover," but all that sentence did for me was give me headache.

"Amount" should be used of things considered as a whole or as a unit. "Number" should be used of things that can be counted or itemized. You can have an amount of "sports content," but because hours can be counted it should be "number of hours." Example: "Sportswriters are unsurpassed in generating a large amount of copy with an astonishing number of accidents of style."

The novelist and poet Robert Penn Warren (1905-1989) once said, "A poem is like an itch. Sometimes you just have to go out to the barn and scratch it." Note, please, his proper use of "itch" and "scratch."

Now note the ridiculously inverted use of "itch" and "scratch" in this sentence by yet another sportswriter, Bryce Miller, published in The San Diego Union-Tribune (March 2, 2016, page D3): "The opportunity to counsel young pitchers in the Arizona heat, however, sparked a scratch that begged for itching."

You don't itch a scratch; you scratch an itch. The itch is the tickle; the scratch is the relief. But alas, many people labor under the delusion that when something itches, you itch it rather than scratch it. Mr. Miller takes that delusion to new heights.

EXTREE! EXTREE! Check out this headline I found in the food section of my local paper: "MUSHROOMS GREW INTO A FUNGUS PHENOMENOM."

The English language is thriving, contrary to what some folks stridently maintain, but the people who use it — how shall I put this? They SUCK. Somebody actually got paid to write that phenomenal headline, and somebody else apparently wasn't paid to copyedit and correct it to "phenomenon." This widespread, and all too often professional, ignorance of such basic linguistic conventions boggles my mind.

Here's another example of an editor/​headline-writer blowing it bigtime: The writer's line, in the op-ed piece, was, "If you drink the whole bottle, that's a problem." The editor's prominently featured pullquote of that line read, "If you drink the whole bottle, than that will be a problem."

Oy! Where do I even begin? Why did the editor add three unnecessary words to the line? Why did the editor change the tense from present to future? And why, oh why, did this editor print "than" instead of "then"? That distinction is so basic, and the if/​then construction so familiar, that I can't believe anyone with more than a sixth-grade education could mess it up. But than again . . .

I lost my beloved father, Reinhardt Elster, in October 2015; he was 101 years old (and feeling it, although he had reasonably good health and all his marbles until the end). His local hospice (a marvelous and compassionate organization) began sending me a newsletter called "Journeys," designed to help with bereavement. It's a well-done publication (produced by the Hospice Foundation of America), and helpful to those of us who are grieving. But doggone it if, in the very first line on the very first page of the February 2016 issue, there wasn't a glaring accident of style.

"When my daughter first died I was angry and furious . . . ," it begins. This is a classic example of "first" used superfluously. As far as I know, people die only once, and so do cats, despite the cliche. Yes, we can intuit that the writer intended "first died" to suggest the period immediately after her daughter's death, but, to paraphrase the cliche, the road to an accident of style is always paved with good intentions — and not much editing savvy.

"First" should not be used (because it's unnecessary and redundant) with verbs that imply doing something for the first or only time. So don't write or say "first created," "first introduced," "first invented," "first arrived," "first announced," "first appointed," "first conceived," "first discovered," and so on.

"If the Chargers ever build a new stadium in San Diego, it likely won't do much . . . for home values," writes Phillip Molnar in The San Diego Union-Tribune (January 21, 2016, p. C1). "The study . . . found that real estate values in a two-mile radius around the five newest NFL stadiums did not have a noticeable affect."

Some people would object to that use of "likely" instead of "probably" as an example of overly casual journalese, but, as Garner's Modern American Usage notes, it is fully accepted. However, what Garner and I and other defenders of the mother tongue would strenuously object to is the last word in the quotation: "affect." It should be "effect."

The long and the short of it is that something has an effect (noun) when it affects (verb) something else. Why so many writers (including professional ones) get this distinction wrong is, I confess, a mystery to me. The passage quoted also commits an error of logic. When you have an effect, it has to be on something, but what exactly do those real estate values have an effect on? What this struggling writer meant to say was that "the study found that building a new stadium does not have a noticeable effect on surrounding real estate values," or that "surrounding real estate values were not affected by building a new stadium."

One of my favorite magazines, Consumer Reports, is, not coincidentally, one of the best copyedited publications around. That's why I was shocked to find, in the cover story "How Safe Is Your Beef?" in the October 2015 issue, a couple of glaring accidents of style.

Here's the first offense: "Just before the July 4 holiday this year, 13.5 tons of ground beef and steak destined for restaurants and other food-service operations were recalled on a single day because of possible contamination with a dangerous bacteria known as E. coli 0157:H7."

Anytime you see "a" preceding "bacteria," you know it's time to call Houston and tell them there's a problem. That's because "bacteria" is properly plural, denoting more than one "bacterium," which is the proper singular. Sadly, CR made the mistake of treating "bacteria" as singular throughout the article.

Next offense: "And incidences of food poisoning are vastly underreported." This one's an unfortunately common whopper: "incidences" misused for "incidents" or "instances." An "incident" is something that happens, an occurrence. An "instance" is a case or example. Either word would have worked in that sentence. But "incidence" means "rate (of occurrence)," and the plural "incidences" is acceptable only when referring to the rate of occurrence of several different things at once.

Mary Norris, a copyeditor for The New Yorker who recently published a memoir/​style manual called Between You and Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen, for some reason neglected to mention a hilarious cartoon that magazine published in 2010. In it, two men are sitting at a bar and one of them says to the other, "You have no idea what it's like to be a 'just between you and me' person in a 'just between you and I' world."

That oversight aside, I'm sure Ms. Norris would be horror-struck by this sentence that I found in a "Disruptions" column by Nick Bilton in The New York Times, August 20, 2015: "You go online, sign up for three meals . . . and the number of people you'd like to 'cook' for (in my case, just my wife and I), and a few days later, a refrigerated box filled with three bags of food . . . arrives at your doorstep."

If you apply the old test of removing the other person or persons, it's immediately apparent that you can't cook for I. You have to cook for me. Another way to keep a handle on which pronoun to use is to keep your eyes peeled for a preceding preposition, such as "for," "between," or "to." These must always be followed by a pronoun in the objective case: She did it for her and me; Let's keep this between you and me; We gave it to Susan and him.

And speaking of The New Yorker, here's a subtle accident of style that got past Ms. Norris and her pencil-brandishing colleagues. In an article called "I Can't Go On!" that appeared in the August 3, 2015, issue, Joan Acocella wrote, "This is the so-called 'fight or flight' response . . ."

Can you discern what went wrong there? The 15th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (which, perhaps, the style gurus at The New Yorker eschew) explains in section 7.59: "A word or phrase preceded by so-called should not be enclosed in quotation marks." They should have styled it either "the so-called fight or flight response" or "the 'fight or flight' response." I think I would also have advocated for hyphens in "fight-or-flight," but I suppose I've given The New Yorker enough of a drubbing for now.

The December 2014 issue of The Atlantic featured a cover story called "The Real Roots of Midlife Crisis" by Jonathan Rauch that contained the sentence, "[S]he had learned not to act so precipitously," which the author clearly meant to be understood as meaning "She had learned not to act in such a rash or impulsive manner." The problem is, "precipitous" means "steep, like a cliff or precipice." The adjective "precipitate" (pri-SIP-i-tit) means "sudden, abrupt," or "rash, impetuous." The misuse of precipitous for precipitate is a regrettably frequent accident of style that I have found in novels and in other reputable publications, such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

"His mother had already emigrated to the United States . . . and he didn't see her again until 1945," writes Harvard professor Louis Menand in the March 24, 2014, issue of The New Yorker (p. 92). That sentence contains one of the most common accidents of style in edited prose: the misuse of emigrate with to instead of with from. The initial e- of emigrate stands for ex-, which means "from" or "out," and the proper way to put it is to say or write that someone emigrated from somewhere to somewhere else. Likewise with immigrate, in which im- is equivalent to in- and means "to" or "into": you immigrate to somewhere from somewhere else. Menand and The New Yorker should have used immigrate in that sentence instead of emigrate.

In "The Dark Power of Fraternities," Caitlin Flanagan's cover article in the March 2014 issue of The Atlantic, she writes, "Roth also asserted in his statement that nothing had changed in regards to Beta" (page 90). I'm frankly a bit flabbergasted that this error made it past that magazine's normally scrupulous copyeditors. The proper form is in regard to or with regard to, and to use the plural regards in these phrases, according to Garner's Modern American Usage, "is, to put it charitably, poor usage."

"It is a so-called 'fringe' event because it takes all comers," writes Joe Mathews in an op-ed piece published in U-T San Diego (February 21, 2014, p. B9). Can you spot the error in that quotation? "A word or phrase preceded by so-called should not be enclosed in quotation marks," says the 15th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. "The expression itself indicates irony or doubt." So either make that "a so-called fringe event . . ." or drop so-called and use the quotation marks.

"He sung it five months later in a stirring return appearance," writes Michael Hill of The Associated Press in a syndicated obituary for the indomitable folk singer and activist Pete Seeger (published January 29, 2014). Did you catch the irregular usage? The past tense of the verb to sing is sang, so it should have been "He sang it five months later." Sung is the past participle, which means it must be preceded by a helping verb (has, have, had), as in "He has sung that song before."

Here's another irregular accident of style that made my ears tense up. The other day a newsreader on my local public radio station informed me that "the average price of gas in San Diego creeped up several cents last week." That use of "creeped" creeped me out. The standard past tense of the verb to "creep" is "crept" (the price of gas crept up last week), and "crept" is also the past participle (the price of gas has crept up before). Only in the slang verbal phrase "creeped out" is "creeped" acceptable.

I recently emailed the United States Postal Service inquiring why the certified letter I had sent had not yet been delivered almost a week after its promised delivery date. The response I finally received, almost another week after I made the inquiry, began with this appropriately existential question: "Thank you for contacting the United States Postal Service?." (That period after the question mark is also their typo, not mine.)

To say I was stunned to find not one but two accidents of style in a single paragraph of The New Yorker would be an understatement. Blunders in that obsessively copyedited periodical are rare indeed. But in a one-paragraph review of the novel Orfeo by Richard Powers that appeared on page 75 of the January 20, 2014, issue, the unnamed reviewer first wrote "to splice a musical score into the DNA of a bacteria," and then wrote "the media becomes fixated . . ."

As any usage guide will tell you, bacteria is plural: "these bacteria are." The singular is bacterium, so the phrase should have been "the DNA of a bacterium." Likewise with media, which is traditionally a plural, so the phrase should have been "the media become fixated." As The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage explains, media "is often seen doing duty as a singular. But The Times, with a grammatically exacting readership, will keep it plural for now; the singular is medium. Ordinarily expand the term, at least to news media."

And speaking of The New York Times, the lead article by Maria Konnikova in the January 12, 2014, SundayReview section (yes, that's how they style it now, as a single word with a midcap) begins with this paragraph: "Sleep seems like a perfectly fine waste of time. Why would our bodies evolve to spend close to one-third of our lives completely out of it, when we could instead be doing something useful or exciting? Something that would, as an added bonus, be less likely to get us killed back when we were sleeping on the savanna?"

Did you spot the problem in the last sentence? A bonus is something added or given over and above what is expected or due, so "added bonus" is redundant, a pleonasm. Good stylists eschew the padding of "added" and let "bonus" do its work alone.

"Shocking video shows why doctors think this one weird ingredient can stop heart disease dead in it's tracks." That ad, with its deadly contraction "it's" (it is) instead of the possessive pronoun "its," appeared on my email homepage today (1-13-2014).

In his syndicated column "Produce Picks" (published in the U-T San Diego, January 4, 2014), Michael Marks writes, "You will find most of the hard winter squash varieties selling for 69 cents to 89 cents per pound, and most of what is available now are California grown." Houston, we have a verb-correspondence problem here. At the end of the sentence, Marks switches from the singular is to the plural are. The verbs should both be singular: ". . . most of what is available now is California grown."

U-T San Diego staff writer Mark Walker, in the lead article for the local section (October 15, 2013) on the race for a mayor to replace the disgraced Bob Filner, wrote, of candidate Nathan Fletcher, "Throughout the noontime debate, the Qualcomm executive and former assemblyman sought to deflect the attacks by portraying himself as not beholding to anyone." Beholding is the present participle of the verb to behold ("They stood in awe, beholding the spectacle.") The proper word for that context is the adjective beholden, obligated, indebted.

Pleonasm Watch: Last year, San Diego's mayor, Bob Filner, resigned because of multiple allegations of sexual harrassment and generally pigheaded, lecherous behavior. So the subhead in my local fishwrap (U-T San Diego, Friday, August 23, 2013), referring to the deal Filner hashed out with the city, says, "Possible pact may be unpopular with public, but would likely keep costs down, lawyers say."

To begin with, there's way too much alliteration in "possible pact . . . unpopular with public." Second, and far more egregious, is the pleonasm "unpopular with public." The headline writer forgot that "popular" and "unpopular" already refer to public opinion, so who else could the "possible pact" be unpopular with but with people in general: aka the public? Finally, some journalists object to the use of "likely" as a shorter synonym of "probably," but this complaint is now merely a crotchet; Garner's Modern American Usage says that "likely" meaning "probably" is now "fully accepted."

In a feature syndicated by The Associated Press and published in my local paper July 29, 2013, Candice Choi opened with this sentence: "It seems that not even Beyoncé or new, lower-calorie options can convince Americans to drink more soda."

We'll ignore the fact that "new, lower-calorie options" are inanimate and therefore do not have persuasive powers, and instead get right to the crux of the problem: the verb to convince is misused here for the verb to persuade. The distinction is not hard to remember or master, yet writers and editors blow it all the time. The simple rule of thumb is that if an infinitive follows convince (as in "convince Americans to drink"), it should properly be persuade.

To convince is to make someone believe something. To persuade is to make someone take action. You can convince someone of the truth, or convince someone that you are right. But when action is involved, you have to persuade someone to do it.

On Saturday, July 13, Tim Lincecum, a pitcher for the San Francisco Giants, threw a no-hitter against the San Diego Padres. Or did he? According to the account in U-T San Diego the next morning, the Padres' bats were indeed silent in that game because the team was apparently taking the night off and the Giants were having some intrasquad fun. In a prominent pullout, the paper printed the score as Giants, 9, Giants, 0.

Here's a sentence that I found in the health section of the July 9, 2013, issue of U-T San Diego, my town's sad excuse for a newspaper: "The study observed 4,577 men diagnosed with non-metastic prostate cancer between 1986 and 2010."

Did you see the error? It should be metastatic (pertaining to metastasis, the spread of disease to other parts of the body), not metastic. And while we're at it, the hyphen in that word isn't necessary: make it nonmetastatic.

My wife is reading Freedom, Jonathan Franzen's latest novel, and the other day she showed me this subset of a larger sentence: "he saw in his oldest son a nearly exact replica of himself" (page 453). Now that's what you'd call a splendid example of pleonasm (PLEE-uh-naz'm), "the use of more words than are necessary to express the bare idea" or "the use of words whose omission would leave one's meaning intact" (Webster 2).

A replica is an exact reproduction or copy, and, strictly speaking, one produced by the artist or creator of the original. So "a nearly exact replica" is like "an almost unique copy." It would have been more precise, and more concise, if Franzen had written "a near-replica of himself" or just "a replica of himself" instead.

In the June 24, 2013, issue of The New Yorker I found a classic fender bender in an article by Harvard historian Jill Lepore called "The Prism." Here's the offending sentence: "The suppression of the uprising had been followed by a wave of anti-Semitism, leading to the Brandeis family's decision to emigrate to the United States."

Did you catch it? You don't emigrate to; you emigrate from. The e- in emigrate stands for ex-, which means "out of, from," and the im- in immigrate stands for in-, which means "in, into." So, properly, you emigrate from your native country to another country and you immigrate to a country from your native country. The Brandeis family should have immigrated to the United States or emigrated from Europe. (For another recent accident in The New Yorker, scroll down a few paragraphs.)

Want to know how not to place an adverb? Read this sentence by sportswriter Dennis Lin in the June 22, 2013, issue of U-T San Diego: "These days the utility tag loosely could be applied to nearly half of the Padres' position players."

Oh, how I earnestly wish that journalists would stop teaching each other that it's wrong to place an adverb between the parts of a compound verb! (In this case, the compound verb is "could be applied.") Idiom, centuries of good usage, and the unanimous opinion of stylists and grammarians all favor splitting the compound verb with the adverb, not putting the adverb beforehand. Thus, the natural and proper way to phrase it is "could be loosely applied," not "loosely could be applied."

Say it ain't so! The rampant confusion of lay and lie has infested the pages of The New York Times Magazine. In "A Caveat or Two About the Greatest Generation" by David Margolick (June 16, 2013), I found this: "Despondent over the state of his career, he deliberately drank himself into a stupor, laid out too long in the sun and willed himself to die" (page 33).

That sentence should have willed itself to die or been kavorked (after Dr. Kavorkian, who infamously euthanized terminal patients). To lay is to put or place; it requires an object (i.e., you lay something down; it doesn't just lay there.) To lie is to come to rest or recline, and the past tense of lie is lay, so it should have been "[he] lay out too long in the sun."

I'm not sure precisely what I feel when I come across an accident of style in the venerably (and, as legend has it, obsessively) copyedited pages of The New Yorker. A mixture of shock and schadenfreude, perhaps? In the June 10 & 17, 2013, issue, in Ian Parker's "Talk of the Town" piece ("Here to There Dept.: All Hail!"), I found this sentence: "Sozan said that he had driven without incident . . . up until the parking."

Until means "up to the time of," so it's redundant to write up until. The copyeditor should have deleted up or made it "up to the parking."

A full-page ad for the Kindle Paperwhite, appearing in The New York Times Book Review, May 26, 2013, shows a hand holding the device, on whose screen is displayed the opening of Matthew Quick's novel The Silver Linings Playbook. The chapter title reads, "An Infinite Amount of Days Until My Inevitable Reunion with Nikki."

Not having read the book, I can't say if this is an intentional or unintentional accident. But accident it is, nonetheless, and it's a bonehead one. The wreckless writer knows that amount should be used only with mass nouns, such as time, money, and space, while number is used with count nouns, ones that denote things that can be counted or enumerated, such as minutes, dollars, and rooms. Thus, it should be "an infinite number of days," not amount.

In the "Modern Love" column of The New York Times, May 26, 2013, Augusten Burroughs writes, "So in addition to rings, our wedding was about sugar. And one name fewer by which we can refer to each other." Can you tell what's wrong with that?

The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, which sanctions "one vote fewer," gets it wrong. While it is generally known (though oft-forgotten) that less applies to mass nouns like sugar and fewer applies to count nouns like beets, few people are aware that idiom requires that we use fewer with plural nouns and less with singular nouns. Since a singular noun will always follow one, you should properly have one less of whatever it is, not one fewer. Thus, it should be "six votes fewer" (or "six fewer votes") and "one less name" (or "one name less").

After some 29 years, the editors (if there are any editors left) at The San Diego Union-Tribune (recently renamed U-T San Diego) have still to learn how to spell the adjective renowned. After discovering, in this morning's edition (May 20, 2013), this subpar subhead, "Renown attraction has top gate price in nationwide survey," I took a peek into Garner's Modern American Usage to see if he had written about this bonehead error, and whaddayaknow! Garner had selected his illustrative citation for the mistake from the U-T, March 15, 1984: "Michaels became reknown for 'The War Song.'"

In the April 2013 issue of The Atlantic I found several slipups in the cover story, "The Touch-Screen Generation," by Hanna Rosin. (The Atlantic is one of the most carefully copyedited publications around, so this came as a surprise.)

"A couple researchers from the Children's Media Center at Georgetown University show up at my house," writes Rosin. And a few paragraphs later she writes, "I smile with the inner glow of a mother who knows her child is about to impress a couple strangers." In both sentences the word couple is used informally, as an adjective followed by a noun. But the circumspect sylist knows that in careful usage couple is properly a noun that requires the preposition of to link it to a following noun: a couple of people, a couple of miles.

Later in the article Rosin writes, "Some educational apps, I wouldn't wish on the naughtiest toddler." I have a hunch that comma after apps may have been interpolated by a meddling copyeditor who misconstrued the first three words as an introductory phrase that needed setting off. But however that comma got there, it's unnecessary and disrupts the flow of the sentence, which does not need a pause in the middle and is merely a Yiddishy inversion of the usual comma-less syntax: "I wouldn't wish some educational apps on the naughtiest toddler."

Finally, Rosin writes, "I have to admit, I had the exact same experience with SpongeBob." This accident is an example of thoughtlessly reproducing the graceless informalities of speech in one's writing. The exact same is a venial sin in conversation, but in print it's a clumsy way of adding unneeded emphasis to the word same. Sentences are always stronger when exact is deleted and the stress falls on same: "Then I flipped to MSNBC, and . . . they had the [exact] same clips" (that example is also from The Atlantic). On the rare occasions when special emphasis is called for, the proper phrase to use is exactly the same: "The twins were exactly the same weight and spoke in exactly the same way."

Here's a sentence from an opinion piece called "The Slow Death of the American Author" by Scott Turow, bestselling novelist and president of the Authors Guild, which was published in The New York Times, April 8, 2013: "There is only a handful of publishers left, while e-publishing is savaged by instantaneous piracy that goes almost completely unpoliced." Can you tell what's wrong with it?

I'm a longtime member of the Authors Guild (I rent this website from them) and Turow is a hardworking advocate for writers' rights, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that an overzealous copyeditor was responsible for the problem.

Did you think the problem was beginning a sentence with there? Though doing so can sometimes clutter or weaken a sentence, there are times when beginning with there is the only way to say that something exists without tortuous or verbose rewording. The problem is also not the phrase "that goes almost completely unpoliced," which could be expressed in leaner language with less adverbiage (e.g., "that is rarely policed").

The problem is in the opening: "There is only a handful of publishers left . . ." The singular verb is should be the plural are. Because of a grammatical curiosity called synesis (SIN-uh-sis), where "agreement in form is replaced by an agreement in meaning" (Random House Dictionary), the verb should modify publishers and not handful: "There are only a handful of publishers left." If you're having trouble wrapping your head around that, look how is doesn't work if you recast the syntax: "Only a handful of publishers are left."

Maureen Dowd, the longtime columnist for The New York Times, slipped on a big stylistic banana peel in her contribution for March 3, 2013. In the second sentence of her piece (which appeared on the front page of the SundayReview section) she writes, "The lyrical Irish author [Colm Toibin] wrote 'Brooklyn' about the aching loneliness of a young Irish woman who emigrates to New York in the '50s to find work."

Even a bleary-eyed copyeditor could have saved Ms. Dowd the embarrassment of this classic accident of style. It's a matter of keeping the direction of your prepositions straight. You immigrate to a country (the im- stands for the prefix in-, so you are migrating in). And you emigrate from a country (the e- stands for the prefix ex-, out, so you are migrating out). Properly, that young Irish woman emigrated from Ireland and immigrated to New York.

"What do you think to yourself when you see me?" asks Dave Bry in the "Lives" column of The New York Times Magazine (March 10, 2013). Want to know what I think when I see a sentence in which someone thinks reflexively? I think: Cut the reflexive pronoun. You always think to yourself, unless perhaps you are thinking aloud, in which case you are merely giving voice to thoughts that would otherwise have been kept to yourself. An alert copyeditor would have changed Bry's question to "What do you think when you see me?"

Does anything make you sick about this sentence? "He [Padres pitcher Cory Luebke] was throwing up until two weeks ago when he felt pain in his surgically reconstructed right shoulder" (Bill Center, U-T San Diego, March 11, 2013).

The first problem is the pleonasm up until. Because until means "up to the time of," it's redundant to pair it with up. The second problem is also caused by the unnecessary presence of up in the sentence, making it appear that Luebke had been regularly vomiting until two weeks ago ("He was throwing up until two weeks ago . . ."). If someone had chucked that up, there'd be no suggestion of upchucking.

From an online "special offer" I received from Southwest Airlines: "Oh Yes You Tan! Mexico & The Carebbean On Sale." The headline has three accidents. You probably noticed that Caribbean is misspelled; of course, if it were in fact spelled Carebbean maybe we wouldn't have to endure the pompous pronunciation kuh-RIB-ee-in (the stress should be on the next-to-last syllable, -be-). But did you also notice that The and On shouldn't be capitalized? A zealous copyeditor might also insist on a comma after Oh, but I'm okay without it.

From the cover story in the SundayBusiness section of The New York Times ("Sought by Police . . ." by David Segal, December 2, 2012): "He later acquired property in Rodeo, N.M., and founded the Southwest Aerotrekking Academy, a school where people learned to fly motorized ultralights that screamed low over the dessert at 70 to 80 miles per hour."

I'm not sure even hardcore foodie survivalists would welcome a small aircraft screaming over their dessert at high speeds. In the unappetizing and arid desert, however, such activity would not be inappropriate. What a difference one letter makes!

This just in (November 26, 2012) from the customer service department at my local paper: "If you’re traveling during the holidays, you can still access U-T San Diego with our eEdition. The eEdition is an exact replica of the print edition, and is available to all UT San Diego subscribers."

Did you catch the pleonasm? A "replica" is an exact copy, duplicate, so pairing "exact" with "replica" is redundant. And strictly speaking, a replica is a copy (as of a work of art) produced by the maker of the original, so in the many contexts where the meaning is simply a copy or model of something, the better word choice would be "copy," "model," or "duplicate."

Alert reader Paris Dee of Oceanside, CA, notified me recently of a capital crime she found in the back jacket copy of Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins (Scholastic). “Sparks are igniting. Flames are spreading. And the Capital wants revenge,” it reads. A capital is a city where the seat or center of government is located. A capitol is the building where a state or national legislature convenes (make it Capitol if you're talking about the building in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital). Sometimes (as in this case), capitol is used metonymically to mean the government itself. Curiously, the last sentence of the next paragraph of the jacket copy gets it right: “And there are whispers of a rebellion against the Capitol – a rebellion that Katniss and Peeta may have helped create."

In the November 5, 2012, edition of Newsweek, I found this sentence by Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist at Rutgers University, whose rudimentary accident of style eluded the magazine's editorial staff: "Jodi Kantor, in The Obamas, reports that he retreats to his office after Michelle and the girls have gone to bed to pour over information on the issues of the day."

Did you catch the misuse of pour for pore? When you pour something, you cause it to flow in a continuous stream: She poured the sour milk into the sink. When you pore over something (note the obligatory over), you read or study it carefully: Before delivering her speech, she pored over her notes.

Also in the November 5, 2012, edition of Newsweek, in the article "Doin' It 'Gangnam Style,'" Marlow Stern, the associate culture editor of the magazine, commits one of the most common redundancies to be found in print when he writes that "it was discovered that Psy hadn't completed the necessary requirements of his military service." All requirements are by definition necessary, so the word necessary is superfluous.

Some people believe that the English language is going to the dogs. I think the language is just fine, thank you, but I am often dismayed by the incompetence of those who use it, especially in a professional context. So when I come across a catachresis (kat-uh-KREE-sis, a misuse of one word for another) as egregious as the one I'm about to share, I have to wonder whether, to squeeze a few more pennies of profit out of their enterprise, the gradgrinds who run the news industry have replaced writers and editors with trained dogs.

When the San Francisco Giants baseball team won the World Series, sweeping the Detroit Tigers, at the top of the front page of the next day's edition (October 29, 2012) of the U-T San Diego, as my local fishwrap now calls itself, the editors ran a photo of an exultant Sergio Romo, the Giants' closer, bellowing heavenward with his arms outstretched. And to the right of Romo's head was this shocking caption: "Sergio Romo exalts after the Giants complete their sweep of the Tigers."

That someone who gets paid to put words together and present them to the public could confuse the verbs exult and exalt boggles the mind. That no one else caught the mistake before it appeared in such a prominent place is astonishingly unprofessional. To exalt is to glorify, elevate, raise to a great height in rank or honor: "Pablo Sandoval was exalted as the most valuable player of the World Series." To exult is to rejoice greatly: "Romo and the Giants exulted over their victory."

What's wrong with this sentence from Chuck Klosterman's column "The Ethicist" in The New York Times Magazine (October 28, 2012, page 14): "As a potential president, you don't like him anymore than you did in the past"? If you guessed it should have been any more, you're right.

The two words any more apply to quantities ("Got any more doughnuts?") or degrees ("She didn't have any more interest in the food than he did"). The single word anymore refers to time and is used in negative constructions ("She doesn't like him anymore"). Here's hoping the Times won't have any more accidents of style anymore.

But alas, on page 16 of the same edition of the Times Magazine, I found this: ". . . if you compare a smaller athlete to an athlete who has the same exact build but is 30 percent bigger, the bigger athlete will be only about 20 percent stronger. . . ."

The constructions the same exact and the exact same are clumsy and pleonastic ways of adding unneeded emphasis to the word same, which can almost always stand alone (as in the above example, where exact could be deleted with no effect upon the sentence). On the rare occasions when special emphasis is called for, the proper phrase to use is exactly the same: "The psychologists were surprised to find that the twins spoke in exactly the same way."

And while we're at it, there's another accident of style in that passage: compare . . . to should have been compare . . . with. This is one of the most common mistakes in all levels of writing today. "When the purpose is to liken two things or to put them in the same category, use to," says Theodore M. Bernstein in The Careful Writer. Thus, Shakepeare's "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" But, says Bernstein, "when the purpose is to place one thing side by side with another, to examine their differences or their similarities, use with." Writers invariably misuse to when it's with that's called for.

Now here's an unbelievable whopper from the October 22, 2012, issue of Newsweek. In the cover story, "Lincoln Plays to Win" by Sydney Blumenthal, I found this passage: "The first Union officer killed in the war, [Lincoln's] Springfield law clerk Elmer Ellsworth, was shot through the heart after taking down a Confederate flag waving above an Alexandria, Va., tavern. . . . [Lincoln] insisted that Ellsworth's body lay in state in the White House" (p. 35).

OMG, as my 15-year-old daughter would say. Lay in state? The context so obviously calls for lie (to come to or be at rest) that it's hard to believe this elementary blunder slipped by everyone in editorial. Or maybe it's depressing: Should we now conclude that even professional writers and editors can't distinguish the verbs lay and lie? Please, everybody, take a look at Accident 13 in my Accidents of Style — or open ANY style guide and bone up on this one!

And here's an unbelievable lapsus calami (LAP-sus KAL-uh-my, Latin for a slip of the pen) from an email written by United States Attorney Laura Duffy, which was reprinted in The San Diego Union-Tribune (October 19, 2012, p. B4):

"Our apologies that Filner had to be admonished abo



Available in print and audio (narrated by Charlie). This is a draft cover. The published subtitle is "Building a Muscular Vocabulary in 10 Easy Steps."

"Another great book from Elster."
— T. Dreiling, in a five-star review at

"Yet another gem from the inimitable Charles Harrington Elster."
— Noor-Allah Noorani, in a five-star review at

"Charles Harrington Elster is a master of the English language and the top authority on vocabulary building. You won't find anything nearly as helpful as Word Workout. His interwoven advice on usage and style is also invaluable." — Jeremy D. Sexton, in a five-star review at

"Engaging narrative . . . fun mental flexing for those seeking alternatives to sudoku and crossword puzzles." — Library Journal

Of the audio edition of Word Workout, blogger Sara Strauss says that "Charles Harrington Elster's soothing and professorial voice . . . makes it easy to pay attention and makes it seem like you're taking a fun college class."


The Accidents of Style:
Good Advice on How Not to Write Badly

New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2010.
(ISBN 978-0-312-61300-6)
Click on the title to read the introduction to the book.

"Sensible advice for both aspiring writers and word lovers."
— Joanne Wilkinson, Booklist

Here's what my colleagues are saying about The Accidents of Style:

The Accidents of Style is eminently readable. And if you’re one of us who can’t always remember the difference between eminently and imminently—and more than 350 other thorny usage questions—you’ll want to buy it and keep it near. It is useful, nuanced—and funny, too.”
— Constance Hale, author of Sin and Syntax

“This book is perfect for people who want to take their prose from the pothole-filled side streets to the Autobahn. You’ll learn how to avoid errors, barbarisms, redundancies, and other drags on your style. It’s an essential addition to any language lover’s collection. After I read it, I felt like I’d just had my writing engines tuned by a master mechanic. The Accidents of Style is essential for anyone who’s serious about the written word.”
— Martha Brockenbrough, author of Things That Make Us (Sic)

"The Accidents of Style by Charles Harrington Elster is a volume every writer should have at hand. It will help you polish your prose, express your ideas more clearly, and avoid numerous errors."
— Don Hauptman, author of Cruel and Unusual Puns and Acronymania

What in the Word?
Wordplay, Word Lore, and Answers to Your
Peskiest Questions About Language

New York, San Diego: Harcourt, 2005.
(ISBN 0-15-603197-3)
Click on the title to read the book's introduction.

"Entertaining as well as informative. . . . Fun reading for verbomaniacs." — Booklist

Are you so sure about the plural of octopus or the difference between i.e. and e.g.? Do you know which word in the English language has the most definitions, or who put the H in Jesus H. Christ?

If you don't, be assured that Charles Harrington Elster does, and he tells all in this entertaining collection of provocative questions and authoritative answers about word and phrase origins, slang, proper style and usage, punctuation, and pronunciation. Every chapter features original brainteasers, challenging puzzles, and a trove of literary trivia, so be prepared to play while you read.

"Delightfully funny and informative. Every page is filled with amazing and amusing facts about our quirky language. The Wordbook of the Year!"
— Sol Steinmetz, author of Semantic Antics and coauthor of Meshuggenary: Celebrating the World of Yiddish

"This book is at once authoritative and lively. Elster knows how to have fun."
— Bryan A. Garner, author of Garner's Modern American Usage

"A cornucopia of linguistic fun. Fill your horn!"
— Anu Garg, creator of

The Big Book of Beastly Mispronunciations:
The Complete Opinionated Guide
for the Careful Speaker

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999, 2005.
(ISBN-13: 978-0-618-42315-6 ISBN-10: 0-618-42315-X)
Click on the title to read the introductions to the first and second editions.

"The best survey of the spoken field in years."
— William Safire, The New York Times Magazine, writing of the first edition in 1999

"The most readable, sensible and prescriptive guide to the words that trip us up . . . bang your shoe on the bookseller's desk until he orders it."
— William Safire, The New York Times Magazine, writing of the second edition in December 2005

This book is one man's informed opinion, based on a variety of reputable sources, about the proper pronunciations of hundreds of commonly mispronounced words and names. Here you will find some straight talk on where the stress should fall in harass(ment). You will find out why so many say nucular instead of nuclear, why you should think twice about sounding the "t" in often, and why the pronunciation for-TAY for forte (strong point) is a pretentious blunder. Words that unnerve or trip up many educated speakers—deluge, heinous, milieu, niche, plethora, clandestine, machination, philatelist, unequivocally, assuage, and zoology are but a few examples—you will pronounce hereafter with quiet confidence. In short, you will see how to air is human, to ur divine.

Test of Time:A Novel Approach to the SAT and ACT
New York, San Diego: Harcourt, 2004.
(ISBN 0-15-601137-9)
Click on the title to read an excerpt from the book and
a review by Glenda Winders of Copley News Service

Q: What's better than a whole pile of loathsome test-preparation books?

A: The captivating SAT and ACT vocabulary-building novel Test of Time.

That's right. High school students can painlessly prepare for the SAT and ACT by reading this comedy-adventure novel featuring the inimitable Mark Twain transported via the Internet from 1883 to the 21st-century campus of a prestigious New England university. More than 2,000 essential test words are used in context, highlighted in boldface, and defined in a convenient back-of-the-book glossary.

"TEST OF TIME is a delight — an engaging, imaginative, beautifully written tour de force that pays homage most appropriately to the author who knew that 'the difference between the almost right word and the right word' is 'the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.' As lively and entertaining as it is educational, this is a book Mark Twain himself would have enjoyed."
Shelley Fisher Fishkin, professor of English and director of American Studies, Stanford University, editor of The Oxford Mark Twain, and author of Lighting Out for the Territory: Reflections on Mark Twain and American Culture

"I am an SAT tutor and have found this book . . . valuable to my students. Charles Harrington Elster is a master of his craft; unlike some other books of this type, his vocabulary and grammar are impeccable. As a result, this book is very well written. What a great idea for a book — Mark Twain in 21st-century college America. Test of Time is informative and entertaining."
— posted at

"This compelling story . . . cleverly illuminates more than 2,000 essential test words by using them in context. If there's a college-bound youth in your life, this book will enable their comprehension by incorporating frequently encountered vocabulary words in a fast-reading story about the exploits of four college students and a garrulous, time-traveling Mark Twain. Exercises and a comprehensive glossary are incorporated, but the brilliance of this test aid is the fun, fast-reading tall tale. Highly recommended!"

"Though a late learner in my forties, I bought this book a few years ago. . . . I've loved this unputdownable book for the plot, humour, wit and much more. This book was so brilliantly written that I bought other books by the same author, Charles Harrington Elster."
— Happy-go-lucky on

Tooth and Nail: A Novel Approach to the SAT
Written with Joseph Elliot.
San Diego: Harcourt, Inc., 1994.
(ISBN 0-15-601382-7)
Click on the title to read an excerpt from the book.

Say goodbye to word lists and read your way to a stronger SAT vocabulary!

Tooth and Nail is a full-length mystery novel designed to teach the words that appear again and again on the SAT. The book's "novel approach" represents a complete break from the boring SAT-preparation methods of the past. Instead of struggling to learn SAT words by rote, students can easily learn them the natural way, in context. A handy glossary in the back of the book allows the reader to instantly check definitions.

Tooth and Nail offers high school students a creative, innovative, and entertaining way to build their vocabulary, improve their reading comprehension skills, and enjoy a good story all at the same time. Since 1994 this book has been a consistent bestseller, enjoyed by students, recommended by parents, and endorsed by teachers all across the country.

In fact, the "novel approach" to learning vocabulary that Joe Elliot and I invented proved so effective and became so popular that other writers and publishers rushed to imitate it. One audacious person (whose lame idea of writing a vocabulary-building novel was to paraphrase all of L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz using SAT words) even tried to steal credit for the innovation. And one lazy publisher — Kaplan, the test-prep outfit — took the parsimonious shortcut of reprinting 19th-century novels in the public domain, such as Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights, with definitions inserted for the literary words.

With Tooth and Nail, and its companion novel, Test of Time, you're not getting paraphrases, gimmicks, or knockoffs. They're the real deal — original stories filled with hundreds of test words (gleaned from dozens of tests) and fun to read.

Verbal Advantage
New York: Random House, 2000. (ISBN 0-375-70932-0)
Click on the title to read an excerpt from the introduction.

This is a graduated, comprehensive vocabulary-building program for adults who are serious about using the English language correctly and with confidence. Mr. Elster takes you on an edifying and entertaining tour of the language, coaching you along the way on how to use words with greater clarity, precision, and style.

Here's what they're saying about Verbal Advantage:

"I'm quite pleased with my decision to purchase VA years ago, and . . . it has been very beneficial and enjoyable for me over the years. . . . [I]t's a brilliant accomplishment and truly an astonishing resource. Well done." — Chris Gardner

"I bought your Verbal Advantage program earlier in the year. It has had a profound effect on my life. I never realized how many words I did not know. . . . You have opened up a wonderful world to me and I find myself the new connoisseur of words at the office and at home. . . . I want to thank you for changing my life."
— Shane W. Doyle

"I’ve been reading your book Verbal Advantage and I’ve enjoyed every word of it. It helped me improve my GRE verbal score by 160 points, and I was only in Level 4 by then!" — Carlos Anderson

"I can’t tell you how much Verbal Advantage has changed my life by giving me confidence to interact with people everywhere in business and in my personal life. My husband is a golf pro and he feels the same way! We just love YOU to death!" — Antoinette Janeczko

"I want to thank Charles Elster for his book Verbal Advantage! I have been reading it for 6 months now and I can honestly say this has been one of the BEST investments of my life! I read it more than my college textbooks!"
— Glen Walden

"I just completed all ten levels of the Verbal Advantage program. It was even more edifying than the advertisements promised. I enjoyed every minute of it, and I review some of the disquisitions from time to time. I'm obsessed with words!"
— Reuben Wagler

"Verbal Advantage . . . revolutionized the way I think and communicate in English. I am a 24-year-old man, originally from a small town in India. Currently, I am a graduate student at USC. For a man who spoke no English until the age of 10, I feel very happy when people compliment me on my ability to use words with style and confidence. . . . We all know that there are several language improvement courses on the market. But, I can unequivocally contend that the program devised by you is emancipating people from the shackles of low vocabulary, mispronunciation and misuse of the English language."
— Aditya Moitra

"I'm a 22-year-old immigrant from Guatemala who lives in Sunnyvale, California and goes to college. I'm writing this letter to thank you for making the Verbal Advantage program. Building my vocabulary was a struggle at first, having to admit I don't know the exact meanings of words I hear at school. But, I am motivated when I remember what you said in Verbal Advantage, so I don't give up. Thank you, thank you, thank you! What your program has given me is like a second chance. I don't know how I can hold tears of gratitude inside."
— Danilo Salguero

"I love your Verbal Advantage program and it has helped me immeasurably in my day-to-day endeavors. I have seen a marked difference in the way I communicate orally and in writing."
— Stuart Mushala

“I am a Venezuelan graduate student in physics who is pursuing a Ph.D. program in the U.S. For this I have to take the GRE, which requires having both a large vocabulary and full command of the words you know. Last year I took the GRE and sadly I scored 360/800 in verbal (percentile rank 22). I knew I had to work on my vocabulary if I wanted to attain a better score. Some months ago I came across Verbal Advantage in a bookstore here in Venezuela. . . . No other vocabulary builder gave me more knowledge and insight into words than VA. After a year I took the GRE again . . . and I scored 700/800 (percentile rank 97). And so, I wanted to thank you for publishing such a comprehensive and entertaining book!”
— Pedro Montuenga

"[Verbal Advantage] has brought priceless personal and professional enrichment to my life. . . . I've sampled many, but Verbal Advantage is still #1 in my book."
— Ken Nero

"I won't importune you with some kind of magniloquent blandishment, but I want to give you credit for your inimitable program Verbal Advantage. I have listened to it four times in the last five months. I've also scrutinized such programs as Million$ Vocabulary, Executive Vocabulary, a complete series of Word Smart, Vocabulary Booster, Word Master, Barron's 550 Words You Need to Know, Verbal Success, Confidence in Context, and many others. All of them offer something useful, but they can only eat the dust of Verbal Advantage. Your program is much better than all of them put together."
— Roman from Ukraine

"I'm enjoying Verbal Advantage immensely. . . . You did a splendid job. I learned more in the first half than in all my years spent at college. — Frederick Vollmer

"Thank you for creating a wonderful masterpiece." — Theresia Thurman

There's A Word for It!
A Grandiloquent Guide to Life

New York: Pocket Books, 1996.
Revised & Updated Edition published July 2005.
(ISBN 978-1-4165-1086-4)
(ISBN 1-4165-1086-9)
Click on the title to take a grandiloquent quiz and read a selection of light verse from the book.

"Those who devour words will feast on it."
— Diane White, Boston Globe

"Charming and at times hysterical." — Booklist

"Words you never knew you needed—until now."
San Diego Magazine

This is not simply another book about obscure English words. It's an open-armed invitation to go on a mischievous, quirky, madcap expedition through the depths of our unabridged dictionaries, where you will learn about all the exceptional words you never knew you needed to know to live a fuller, more verbally enriched life. There's a Word for It! will help you plug gaping holes in your vocabulary and apply vibrant color to the blank spots in your picture of the world. The book also contains a dazzling selection of light verse by such famous (and fabulous) scribes as Hogden Gnash, Anais Numb, and G. B. Pshaw (click on the title above to read a selection).


The Right to Say No
Colin Kaepernick and Charles Harrington Elster have something in common: exercising their First Amendment rights.

The Curious Corporate Who
In the cover story for the October-November 2013 issue of Copyediting, Charlie looks at how the relative pronoun who is taking over the traditional role of that and which.

Pleonasm: A Word Every Writer and Copyeditor Should Know
Read Charlie's amiable rant on redundancy, which appeared in the August-September 2012 issue of Copyediting.

Seven Steps to Word Power
Timeless tips for aspiring vocabulary builders.

A Way with Words:
Charlie explains why he left the public radio show.

The Wrong Pro-NOUN-ciation
Read one of Charlie's guest language columns for the Boston Globe, in which he takes the dictionaries of Merriam-Webster to task for "promiscuously sanctioning questionable pronunciations."

The Grandiloquent Gumshoe
At a loss for words? Give the P.V.I. (private verbal investigator) a call.
Read one of Charlie's guest "On Language" columns for The New York Times Magazine.

Things Are Against Us
Did you know there's a word for "seemingly spiteful behavior manifested by inanimate objects"? Read Charlie's guest "On Language" piece about resistentialism.

Charlie's Dictionary Recommendations
Looking for a new dictionary? Click here for some sage advice.

Celling Out
Charlie has some brave new words for our wireless world.

A Little Latin Is a Lovely Thing
Read one of Charlie's articles on language in SPELL/Binder.

Read Bill Manson's entertaining profile of Charlie in San Diego Home/Garden Lifestyles magazine.

Selected Works

Colin Kaepernick and Charles Harrington Elster have something in common: exercising their First Amendment rights.
In the cover story for the October-November 2013 issue of Copyediting, Charlie looks at how the relative pronoun who is taking over the traditional role of that and which.
Read Charlie's amiable rant on redundancy, which appeared in the August-September 2012 issue of Copyediting.
Timeless tips for aspiring vocabulary builders.
Charlie beats up on Merriam-Webster in the Boston Globe.
At a loss for words? Read one of Charlie's guest "On Language" columns for The New York Times Magazine.
Read Charlie's guest "On Language" piece about resistentialism.
Shopping for a new dictionary? Here's some sage advice.
Charlie's brave new words for a wireless world.
Read one of Charlie's articles in SPELL/Binder.
Read a profile of Charlie in San Diego Home/Garden Lifestyles.
Charlie explains why he left the public radio show.